DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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. According to Applicant’s Specification at 14:11-12, Figs. 1 and 2 show a detail of a handling system and Fig. 3 shows an interaction of multiple handling systems. No figure illustrates a method. Therefore, the methods set forth in Claims 1-17 must be illustrated or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 recites a “target load carrier” as per line 3 and Claim 13 recites a “target load carrier” in line 2, but no “target load carrier” is illustrated. Therefore, the target load carrier set forth in Claims 1-17 must be illustrated or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m) because the following items include solid black shading areas that not used to represent bar graphs or color: the shaded arrows in Figs. 1, the shaded box in Fig. 1; and the shaded arrows, boxes and circles in Fig. 2.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims, as drafted, are not within one of the statutory classes.
As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to a “method” as per line 1, but the claim does not recite any method steps. Specifically, the claim recites “A method for handling goods with a handling system” in line 1 and “wherein” clauses as per line 2-3, 3-5, and 5-12 describing features of the “handling system” in line 1 and/or the “order-picking system” in line 2. No method steps are recited in the “wherein” clauses. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to using the “handling system” of line 1 and/or the “order-picking system” of line 2 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected.
As per Claims 2-17, these claims depending from Claim 1 further characterize features of the handling system and/or order-picking system as per Claim 1 without identifying any method steps. Accordingly, the claims as drafted are directed to using the “handling system” of Claim 1 and/or the “order-picking system” of Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claims do not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claims 2-17 are rejected.
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 1-17 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.
As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to “A method for handling goods with a handling system” in lien 1 and recites “wherein” clauses as per line 2-3, 3-5, and 5-12 describing features of the “handling system” in line 1 and/or the “order-picking system” in line 2. The claim does not link the “method” as per line 1 with the features of the handling system and/or order-picking system in that no method steps are recited in line 2-12. Accordingly the scope the “method” cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-17 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 1-2 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of goods and systems. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-17 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 5 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of properties. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-17 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 8, “properties” in line 9 and 11 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5. If the same properties are at issue, amendment to “the properties” in line 9 and 11 is respectfully suggested. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-17 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, it is not clear whether language following “namely” in line 11 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of adaptation. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-17 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 2-13, the claims further recite features of the handling system and/or order-picking system of Claim 1 without identifying any method steps. No claim language links the handling system and/or order-picking system of Claim 1 with method steps. Accordingly, the “method” as per Claims 2-13 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claims 2-13 are rejected.
As per Claim 2, “properties” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 2 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 3, “boundary conditions” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “boundary conditions” in line 8 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 3, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 2 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of a system. Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 3, it is not clear whether language following “specifically” in line 3 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of boundary conditions. Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 4, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 2 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of capture. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 4, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 4 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of properties. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 4, “can be” in line 4 makes optional determinations as per line 5. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the “method” of Claim 4 requires performance of the determinations as per line 5. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 5, “properties” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 5, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 3 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of optical feature. Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 6, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 4 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of position. Therefore, Claim 6 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 8, “properties” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 8, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 2 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of properties. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 8, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 3 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of capture events. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 9, “properties” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 10, “properties” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 11, “properties” in line 2 and 3 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 12, “properties” in line 3 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 12, “boundary conditions” in line 3 does not clearly relate back to “boundary conditions” in line 8 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 12, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 4 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites an example of purpose of adapting. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 13, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 1 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites an example of a system. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, “can be” in line 2 makes optional movements as per line 2-3. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the “system” of Claim 13 requires performance of the movements as per line 2-3. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, it is not clear whether language following “such as” in line 4 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of properties. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, “properties” in line 6 and 8 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 4 of Claim 13 or “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, it is not clear whether language following “namely” in line 8 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites an example of adaptation. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 9-10 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites an example of purpose. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, “the method according to claim 1” in line 10 does not have a clear meaning in that, as discussed above, the scope the “method” of Claim 1 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 14-17 depending from Claim 13 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 14, it is not clear whether language following “in particular” in line 2 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of cameras. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 14, “can be” in line 4 makes optional linkage of capture to event as per line 4. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the “system” of Claim 14 requires capture as per the event in line 4. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 15, “can be” in line 4 makes optional direction of acceleration as per line 4-5. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the “system” of Claim 15 requires direction of acceleration in line 4-5. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 15, it is not clear whether language following “preferably” in line 5 limits the scope of the invention or merely recites examples of arrangement of camera. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 17, “can be” in line 3 makes optional adaptation as per line 3-5. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the “set” of Claim 17 requires adaptation in line 3-5. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 17, “properties” in line 4 does not clearly relate back to “properties” in line 4 of Claim 13 or “properties” in line 5 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 17, “boundary conditions” in line 4 does not clearly relate back to “boundary conditions” in line 5 of Claim 13 or “boundary conditions” in line 8 of Claim 1. Clarification is required.
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, 3, 5, 10-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stubbs (US Pub. No. 2017/0080566).
As per Claim 1, Stubbs discloses a method (Figs. 5-10; ¶70-113) for handling goods (120) with a handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310) (Figs. 1-4; ¶18-69), in particular for order-picking goods (as per “merchandise” in ¶54) with an order-picking system (as per “mail order warehouse facility” in ¶54), wherein goods (120) are removed from a storage facility (as per “an item may be received from a source 150” in ¶19) and positioned on a target load carrier (as per “releasing the item into a container. The container may be located in an inventory holder 140” in ¶19), wherein the goods (120) are moved from the storage facility (as per “an item may be received from a source 150” in ¶19) onto the target load carrier (as per “an item may be received from a source 150” in ¶19) using a robot (110) and/or a conveying system (130), wherein properties of the goods (120), in particular {a strength, a rigidity}, a weight, {a surface composition}, and/or {a center of gravity,} are captured (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) and, based on data regarding errors (as per No at 714; as per No at 708; as per 906) during movements of the goods (120), during operation of the handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310), boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) up to which a functioning of the robot (110) and/or of {the conveying system} depending on properties of the goods (120) is ensured are determined (as per “failures may be used to update the manipulation profile” in ¶80; as per “the customized manipulation profile may include instructions about how the manipulation(s) may be performed given the capability of the robot station” in ¶84; as per “the central station may update the local manipulation profile based on the deviation … the central station may determine … a change to the robots station capability from the deviation report” in ¶91; as per “the update may change how the robot station may perform a particular manipulation” in ¶105), after which operation of the handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310) is adapted (as per “update” in ¶80; as per “customized manipulation profile” in ¶84; as per “update” in ¶91) depending on captured properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120), namely through the adaptation of forces (as per “the manipulation profile may identify the item type …, the applicable manipulations …, and how each manipulation may be performed (e.g., … what type and amount of force to apply …)” in ¶74) and/or {accelerations} that are applied to the goods (120) by the robot (110) and/or {the conveying system}.
As per Claim 3, Stubbs further discloses wherein boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) of devices (110, 130) of the handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310), which in particular is embodied as an order-picking system (as per “mail order warehouse facility” in ¶54), specifically boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) of the robot 110) and/or {of the conveying system}, are determined in that data regarding permissible operating conditions (as per Yes at 714; as per Yes at 708) and impermissible operating conditions (as per No at 714; as per No at 708; as per 906) are ascertained from error-free (as per Yes at 714; as per Yes at 708) and error-associated (as per No at 714; as per No at 708; as per 906) movements of goods (120) from the storage facility (as per “an item may be received from a source 150” in ¶19) onto the target load carrier (as per “releasing the item into a container. The container may be located in an inventory holder 140” in ¶19).
As per Claim 5, Stubbs further discloses wherein properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) are assigned to an optical feature (as per “two or higher dimensional images of the item” in ¶22) of the goods (120), in particular to a bar code and/or a packaging (as per “material characteristics, packaging, etc.” in ¶22) of the goods (120), and are stored in a database (180, 190; as per “database having stored characteristics” in ¶84).
As per Claim 10, Stubbs further discloses wherein properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) which pertain to an interaction of the goods (120) with other goods (120) are determined (as per “decomposition of inventory items” in ¶55; as per “consolidation of inventory items” in ¶55; as per “robot station may attempt to manipulate a … group of items” in ¶75; as per “the manipulation profile may also include a number of items to be simultaneously manipulated” in ¶75).
As per Claim 11, Stubbs further discloses wherein properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) and ascertained boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) up to which a functioning of the robot (110) and/or {of the conveying system} depending on properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) is ensured (as per “failures may be used to update the manipulation profile” in ¶80; as per “the customized manipulation profile may include instructions about how the manipulation(s) may be performed given the capability of the robot station” in ¶84; as per “the central station may update the local manipulation profile based on the deviation … the central station may determine … a change to the robots station capability from the deviation report” in ¶91; as per “the update may change how the robot station may perform a particular manipulation” in ¶105) are stored in a central database (180, 190; as per “database having stored characteristics” in ¶84) that is connected to multiple (as per “central station 180 may support a larger number of inventory systems” in ¶20) order-picking systems (as per “mail order warehouse facility” in ¶54).
As per Claim 12, Stubbs further discloses wherein operation of a second handling system (as per second robot station 110) is adapted (as per “sharing data between robot stations” in ¶8, 13; as per “each or some of the robot stations 110 may receive and use the applicable manipulation profiles” in ¶21; as per “update” in ¶80; as per “customized manipulation profile” in ¶84; as per “update” in ¶91) depending on properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) captured in the second handling system (as per second robot station 110) and on boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) acquired in a first handling system (as per first robot station 110), in particular in order to maximize an order-picking performance (as per “the efficiencies of the robot stations and/or the overall efficiency of the system may be improved” in ¶15).
As per Claim 13, Stubbs further discloses a handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310) (Figs. 1-4; ¶18-69), in particular an order-picking system (as per “mail order warehouse facility” in ¶54), with which goods (120) can be moved from a storage facility (as per “an item may be received from a source 150” in ¶19) onto a target load carrier (as per “releasing the item into a container. The container may be located in an inventory holder 140” in ¶19) with a conveying system (130) and/or a robot (110), wherein the handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310) is configured to capture properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) such as {a strength}, {a rigidity}, a weight, {and the like}, as well as to determine boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) up to which a functioning of the robot (110) and/or {of the conveying system} depending on properties of the goods (120) is ensured (as per “failures may be used to update the manipulation profile” in ¶80; as per “the customized manipulation profile may include instructions about how the manipulation(s) may be performed given the capability of the robot station” in ¶84; as per “the central station may update the local manipulation profile based on the deviation … the central station may determine … a change to the robots station capability from the deviation report” in ¶91; as per “the update may change how the robot station may perform a particular manipulation” in ¶105), wherein the handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310) is furthermore configured to adapt (as per “update” in ¶80; as per “customized manipulation profile” in ¶84; as per “update” in ¶91) operation of the handling system (110, 130, 150, 170, 180; 310) depending on properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120), namely through the adaptation of forces (as per “the manipulation profile may identify the item type …, the applicable manipulations …, and how each manipulation may be performed (e.g., … what type and amount of force to apply …)” in ¶74) and/or {accelerations} that are applied to the goods (120) by the robot (110) and/or {the conveying system}, in particular to carry out a method (Figs. 5-10; ¶70-113) according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
As per Claim 14, Stubbs further discloses wherein a conveying system (130) is provided and a camera (as per “the sensors 216 may include different types of sensors to determine attributes of an item to be manipulated. For example, imaging devices or optical sensors may be used” in ¶29), in particular a 3D camera (as per “The optical sensors may form a two or higher dimensional imaging device” in ¶31), {an infrared camera}, and/or {a UV camera}, is provided with which a movement of the goods (120) can be captured during a movement of the goods (120) on the conveying system (130) (Figs. 1-2; ¶26-31).
As per Claim 17, Stubbs further discloses a set, comprising at least two handling systems (as per “a larger number of inventory systems” in ¶20; as per each of “multiple robotic stations 110” in ¶18) according to claim 13 (see rejection of Claim 13), wherein a data processing device (180, 190) is provided which is connected to all handling systems (as per “a larger number of inventory systems” in ¶20; as per each of “multiple robotic stations 110” in ¶18), so that operation of one handling system (as per each of “a larger number of inventory systems” in ¶20; as per each of “multiple robotic stations 110” in ¶18) can be adapted (as per “update” in ¶80; as per “customized manipulation profile” in ¶84; as per “update” in ¶91) based on properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) captured using said handling system (as per each of “a larger number of inventory systems” in ¶20; as per each of “multiple robotic stations 110” in ¶18) and on boundary conditions (as per 508; as per 606; as per 712; as per 908) of the robot (110) and/or {of the conveying system} acquired (as per “sharing data between robot stations” in ¶8, 13) using another handling system (as per an other of “a larger number of inventory systems” in ¶20; as another of “multiple robotic stations 110” in ¶18).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs (US Pub. No. 2017/0080566) further in view of Isaacs (US Patent No. 6,471,044).
As per Claim 2, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Stubbs further discloses wherein a conveying system (130) is provided (Fig. 1; ¶19) and capturing deformations and/or deflections (as per “other sensors may be used for sensing data … such as to determine physical attributes of the detected item to be grasped or its surroundings, such as … deformability” in ¶30) of the goods (120).
Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein properties of the goods are captured by applying defined accelerations using the conveying system.
Isaacs discloses a feeder/reader subsystem (18) in which a flow of material such as parcels is diverted onto a short belt buffer conveyor (20) from a parcel belt conveyor (19) and an acceleration conveyor (21) controls the velocity of the product flow into a singulator module (33) (Fig. 1; 4:66-5:6). Acceleration conveyor (21) includes an inspection camera and control system that monitors items entering the conveyor (21) (5:6-8). In one embodiment, the camera (312) processes an image of the parcels (64) and determines two-dimensional location of the perimeter of each parcel (64) and informs determination of outlines of the parcels (64) (Fig. 3; 6:5-37). In one embodiment, a camera (453) is positioned to look across the gap (455) between upstream conveyor (439) and singulator (433) and the conveyor (439) is controlled so that items travel across the gap (455) at a constant speed (Fig. 14; 10:14-27, 12:1-20). In one embodiment, an encoder informs the scan rate of the camera (453) in order to tolerate accelerations and decelerations of the belts while items are passing across the gap (455) (Fig. 14; 12:1-20). As such, Isaacs discloses wherein properties of the goods (64) are captured (via 312/453) by applying defined accelerations (as per “constant speed”, as per tolerated “accelerations and decelerations”) using the conveying system (20, 19; 439, 433). In this way, the system of Isaacs provides image data without distortion (12:1-20). Like Stubbs, Isaacs is concerned systems for conveying items.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs and Isaacs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Isaacs to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by providing image data without distortion.
As per Claim 4, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Stubbs further discloses wherein the goods (120) are captured optically (as per “the sensors 216 may include different types of sensors to determine attributes of an item to be manipulated. For example, imaging devices or optical sensors may be used” in ¶29), in particular by means of a 3D camera (as per “The optical sensors may form a two or higher dimensional imaging device” in ¶31), {an infrared camera}, and/or {a UV camera}, during a movement on the conveying system (130) and/or with the robot (110/210) (Figs. 1-2; ¶26-31).
Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein in particular deformations of the goods can be determined depending on accelerations of the goods.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Isaacs.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs and Isaacs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Isaacs to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by providing image data without distortion. Applying the teachings of Issacs to the system of Stubbs would result in a system that operates “wherein in particular deformations of the goods can be determined depending on accelerations of the goods” in that velocity, acceleration, and deceleration of the goods (120) on the conveyor (130) as per Stubbs and would be adapted in view of Isaacs to provide specified movements of the goods (120) to the sensors as per Stubbs without distortion.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs (US Pub. No. 2017/0080566) in view of Isaacs (US Patent No. 6,471,044), further in view of Dugat (US Pub. No. 2015/0144536).
As per Claim 6, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Stubbs further discloses wherein a conveying system (130) is provided and mechanical properties (as per “manipulation data may describe physical attributes of the item (e.g., weight, …)” in ¶72) of the goods (120) are captured at positions (as per “the robot station 210 may also include a set of sensors 216” in ¶28) in the conveying system (130) (Figs. 1-2, 5; ¶26-31, 72).
Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein the positions are those at which a change in speed of the goods occurs, in particular at positions at which the goods are decelerated in a first direction and accelerated in a second direction, wherein the second direction is approximately perpendicular to the first direction.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Isaacs.
Dugat discloses a modular handling system (101a) that is removably attached to a fixed conveyor structure (102) (Fig. 1A; ¶40-42). In one embodiment, the modular handling system (801) includes wings (110) and a sorting system (744), with one of the wings (110) extending linearly to define a linear path (804) for cases (111) to travel to a specified linear location (L1) and two of the wings (110) extending laterally to define paths (704’, 704’’) for cases (111) to travel to specified lateral locations (L2, L3) (Fig. 8A; ¶96). In this way, the system is adapted to allow customization for a particular installation (¶78). Like Stubbs, Isaacs is concerned systems for conveying items.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs, Isaacs, and Dugat, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Isaacs and Dugat to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by: providing image data without distortion; and allowing customization for a particular installation. Applying the teachings of Isaacs and Dugat to the system of Stubbs would result in a system that operates “wherein the positions are those at which a change in speed of the goods occurs, in particular at positions at which the goods are decelerated in a first direction and accelerated in a second direction, wherein the second direction is approximately perpendicular to the first direction” in that the system of Stubbs would be adapted to include specified deceleration and acceleration as per Isaacs in lateral and linear directions as per Dugat.
As per Claim 15, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 13. Stubbs further discloses wherein a conveying system (130) is provided (Figs. 1-2, 5; ¶26-31, 72) and wherein a sensor is arranged to capture deformations (as per “other sensors may be used for sensing data … such as to determine physical attributes of the detected item to be grasped or its surroundings, such as … deformability” in ¶30) and/or {deflections} of the goods (120).
Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein the conveying system comprises a direction-changing device, in particular a belt transfer unit, with which a defined acceleration can be applied in different directions to the goods transported on the conveying system, wherein a camera is preferably arranged at the direction-changing device to capture deformations and/or deflections of the goods.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Isaacs.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Dugat.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs, Isaacs, and Dugat, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Isaacs and Dugat to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by: providing image data without distortion; and allowing customization for a particular installation. Applying the teachings of Isaacs and Dugat to the system of Stubbs would result in a system that operates “wherein the conveying system comprises a direction-changing device, in particular a belt transfer unit, with which a defined acceleration can be applied in different directions to the goods transported on the conveying system, wherein a camera is preferably arranged at the direction-changing device to capture deformations and/or deflections of the goods” in that the system of Stubbs involving movement of goods and sensing of deformability would be adapted to include specified deceleration and acceleration and sensors linked to the specified deceleration and acceleration as per Isaacs in lateral and linear directions as per Dugat.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs (US Pub. No. 2017/0080566) in view of Wellman (US Pub. No. 2016/0167228).
As per Claim 7, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein magnetic properties of the goods are captured during a movement of the goods from the storage facility onto the target load carrier.
Wellman discloses an inventory system (10) having a robotic arm (12) configured to grasp inventory items (40) and a grasping environment (14) that includes a table, stand, bin, or other structure associated with inventory systems (Fig. 1; ¶19). The inventory system (10) also includes a sensor package (16) that detects the item (40) while the item (40) is being manipulated in the grasping environment (14) (Fig. 1; ¶20). The sensor package (16) communicates detected attributes including magnetic properties to a controller (32) in order to determine an appropriate gripping strategy for the robotic arm (12) (Fig 1; ¶20). Like Stubbs, Wellman is concerned with systems for conveying items.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs and Wellman, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Wellman to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by: enhancing the gripping strategy for the robot stations (110) of Stubbs. Applying the teachings of Wellman to the system of Stubbs would result in a system that operates “wherein magnetic properties of the goods are captured during a movement of the goods from the storage facility onto the target load carrier” in that the system of Stubbs would be adapted in view of Wellman to detect magnetic properties of goods (110) as the goods (110) travel within the system of Stubbs.
Claims 8-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs (US Pub. No. 2017/0080566) in view of Yarlagadda (US Patent No. 9,381,645).
As per Claim 8, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein properties of the goods, in particular dimensions, are captured using a radar, in particular during a movement of the goods from the storage facility onto the target load carrier.
Yarlagadda discloses a system (100) for determining one or more configurations (102) that enable a robotic manipulator (104) to interact with an item (106) (Fig. 1; 5:25-27). The system (100) includes sensors (114) that provide sensor data (120) associated with item (106) including spatial data and 3D coordinates (Fig. 1; 6:31-7:53). In one embodiment, the sensors (114) include cameras (7:42-46). In another embodiment, the sensors (114) include lidar systems (7:42-46). In another embodiment, the sensors (114) include radar systems (7:42-46). As such, Yarlagadda teaches that the structure of the sensor is a matter of design choice. Like Stubbs, Yarlagadda is concerned with systems for conveying items.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs and Yarlagadda, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yarlagadda to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by reducing the cost of the system in the event that a suitable radar as per Yarlagadda is cheaper to implement than comparable expressly disclosed sensor systems as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 9, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein properties of the goods are manually determined with the use of a list of questions.
See rejection of Claim 8 for discussion of teachings of Yarlagadda. Yarlagadda further discloses user interface modules to enable users to interact with computing devices (302) in order to modify data in the data store (332) and in order to input data or parameters regarding items (106) (Fig. 3; 17:27-61, 21:23-37).
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs and Yarlagadda, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yarlagadda to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by allowing user modification to stored data. Applying the teachings of Yarlagadda to the system of Stubbs would result in a system that operates “wherein properties of the goods are manually determined with the use of a list of questions” in that listed properties of goods as per Stubbs would be manually modifiable by the user as per Yarlagadda.
As per Claim 16, Stubbs discloses all limitations of Claim 13. Stubbs does not expressly disclose wherein a radar is provided for capturing dimensions of the goods.
See rejection of Claim 8 for discussion of teachings of Yarlagadda.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stubbs and Yarlagadda, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yarlagadda to the system of Stubbs since doing so would enhance the system by reducing the cost of the system in the event that a suitable radar as per Yarlagadda is cheaper to implement than comparable expressly disclosed sensor systems as per Stubbs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sciog (US Pub. No. 2019/0030712) discloses a robotic picking training technique. Murphy (US Patent No. 10,471,597) discloses an adaptive perception for industrial robotic systems. Wagner (US Pub. No. 2020/0143127) discloses systems and methods for limiting induction of objects to one or more object processing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656