DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. Claims 1-9 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “partial spacer plate” of claim 3 and the “complete spacer plate” of claim 5 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 3 and 5 recite the nonstandard term “spacer plate”. We understand applicant’s term to refer to pallet layer separators that go by a wide variety of names in the art, but most commonly “layer pads”, “tier sheets”, and “deck sheets”. Such plates, pads, or sheets are often employed to provide a stable platform for an article layer on a pallet where the articles are not conveniently stackable directly or where they may crush one another in the absence of the layering structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “substantially similar”, “substantially entire”, and “substantially the same” in claims 1-3 and 5 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “substantially similar”, “substantially entire”, and “substantially the same” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how close to equality the various claimed quantities would have to come to qualify as substantially similar, substantially entire, or substantially the same. We hesitate to suggest a means of amendment for these terms as we do not wish to induce the introduction of new matter and we do not see a simple, obvious means of correction. Claims 4 and 6-9 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1.
The term “likely” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill would not know what probability range is associated with the term “likely”. Is a mere possibility acceptable, or is some particular degree of confidence required, as the usual meaning of the word suggests? One plausible amendment to overcome this rejection is to replace the term “likely” with “possible”, which conceptually includes “likely” without suggesting any particular degree or range and thus would continue to be supported by the instant specification (i.e. P4/L5). Claims 7-8 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "The palletisation system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 1 does not disclose a system. The claim should recite, “A palletisation system”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diankov, et al., US 10,647,528 (hereinafter Diankov).
Regarding claim 1,
Diankov discloses:
A palletisation process, (method, C3/L16-34)
Comprising: transporting articles of heterogeneous shapes (article shapes, fig. 3A) to a loading station (loading unit 108: fig. 1) by conveying means (conveyor 110: fig. 7)
loading the articles in several layers (layers, C4/L43-59) by a loading device (transfer unit 104: fig. 7) onto a container (unnumbered pallets: fig. 7), arranged in the loading station,Diankov’s entire disclosure is concerned with loading and unloading pallets (containers) with layered articles according to various rules and patterns, but the cited paragraph C4/L43-59 describes layering 2D layers into a 3D stacked pallet.
wherein, the loading device being controlled by computer control means (processors 202: fig. 2), the process further comprises a step of generating a stable arrangement of said articles (pallet loading patterns: figs. 3-5; stack stability rules, C11/L48-67) on the container upstream of their loading,
wherein said stable arrangement comprises placing articles having substantially similar heights to form either complete layers occupying substantially the entire surface area of the container, or partial layers each occupying a part of the surface area of the container,Diankov discloses 2D layers according to object height in C4/L43-59 with layering rules in C17/L9-C18/L21. Figs. 3-5 show various complete and partial layer patterns.
and wherein a first partial layer having a first layer height occupies a part of the container and at least one complementary partial layer having a second layer height occupies a second part not occupied by said first layer so as to occupy the entire surface area of the container.Diankov discloses pallets with such partial layers in figs. 5A-B.
Regarding claim 2,
Diankov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein two partial layers of substantially the same surface area are superimposed.This arrangement can be seen in fig. 5A.
Regarding claim 4,
Diankov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein a partial layer and at least one complementary partial layer are laid on a complete layer.This arrangement can be seen in fig. 5A.
Regarding claim 6,
Diankov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising a step of generating a catalogue of layers likely to be placed on the container, said catalogue comprising at least one partial layer.Diankov discloses a simulation method for generating stacking plans for pallets in C3/L35-54. A stacking plan is a catalogue of layers because a stacked pallet comprises a plurality of layers. Diankov’s fig. 5A is an example of a stacking plan with at least one partial layer.
Regarding claim 9,
Diankov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
The palletisation system (system, C3/L16-34)
comprising: a loading station (loading unit 108: fig. 1) comprising a zone for receiving a container (unnumbered pallets: fig. 7) and a loading device (transfer unit 104: fig. 7);
conveying means (conveyor 110: fig. 7) for transporting articles of heterogeneous shapes (article shapes, fig. 3A) to the loading station to be loaded in several layers (layers, C4/L43-59) onto the container by the loading device
wherein the loading device being controlled by computer control means (processors 202: fig. 2) configured to generate a stable arrangement of said articles on the container (pallet loading patterns: figs. 3-5; stack stability rules, C11/L48-67) by implementing the process according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
We note that since claim 9 repeats the structures disclosed in claim 1 with respect to the method of claim 1, changing the preamble from process to system, it would be conventional in a US application to remove the reference to claim 1 in claim 9 entirely, rendering it independent and parallel, system corresponding to process (method). However as currently drafted there is no basis for objection to the form of the claim in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov in view of Clark, Suzanne, US 2015/0298878 (hereinafter Clarke).
Regarding claim 3,
Diankov discloses the limitations of claim 2, but not:
wherein said two partial layers are separated by a partial spacer plate having substantially the same surface area as said partial layersDiankov does not teach the claimed spacer plate.
Clarke, an invention in the field of tier sheets (pallet spacer plates), teaches:
wherein said two partial layers (50: fig. 11) are separated by a partial spacer plate (10: fig. 11) having substantially the same surface area as said partial layers.As seen in fig. 11, a partial layer of containers 50 rests on a tier sheet (spacer plate) 10, of which four partial plates abut. Fig. 12 depicts a homogeneous pallet with multiple sets of plates separating layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Diankov, wherein said two partial layers are separated by a partial spacer plate having substantially the same surface area as said partial layers, as taught by Clarke, because firstly, many articles borne by pallets must rest on spacer plates as they cannot safely be solidly stacked in layers without such plates. Secondly, where “rainbow” pallets (pallets made up of different types of article) are constructed, such plates cannot cover the complete pallet area if the articles have different heights and so partial plates must be employed.
Regarding claim 5,
Diankov discloses the limitations of claim 2, but not:
wherein a complete spacer plate separates the complete layer from the partial layers said complete spacer plate having substantially the same surface area as the container.Diankov does not teach the claimed spacer plate.
Clarke, an invention in the field of tier sheets (pallet spacer plates), teaches:
wherein a complete spacer plate (10: fig. 8) separates the complete layer from the partial layers, said complete spacer plate having substantially the same surface area as the container.As seen in fig. 8, a complete layer of containers 50 rests between tier sheets (spacer plates) 10. Clarke also teaches partial plates in fig. 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Diankov, wherein a complete spacer plate separates the complete layer from the partial layers said complete spacer plate having substantially the same surface area as the container, as taught by Clarke, because firstly, many articles borne by pallets must rest on spacer plates as they cannot safely be solidly stacked in layers without such plates. Secondly, where a complete layer of uniform articles is deposited on a pallet layer, it is plainly more convenient and efficient to separate that layer using a single complete plate than to use multiple plates (as may be necessary to separate partial layers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 7, while a wide variety of pallet planning and optimization tools are known to the art, many taking into account similar factors to applicant’s method of claim 7, including (per reference Perera) the use of linear analysis, the particular linear analysis calculation of claim 7 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 8 inherits the potential allowability of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 0774341 teaches another example of partial stacker plate usage in pallets. NPL references Balakirsky and Perera are examples of optimization methods for pallet stacking; though Perera teaches a linear analysis method, its formulas are not the same as applicant’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights