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
Application 18/854,430 was filed on October 4, 2024 and is a national phase application of International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2023/058591, which claims priority to, and all the benefits of, German Patent Application No. 10 2022 203 338.8, filed on April 4, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 6, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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. The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” See MPEP 2181.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one pick-up unit”, “at least one transport unit”, and “at least one loading unit” coupled with functional language, in claim 1.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: at applicants published specification paragraphs: [0034] “The pick-up unit is preferably a robot which can be controlled by the control component and which can be designed as a stationary gripper arm or rail-guided or freely movable”; [0039] “The transport unit according to the invention is a mobile device which is set up to take one or more individual parcels of different shapes and sizes from the pick-up unit and to transport them to or into the parcel delivery vehicle under the control of the control component”; and [0042] “The loading unit is preferably a robot which can be controlled by the control component and which can be stationary or rail-guided or freely movable”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “and in that the control component is arranged to control a loading process and/or an unloading process of a parcel delivery vehicle by the interaction of the pick-up unit, transport unit and loading unit and to store information about the storage of each parcel and the position of each parcel in the storage unit and to make the information about the position of each parcel in the storage unit accessible to a delivery person upon reaching a handover location for the respective parcel prior to a handover of the parcel” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a list of functions that the control component performs (i.e., “to control”, “to store”, “to make”). However, it is not formatted as a list (e.g., separated by commas, semicolons, spacing, etc.) and contains an extra “and” in the middle of the list (“and to store”). The lack of formatting and extra “and” makes it unclear at first glance that the limitation recites a list. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites, “the control component is arranged to control a loading process and/or an unloading process of a parcel delivery vehicle by the interaction of the pick-up unit, transport unit and loading unit” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “the interaction” does not have an antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted to read, “the control component is arranged to control a loading process and/or an unloading process of a parcel delivery vehicle by an interaction of the pick-up unit, transport unit and loading unit” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites, “and to store information about the storage of each parcel and the position of each parcel in the storage unit” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “the storage” does not have an antecedent basis. Examiner notes that clam 1 previously recites “storage units” and “storage positions” as well as picking up and transporting “individual parcels”. However, it does not actually recite storage of the individual parcels. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted to read, “and to store information about storing each parcel and the position of each parcel in the storage unit” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that the position of a parcel in a storage unit is a kind of “information about the storage of each parcel” making that phrase potentially redundant.
Claim 1 further recites, “and to store information about the storage of each parcel and the position of each parcel in the storage unit” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “the position” does not have an antecedent basis. Examiner notes that the claims previously recite “each storage position” which appears to be what “the position” refers to. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted to read, “and to store information about the storage of each parcel and the storage position of each parcel in the storage unit” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the storage of the individual parcels in storage positions of the storage units takes place taking into account parcel identification characteristics of the individual parcels” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “the storage” does not have an antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted to read, “wherein storage of the individual parcels in storage positions of the storage units takes place taking into account parcel identification characteristics of the individual parcels” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that correcting claim 1 with respect to “the storage of each parcel” could also provide claim 4 with an appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 4 further recites, “wherein the storage of the individual parcels in storage positions of the storage units takes place taking into account parcel identification characteristics of the individual parcels” (emphasis added). This limitation appears to contain grammatical errors. For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted to read, “wherein the storage of the individual parcels in storage positions of the storage units takes into account parcel identification characteristics of the individual parcels” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites, “wherein doors of the individual lockers of a column are fixed in a joint frame, and the door of an individual locker can be opened to one side and the frame is arranged so that it can be opened to the other side and thus opens all the lockers of the column” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “the frame” does not have an antecedent basis. Examiner notes that “the frame” appears to refer to the previously recited joint frame. For the purposes of examination, claim 16is interpreted to read, “wherein doors of the individual lockers of a column are fixed in a joint frame, and the door of an individual locker can be opened to one side and the joint frame is arranged so that it can be opened to the other side and thus opens all the lockers of the column” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224930 to Kadaba et al. (Kadaba) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0207250 to Jarvis et al. (Jarvis).
As to claim 1, Kadaba teaches the system comprising: at least one pick-up unit for picking up individual parcels, at least one transport unit for transporting individual parcels, at least one loading unit for loading parcel delivery vehicles and a control component (“The vehicle 400 may also be equipped with an automated load/unload device 460. In various embodiments, the automated load/unload device 460 is configured to capture items and move the item to and from storage locations within the vehicle 400 …” [0059-0063] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0016] of Applicant’s specification, the pick-up unit, transport unit and loading unit can be separate devices or a single device),
the parcel delivery vehicles being equipped with storage units which have a plurality of storage positions (“FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate an exemplary delivery vehicle 400. In the illustrated embodiment, the cargo area 410 comprises an access port 415, a bulkhead 417 separating a driver area from the cargo area 410, a driver side wall 420 and a passenger side wall 430. The cargo area 410 includes a plurality of storage locations configured to receive items for transport …” and “… For example, some vehicles 400 may be configured with multiple storage locations to accommodate items of a predetermined threshold sizes (e.g., one or more dividers for each shelf, separate conveyors, and the like to separate items) …” [0057-0058 and 0078])
and are set up in such a way that at least one loading unit has access to each storage position in such a way that the loading unit can transfer parcels to the storage position of the storage unit (“… The vehicle 400 may also be equipped with an automated load/unload device 460. In various embodiments, the automated load/unload device 460 is configured to capture items and move the item to and from storage locations within the vehicle 400 …” and “At Block 660, a loading operator retrieves the item from the conveying system 5 and deposits the item into the appropriate vehicle 400 via the vehicle access port 415 …” [0057-0062 and 0070-0072])
and in that the control component is arranged to control a loading process and/or an unloading process of a parcel delivery vehicle by the interaction of the pick-up unit, transport unit and loading unit (“… The automated load/unload device 460 and the storage locations may be activated/controlled by a controller 140 mounted within the vehicle 400 …”and “… After an available storage location is identified for the item, the controller 140 sends an actuation signal to the automated load/unload device 460 to position the item onto the storage location …” [0057-0062 and 0077-0080])
and to store information about the storage of each parcel and the position of each parcel in the storage unit (“… In various embodiments, the controller 140 stores the identification of the items, where the items are positioned within the vehicle and when they are removed from the vehicle …” and “… In various embodiments, the controller 140 stores the location of the item in memory for later retrieval when the item is to be delivered …” [0062 and 0080])
and to make the information about the position of each parcel in the storage unit accessible to a delivery person upon reaching a handover location for the respective parcel prior to a handover of the parcel (“… The label may include indicia communicating the vehicle ID, the shelf and/or a storage location …” and “… The handling instruction may be communicated via a label generated and affixed to the item, an instruction provide on the mobile computing entity 105, a visual indicator proximate the appropriate vehicle (e.g., a light) or the like” and “… In some cases, the triggering event may be when the vehicle is stopped at the delivery location and the controller 140 instructs the automated load/unload device to retrieve the item associated with the location …” [0068-0069 and 0075 and 0084-0085] Examiner notes that unloading a parcel at the delivery location where the label on the package contains the shelf and/or a storage location, is the equivalent of “make the information about the position of each parcel in the storage unit accessible to a delivery person” because the delivery person can scan the label on the parcel to access information),
and wherein a (“… In one embodiment, the automated load/unload device 460 comprises a turntable robot that includes a platform 462 configured to receive an item operatively connected to a base 464 …” [0059-0061]).
While Kadaba teaches a movable robot, Kadaba does not teach a freely movable robot. However, Jarvis teaches, a freely movable robot (“… In a third example illustrated in FIG. 1, one or more AGVs 102e and/or 102f may travel between the loading bay 106 (e.g., at a conveyor mechanism 108 or other loading area) and the inside of the delivery vehicle 104c. For instance, an AGV 102e may transport items from a loading area at a conveyor mechanism 108 to a designated location (e.g., on a shelf) in the delivery vehicle 104c, or multiple AGVs 102 may coordinate to transport an item between the conveyor mechanism 108 and the destination in the delivery vehicle 104c …” [0043-0044] Examiner notes that Jarvis teaches that an AGV may use a rail or track for stability while inside a vehicle but also includes embodiments where an AGV appears to be freely movable, particularly outside of the vehicle. For example, see AGVs 102b, 102d, and 102f in Fig. 1). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the a freely movable of Jarvis for the movable robot of Kadaba. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022]. Examiner notes that, per paragraphs [0034 and 0039] of Applicant’s specification, “a freely movable robot” is interpreted to mean a robot that can move without the use of rails or similar for guidance.
As to claim 2, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, the (“In further embodiments, the automated load/unload device 460 may be an articulated robot arm that includes a gripping mechanism for grasping items and depositing the items at the appropriate position …” [0061]).
While Kadaba teaches a movable robot, Kadaba does not teach a freely movable robot. However, Jarvis teaches, a freely movable robot (“… In a third example illustrated in FIG. 1, one or more AGVs 102e and/or 102f may travel between the loading bay 106 (e.g., at a conveyor mechanism 108 or other loading area) and the inside of the delivery vehicle 104c. For instance, an AGV 102e may transport items from a loading area at a conveyor mechanism 108 to a designated location (e.g., on a shelf) in the delivery vehicle 104c, or multiple AGVs 102 may coordinate to transport an item between the conveyor mechanism 108 and the destination in the delivery vehicle 104c …” [0043-0044] Examiner notes that Jarvis teaches that an AGV may use a rail or track for stability while inside a vehicle but also includes embodiments where an AGV appears to be freely movable, particularly outside of the vehicle. For example, see AGVs 102b, 102d, and 102f in Fig. 1). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the a freely movable of Jarvis for the movable robot of Kadaba. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022]. Examiner notes that, per paragraphs [0034 and 0039] of Applicant’s specification, “a freely movable robot” is interpreted to mean a robot that can move without the use of rails or similar for guidance.
As to claim 3, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the (“… In one embodiment, the automated load/unload device 460 comprises a turntable robot that includes a platform 462 configured to receive an item operatively connected to a base 464 …” [0059]).
While Kadaba teaches a movable robot, Kadaba does not teach a freely movable robot. However, Jarvis teaches, a freely movable robot (“… In a third example illustrated in FIG. 1, one or more AGVs 102e and/or 102f may travel between the loading bay 106 (e.g., at a conveyor mechanism 108 or other loading area) and the inside of the delivery vehicle 104c. For instance, an AGV 102e may transport items from a loading area at a conveyor mechanism 108 to a designated location (e.g., on a shelf) in the delivery vehicle 104c, or multiple AGVs 102 may coordinate to transport an item between the conveyor mechanism 108 and the destination in the delivery vehicle 104c …” [0043-0044] Examiner notes that Jarvis teaches that an AGV may use a rail or track for stability while inside a vehicle but also includes embodiments where an AGV appears to be freely movable, particularly outside of the vehicle. For example, see AGVs 102b, 102d, and 102f in Fig. 1). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the a freely movable of Jarvis for the movable robot of Kadaba. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022]. Examiner notes that, per paragraphs [0034 and 0039] of Applicant’s specification, “a freely movable robot” is interpreted to mean a robot that can move without the use of rails or similar for guidance.
As to claim 4, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the storage of the individual parcels in storage positions of the storage units takes place taking into account parcel identification characteristics of the individual parcels (“… After the characteristics are acquired, the controller 140 determines where to deposit the item in the vehicle at Block 770. In various embodiments, the cargo area 410 within the vehicle 400 may be configured to store items of particular sizes/weights in particular locations …” [0077-0078]).
As to claim 5, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the control component, during a stay of the parcel delivery vehicle in an area of a delivery depot, transmits data elements relating to the parcels stored in the storage positions of a storage unit of the parcel delivery vehicle to a delivery terminal comprising (“Generally described, items are received at a loading station 30 where identification data may be captured for each item and handling instructions may be generated…” and “Items received at a facility may be conveyed by the conveying system 5 to one or more loading stations 30. In various embodiments, the loading station 30 includes a data capture device 32, a user interface 34, a printer (not shown) and/or a mobile computing entity 105 …” and “FIG. 7 illustrates steps that may be performed in accordance with various embodiments to assign and load items onto a vehicle 400. The process begins at Block 600 where an item is received at a loading station 30. At Block 610, the associated shipping indicia are captured. In various embodiments, the shipping indicia include item/shipment identifier and/or destination address information. The captured shipping indicia are transmitted to the one or more carrier systems 100 …” [0027 and 0029-0035 and 0066-0068] Examiner notes that the “loading station” taught by Kadaba is “an area of a delivery depot” and the “carrier system” is a “delivery terminal”):
at least one parcel identification characteristic that is suitable for enabling reliable identification of a respective parcel (“In one embodiment, the data capture device 32 (and/or mobile computing entity 105) scans or reads the item/shipment identifier and other appropriate information (e.g., location and time of the scan or reading) and communicates the information to the one or more carrier systems 100 …” and “FIG. 7 illustrates steps that may be performed in accordance with various embodiments to assign and load items onto a vehicle 400. The process begins at Block 600 where an item is received at a loading station 30. At Block 610, the associated shipping indicia are captured. In various embodiments, the shipping indicia include item/shipment identifier and/or destination address information …” [0032-0033 and 0066-0068]),
information identifying the storage position within the storage unit of the parcel delivery vehicle for the storage of the respective parcel (“… As will be discussed in greater detail below, the handling instructions may include a vehicle identifier and a storage location identifier” and “… The label may include indicia communicating the vehicle ID, the shelf and/or a storage location. Other information on the label may include a package tracking number, primary and secondary package sortation information, a commit time and an irregular drop-off indicator” [0033 and 0067-0068]),
and address (“… At Block 610, the associated shipping indicia are captured. In various embodiments, the shipping indicia include item/shipment identifier and/or destination address information. The captured shipping indicia are transmitted to the one or more carrier systems 100 …” [0066]).
Kadaba does not teach, contact details of an intended recipient of the parcel. However, Jarvis teaches, contact details of an intended recipient of the parcel (“… An order received by the loading coordination engine 804 may include one or more items, a delivery address, delivery or profile attributes, or other information …” and “The order data 826 may include data about orders, the quantity and identity of items in orders, delivery destination (e.g., a shipping address) information for orders, customer account information, order priority, progress of order fulfillment, number of cartons in an order, etc.” [0103 and 0165]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, contact details of an intended recipient of the parcel, as taught by Jarvis with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022].
As to claim 6, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the delivery terminal is a communication device that can be used for voice and data communication regardless of location, preferably a handheld scanner, notebook, tablet, smartphone, smart watch, or smart glasses (“FIG. 3 provides a schematic of a carrier system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention. In general, the terms computing entity, entity, device, system, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably may refer to, for example, one or more computers, computing entities, mobile phones, desktops, tablets, notebooks, laptops…” [0036]).
As to claim 7, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the storage units are arranged on side walls of the parcel delivery vehicles in a longitudinal direction (“FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate an exemplary delivery vehicle 400. In the illustrated embodiment, the cargo area 410 comprises an access port 415, a bulkhead 417 separating a driver area from the cargo area 410, a driver side wall 420 and a passenger side wall 430 …” and “… In some embodiments, the controller 140 will also send a signal to the appropriate shelf to initiate movement of the associated power rollers/conveyors to receive the item (e.g., urge the item into the storage location) and bias the item against the associated side wall of the vehicle …” [0057 and 0093] Examiner notes that Figs. 5 and 6 of Kadaba show shelves on the sidewalls of a delivery vehicle).
As to claim 8, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the storage units are shelving units (“… The storage areas may include one or more bins, shelves and/or the like configured to store items. The illustrated embodiment includes 12 shelves (six on each side of the cargo area 410) but other embodiments may include more or less shelves/bins” [0057]).
As to claim 9, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Kadaba does not teach, wherein the shelving units and/or lateral limiting partitions of the storage positions are arranged so that they can be moved. However, Jarvis teaches, wherein the shelving units and/or lateral limiting partitions of the storage positions are arranged so that they can be moved (“The plurality of shelves 214 may be vertically arranged and, in some implementations, one or more of the shelves 214 may have an adjustable height (e.g., adjusted manually or automatically using a motor coupled with the AGV 202c) on the AGV rack 206 …” [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the shelving units and/or lateral limiting partitions of the storage positions are arranged so that they can be moved, as taught by Jarvis with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022].
As to claim 10, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the shelves have no limiting partitions (“… The storage areas may include one or more bins, shelves and/or the like configured to store items. The illustrated embodiment includes 12 shelves (six on each side of the cargo area 410) but other embodiments may include more or less shelves/bins” and “… Assuming the vehicle has 12 shelves, the route would be divided into twelve sequential segments. Items to be delivered during the first segment may be assigned, for example, to a particular shelf for the route (e.g., top Forward Driver-side location) and items assigned to the second sequential segment may be assigned to a second shelf (e.g., middle Forward Driver-side location) …” [0057 and 0067]).
Kadaba does not teach, and the storage positions are identified by visual markings, in particular numbers, barcodes, matrix codes, LEDs or laser pointers. However, Jarvis teaches, and the storage positions are identified by visual markings, in particular numbers, barcodes, matrix codes, LEDs or laser pointers (“… For example, the AGV 102 guidance system may include beacons, QR codes or other symbols, etc., for providing location information to the AGV 102. For example, the symbols or beacons may be placed on the floor, ceiling, walls, or shelves 116 in the storage area 124 …” and “… The optical scanner may scan a marker on a shelf 406 or other location in the delivery vehicle 104, for example. The shelf marker may indicate a position and/or identification of a shelf, for example” and “In some implementations, a shelf 406, portion of a shelf 406, shelving unit 402, etc., may include a marker (not shown) identifying the shelf 406. For instance, a section of a particular shelf 406 may include a label on the front of the shelf 406 …” [0033 and 0062 and 0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and the storage positions are identified by visual markings, in particular numbers, barcodes, matrix codes, LEDs or laser pointers, as taught by Jarvis with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022].
As to claim 11, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein the storage of parcels in the storage unit takes place from a rear of a loading space of the parcel delivery vehicle through a door which occupies the full width of the loading space or a part thereof (“FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate an exemplary delivery vehicle 400. In the illustrated embodiment, the cargo area 410 comprises an access port 415, a bulkhead 417 separating a driver area from the cargo area 410, a driver side wall 420 and a passenger side wall 430 …” [0057] Examiner notes that Figs. 5 and 6 show the access port 415 at the rear of the delivery vehicle).
Kadaba does not teach, the width of the door having to be selected at least such that a transport unit can move into and out of the storage unit. However, Jarvis teaches, the width of the door having to be selected at least such that a transport unit can move into and out of the storage unit (“… For example, a side door may be used for loading or deliveries at locations without loading/unloading docks (e.g., at a curbside), a back door may be used for loading or deliveries at locations with loading/unloading docks, a front door may load items directly into or adjacent to a cab of the delivery vehicle 104, and a top door may be used with an aerial drone to deliver items from the delivery vehicle 104 …” [0028-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the width of the door having to be selected at least such that a transport unit can move into and out of the storage unit, as taught by Jarvis with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022].
As to claim 12, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Kadaba does not teach, wherein the storage of parcels in the storage unit or the removal of parcels from the storage unit takes place from the outside via open side walls of the parcel delivery vehicle. However, Jarvis teaches, wherein the storage of parcels in the storage unit or the removal of parcels from the storage unit takes place from the outside via open side walls of the parcel delivery vehicle (“… For example, a side door may be used for loading or deliveries at locations without loading/unloading docks (e.g., at a curbside), a back door may be used for loading or deliveries at locations with loading/unloading docks, a front door may load items directly into or adjacent to a cab of the delivery vehicle 104, and a top door may be used with an aerial drone to deliver items from the delivery vehicle 104 …” [0028-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include wherein the storage of parcels in the storage unit or the removal of parcels from the storage unit takes place from the outside via open side walls of the parcel delivery vehicle, as taught by Jarvis with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jarvis that doing so would optimize space utilization, optimize delivery efficiency, and decrease physical and mental fatigue of human workers [0022].
As to claim 17, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein a load compartment of the parcel delivery vehicle is designed in such a way that it can be separated from a mobile part of the vehicle (“In various embodiments, the term vehicle 400 is used generically. For example, a vehicle 400 may be a tractor, a truck, a car, a trailer, a tractor and trailer combination …” [0050] Examiner notes that a “tractor and trailer combination” is a vehicle configuration where “a load compartment of the parcel delivery vehicle is designed in such a way that it can be separated from a mobile part of the vehicle”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224930 to Kadaba et al. (Kadaba) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0207250 to Jarvis et al. (Jarvis), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,577,180 to Mehta et al. (Mehta).
As to claim 13, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Kadaba in view of Jarvis does not teach, wherein the storage unit is set up in such a way that it can be moved out of the loading space of the parcel delivery vehicle, loaded and/or unloaded outside the parcel delivery vehicle and moved back into the parcel delivery vehicle and preferably widened for loading or unloading and then narrowed again. However, Mehta teaches, wherein the storage unit is set up in such a way that it can be moved out of the loading space of the parcel delivery vehicle, loaded and/or unloaded outside the parcel delivery vehicle and moved back into the parcel delivery vehicle and preferably widened for loading or unloading and then narrowed again (“… After the bins 142-n of the mobile module 140 have been sufficiently loaded, e.g., completely or partially loaded, with items associated with one or more orders, the mobile module 140 may be removed from the sortation system 135 and transferred to one or more delivery vehicles, which may include but are not limited to cars, trucks, trailers, freight cars, container ships or aircraft (e.g., manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones) …” [col. 5, lines 1-67] Examiner notes that “and preferably widened for loading or unloading and then narrowed again” is interpreted to be an optional feature due to the use of “preferably”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the storage unit is set up in such a way that it can be moved out of the loading space of the parcel delivery vehicle, loaded and/or unloaded outside the parcel delivery vehicle and moved back into the parcel delivery vehicle and preferably widened for loading or unloading and then narrowed again, as taught by Mehta with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba in view of Jarvis. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mehta that doing so would result in a shortened time of delivery, thereby providing substantial benefits to such retailers, and to customers who order items from them [col. 1, lines 49-52].
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224930 to Kadaba et al. (Kadaba) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0207250 to Jarvis et al. (Jarvis), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0339872 to de Puiseau (de Puiseau).
As to claim 14, Kadaba in view of Jarvis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kadaba in view of Jarvis does not teach, wherein the storage unit is designed in the manner of lockers and can be opened from a side. However, de Puiseau teaches, wherein the storage unit is designed in the manner of lockers and can be opened from a side (“In principle, securing devices, such as mail-receiving containers, for accepting, securing and/or providing packages, are known. Such securing devices are in particular locker-type designs, in which packages can be stored and picked up at a later time” and “In a particular example, the assigned or selected securing device 4A to 4K, preferably a mail-receiving container, with a closing device 48, such as a door, flap or the like, and/or a securing container that can be separated from the securing device 4A to 4K, receives the booking signal 12 and is designed by the closing or locking mechanism 47 to open or to make available an interior space only after checking an authorization or after verification …” [0008 and 0214] Examiner particularly notes Fig. 3 of de Puiseau showing a storage unit opened from a side).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the storage unit is designed in the manner of lockers and can be opened from a side, as taught by de Puiseau with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba in view of Jarvis. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of de Puiseau that doing so would secure packages against unauthorized access, preferably for receiving and/or shipping packages [0011].
As to claim 15, Kadaba in view of Jarvis and in further view of de Puiseau teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Kadaba in view of Jarvis does not teach, wherein the lockers are each equipped with locker doors and a spring and fixation so that the locker doors open at an angle of 90° for loading and preferably close again automatically after loading. However, de Puiseau teaches, wherein the lockers are each equipped with locker doors and a spring and fixation so that the locker doors open at an angle of 90° for loading and preferably close again automatically after loading (“In an especially preferred embodiment, the securing device 4A to 4K has a door or flap that is spring-loaded in the opening direction in such a way that the door or flap or another closing device 48 opens automatically in the case of an (automatic) unlocking …” [0279 and Fig. 3 (showing the locker door opening at an angle greater than 90 degrees)] Examiner notes that Applicant has not shown the criticality of having the door open at 90 degrees. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the angular range of opening of the door, as taught by de Puiseau, includes 90 degrees. See MPEP 2144.05. Examiner further notes that “and preferably close again automatically after loading” is interpreted to be an optional feature due to the use of “preferably”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the lockers are each equipped with locker doors and a spring and fixation so that the locker doors open at an angle of 90° for loading and preferably close again automatically after loading, as taught by de Puiseau with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba in view of Jarvis. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of de Puiseau that doing so would secure packages against unauthorized access, preferably for receiving and/or shipping packages [0011].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224930 to Kadaba et al. (Kadaba) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0207250 to Jarvis et al. (Jarvis) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0339872 to de Puiseau (de Puiseau), as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,820,018 to Stacy (Stacy).
As to claim 16, Kadaba in view of Jarvis and in further view of de Puiseau teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Kadaba further teaches, wherein storage positions are arranged vertically one above the other in a kind of column (“… The storage areas may include one or more bins, shelves and/or the like configured to store items. The illustrated embodiment includes 12 shelves (six on each side of the cargo area 410) but other embodiments may include more or less shelves/bins” [0057] Examiner notes Fig. 5 of Kadaba shows shelves “arranged vertically one above the other in a kind of column”).
Kadaba in view of Jarvis and in further view of de Puiseau does not teach, and wherein doors of the individual lockers of a column are fixed in a joint frame, and the door of an individual locker can be opened to one side and the frame is arranged so that it can be opened to the other side and thus opens all the lockers of the column. However, Stacy teaches, and wherein doors of the individual lockers of a column are fixed in a joint frame, and the door of an individual locker can be opened to one side and the frame is arranged so that it can be opened to the other side and thus opens all the lockers of the column “… The back of the mailbox system 10 is provided with lockable back doors 46 and 48 which close off and secure the back of the parcel lockers 34, 36 and 38 and mail drop box 32 (FIGS. 2 and 3) …” and “The mailbox system 10 is preferably installed in the walls of post offices (not shown) such that the front doors 35 of the boxes 30 are accessible to the public while the back doors 46 and 48 of the system 10 are accessible only from the back area mail room …” [col. 4, line 37 – col. 5, line 47 and col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 60]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and wherein doors of the individual lockers of a column are fixed in a joint frame, and the door of an individual locker can be opened to one side and the frame is arranged so that it can be opened to the other side and thus opens all the lockers of the column, as taught by Stacy with the automatic parcel loading system of Kadaba in view of Jarvis and in further view of de Puiseau. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Stacy that doing so would allow easy delivery of the mail into the multiple boxes [col. 1, lines 12-14].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0194575 to Anderson (Anderson) teaches an automatic loading and unloading system that is adaptable for an array of freight sizes, trucks and/or trailers.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0155142 to Worsley et al. (Worsley) teaches cable robots used to automatically load items onto one or more surfaces in any environment.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0039767 to Huang et al. (Huang) teaches an automatic loading apparatus including a loading platform and a transfer plate.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0130349 to Ferguson et al. (Ferguson) teaches a mobile locker bank system for providing parcel pickup/delivery at various locations.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0242720 to Kim (Kim) teaches a logistics center automation system includes a singulator to which a cluster control for simultaneously moving articles unloaded from a