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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20050065642 A1 (Hereinafter Brixius).
Regarding claim 1, Brixius discloses an intralogistic conveyor arrangement (1) [Figs. 1 & 2], adapted to convey an object (9) [abstract] from at least one feed in station (F) [Fig. 1, Nos. 1, 8 & 15] selectively to a selected destination (D5) from a plurality of destinations (D1-D12) [Fig. 1, Nos. 5, 12 & 19], the conveyor arrangement (1), comprising, - a plurality of conveyor zones (2) [Fig. 1, Nos. 1-19], each conveyor zone (2) is adapted to convey an object (9) [abstract] from an inlet (I) of said conveyor zone (2) to an outlet (0) of said conveyor zone (2) [Fig. 1, Nos. 1-19], - a plurality of zone controller (11), adapted to control the operation of the conveyor zones (2) [Fig. 2, No. 23, abstract]; wherein said conveyor zones (2) are arranged in a manner, that said object (9) can be transferred from an outlet (0) of a previous conveyor zone (2) to an inlet (I) of a subsequent conveyor zone (2) [Fig. 1, Nos 3 & 4]; wherein at least one of said conveyor zones is a sorting zone (2b, 2d) having at least two outlets (01, 02) [Fig. 1, Nos. 2, 4, 9, & 11] , wherein a zone controller (11) controlling a sorting zone (2b, 2d) is a sorting controller (11b, 11d, 11e),wherein each sorting controller (11b, 11d, 11e) is adapted to control the sorting zones (2b, 2d) in a manner so that said sorting zone (2b, 2d) conveys said object selectively from an inlet to a selected outlet (01, 02) from said at least two outlets (01, 02) [¶0032, Fig. 2, No. 23]; characterized in that said intralogistic conveyor arrangement (1) comprising – an object data broker (10) [Fig. 2, No. 21], connected to each of the zone controller (11) by means of a data connection (13) [Fig. 2]; wherein said zone controllers (11) are adapted to receive object data sets (14) via a data connection (13) from said data broker (10) [Fig. 2, Destination Table], wherein said object data sets (14) contain information related to a belonging conveyed object (9), wherein said zone controllers (11) are adapted to control operation, in particular sorting operation, of the related zone based on said object data sets (14) provided by said data broker (10) [¶0032].
Regarding claim 2, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that said object data set (14) provided by said object data broker (10) contains an destination information (destinationlD) indicating the selected destination (D5) to which the related object is to be conveyed, wherein said sorting controller (11b, 11d, 11e) is adapted to control said sorting zone (2b, 2d) based on said provided destination information in a manner so that said sorting zone (2b, 2d) conveys said object to a selected outlet, where the selected outlet leads to the selected destination (D5) [¶0032].
Regarding claim 3, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that said object data set (14) is not containing any routing information indicating which of the plurality of outlets are to be used within an individual sorting operation,and/or that the sorting controller (11 b, 11d, 11e) is adapted to use from the object data set (14) merely the destination information (destinationlD) for controlling an individual sorting operation without using any routing information provided by in the data set [¶ 0014, 0032, 0035].
Regarding claim 4, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that said sorting controller (11 b, 11d, 11e) has access to a routing condition (16), in particular a look-up table (16), the routing condition (16) contains information, which of said outlets lead to which of said destinations [¶ 0014].
Regarding claim 6, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that said sorting controllers (11 b, 11 d, 11e) are adapted to store said routing condition (16) locally within said sorting controller (11 b, 11d, 11e) [¶ 0032].
Regarding claim 8, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that said object data set (14) is broadcasted by said data broker (10) to a plurality of zone controllers (2) in an undirected manner independently from the position of the belonging object (9) [¶ 0032].
Regarding claim 9, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized characterized in that said object data set (14) is broadcasted by said data broker (10) to at least one zone controller (2) independent from an actual conveying operation referring to the belonging object (9) [¶ 0032].
Regarding claim 10, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that said object data set (14) is broadcasted by said data broker (10) to a plurality of zone - as soon as the data object set has been updated with a new value and/or - at regular time intervals and/or - upon request from a zone controller [¶ 0032].
Regarding claim 14, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further characterized in that in addition to the zone controller, the intralogistic conveyor arrangement does not comprise a central programmable logic controller (PLC), in particular adapted to control sorting operations of the sorting zones.
Brixius does not specify the type of controller, or specify the need for one type of controller over another, so it would be obvious therefore to use a controller that is not a PLC.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius in view of US 20020045969 A1 (hereinafter Dierauer). Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1. Brixius does not disclose an “else” condition. Dierauer discloses that said routing condition (16) comprising a default condition (16d) valid for non-specified destinations ("else") [¶0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor arrangement of Brixius with the “else” condition of Dierauer. The motivation would be to ensure all the conveyed items are delivered to their proper destination in a logical way.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius in view of EP 1024906 B1 (hereinafter Okada).
Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1. Brixius does not disclose item redirection.
Okada discloses a conveyor system characterized in that at least one of the sorting controllers (11a) is adapted to a control sorting operation in the following manner: check the object data set (14) relating to a specific object (9) of a specific missing value (weight; labellD);depending on the result of the check, control sorting operation of a sorting zone in a manner so that the object is directed to a zone (S, W), where said missing value (weight; labellD) can be acquired [Fig. 1, Nos. 12, 26, 24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor system of Brixius with the components of Okada. The motivation would be to prevent the need for human intervention, thus lowering processing times.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius in view of US 20190344972 A1 (hereinafter Wurth).
Regarding claim 12, Brixius discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1. Brixius does not disclose selective storage.
Wurth discloses a conveyor system characterized in that said zone controller (11), in particular sorting controllers (11 b, 11d, 11e), is adapted to check from the object data set (14), whether it is essential to store said object data set in order to support a subsequent sorting process; in particular if the conveyor zone related to the sorting controller (110b, 11d) is on a route of the belonging object to the selected destination [Fig. 1, No. 20, 0016].
Regarding claim 13, Brixius and Wurth discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 12.
Wurth discloses a conveyor system characterized in that in case said previous step of checking leads to the result, that storing said object data set is not essential to support operation at the relating segment, the controller (11) decides to - selectively not to store said object data set (14) in the local sorting controller (11b, 11d) and/or - selectively delete said object data set from the local sorting controller (11 b,11d) [Fig. 1, No. 20, 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor system of Brixius with the controller feature of Wurth. The motivation would be to keep the controller free of unnecessary data storage. It is also well known that computing devices can be programmed to automatically remove information deemed inessential.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights