DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 5, 7-11, 21, and 23-27 recite the term “integrity violation”. Per applicant’s claims, an integrity violation may occur when a person is detected in a conveyance zone or when a device (such as an emergency stop button) is manually activated. We interpret an “integrity violation” in this office action 20as any emergency condition provoked either manually or automatically. Such a condition may continue as long as an automatic device detects a triggering stimulus (e.g. a camera detecting a person in a zone) or indefinitely until the condition is manually reset, although claims 11 and 26 prohibit a manual reset using the same device that invoked the condition.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1, and claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In the case of claims 1 and 30, the language of claim 30 is somewhat more compact than that of claim 1, but the enumerated claimed structures are the same as are the associated method step alternatives a), b), and c).
In the case of claims 7 and 8, we do not consider the claimed differences of masking, suppressing, or acknowledging the two claimed types of message separately or together to be significant. The capability of masking, suppressing or acknowledging either type of message implies the capability of masking, suppressing, or acknowledging both, either separately or together. No difference in system behavior would be seen, for example, if two batches of messages were suppressed serially rather than one combined batch being suppressed.
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.
Claim 15-16 and 28-29 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 15 and 28 recite the broad limitations:
masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging all error messages,
suppressing or automatically acknowledging all error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions
providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which all error messages
and the claims also recite:
in particular all error messages assigned to a zone
in particular all error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to a zone
in particular all error messages assigned to a zone
which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 16 and 29 follow the same “in particular” pattern of broad and narrow limitations as claims 15 and 28 but with different language. Broad limitation:
configured for acquiring a selection of error messages, error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions
Narrow limitation:
in particular a selection of error messages, error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions which are assigned to a zone
The question that leads to indefiniteness is: are these messages or functions necessarily assigned to a zone or are they generic, with assignment to a zone being exemplary and optional?
Applicant may overcome these rejections by (a) amending the claims to only specify either the broad limitations or the narrow ones, or (b) may claim both by first selecting only the broader limitations in the existing claims and then drafting new narrower child claims that further limit their parents.
For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider that applicant’s “in particular” phrases are not limiting but merely exemplary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 19, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi Katsuhara, JP 5879941 (hereinafter Onishi) in view of Jamison, et al., US 7,342,675 (hereinafter Jamison). Note some publications cite the inventor Onishi as 大西 克治; this inventor’s given name may also sometimes be romanized as Katsuji, not Katsuhara.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 30,
Onishi discloses:
A picking system including an article storage (goods storage shelves 2: fig. 1), a picking station (unnumbered truck loading/unloading area: fig. 1), a conveying system for transporting articles between the article storage and the picking station (system comprising conveying devices 51-54: fig. 1), a drive system for the conveying system (each stacking crane 51, each transport car 54, and each conveyor 52 and 53 in fig. 1 must comprise drive units to move, and taken together they form a drive system for the conveyor system), a control system (controllers H1-H4 associated with conveying devices 51-54: fig. 1) for the conveying system and an energy supply system (power distribution panel Dh: fig. 2), which is configured for supplying the drive system and the control system with energy,Onishi’s fig. 1 discloses the warehouse and its mechanical devices, while fig. 2 discloses the power system and its connections to the conveying system comprising 51-54 and control system H.
wherein the picking system comprises an electronic energy saving module, with which the picking system can be switched from a normal operating mode to an energy saving mode and from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, wherein in the energy saving mode, at least a part of the energy supply system is switched off,This system is the subject of Onishi’s invention and is disclosed in great detail throughout its disclosure. The power-saving mode is introduced in [0009] and the partial switching off of devices in [0010].
However, Onishi does not disclose:
wherein the energy saving module is configured for:
a) masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode
and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages can be acknowledged at the same time. Regarding the above limitations, Onishi does not disclose suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages.
Jamison, an invention in the field of printer troubleshooting and operation, teaches:
wherein the energy saving module is configured for:
a) masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode
and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages can be acknowledged at the same time.Jamison teaches in C4/L36-50 that error messages may be automatically dumped in the event of an interruption of a power supply. We relate this contingency to applicant’s energy saving mode which is activated when a power supply is interrupted. When the mode is changed back to normal mode, the dumped error messages have effectively been suppressed, per limitation a). In combination with Onishi, Onishi’s energy-saving module would also dump or suppress error messages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi, wherein the energy saving module is configured for: a) masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages can be acknowledged at the same time, as taught by Jamison because error messages generated during a period of power interruption may not be relevant to the operation of a system when power is restored (i.e. when a normal mode resumes). In particular, error messages associated with the power interruption or failure must have already been acknowledged and responded to because the energy-saving mode has been switched to, and there will be no need to deal with them again when normal mode is resumed.
Claim 17 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 3 and 19,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the picking system is divided into spatially limited zones, each of which is supplied with energy by the energy supply system in the normal operating mode, and-the energy saving module is configured for switching one, multiple or all zones of the zones from the normal operating mode to the energy saving mode and from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode as required, wherein in the energy saving mode, at least the part of the energy supply system which supplies the respective zone or zones with energy is switched off,Onishi discloses multiple conveyance devices 51-54 in physically discrete zones in fig. 1. It discloses selectively powering some down in the event of a power interruption in [0009]-[0010].
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone can be acknowledged at the same time. In combination with Jamison, which teaches the suppression of error messages in the event of a power failure, error messages associated with devices in particular zones following Onishi’s selective powering down of particular conveyor zones would be suppressed as claimed for option a).
Claim 19 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claims 15 and 28,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitation of claim 1 and also:
wherein the energy saving module is configured for:
a) masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging all error messages, in particular all error messages assigned to a zone, when switching from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode,
and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging all error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions, in particular all error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to a zone, when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which all error messages, in particular all error messages assigned to a zone, can be acknowledged at the same time. This claim is distinguished from its parent claim 1 by the “in particular” phrases, which are the basis for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. When those phrases are discounted as not limiting the claim, claim 15 does not further limit claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds. Moreover, the “in particular” phrase would also have no limiting effect because reference Jamison teaches dumping or suppressing all error messages. “All error messages” would, in combination with Onishi’s zones, include those error messages associated with a particular zone. To be effective differentiating if the “in particular” phrases were considered limiting, they would have to specify messages or functions only assigned to a zone.
Claim 28 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 15 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 2, 6, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and further in view of Strasser, Erich, US 2002/0072877 (hereinafter Strasser).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 18, and 22,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 2) and claim 3 (parent of claim 6) but not:
wherein the control system comprises a submodule with a voltage monitoring device, which is configured for detecting a failure of a supply voltage for the submodule and displaying the failure of a supply voltage by an error message also after the supply voltage has been switched on again,Though both inventions can detect loss of power, neither reference explicitly teaches the claimed voltage monitoring device. While most likely the references employ such devices, loss of power could also be detected by a current-monitoring device.
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) masking, suppressing and/or automatically acknowledging error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions relating to said failure of the supply voltage when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage can be acknowledged at the same time. While Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the general suppression of error messages, neither reference teaches the claimed voltage-related messages explicitly.
Strasser, an invention in the field of position monitoring, teaches:
wherein - the control system comprises a submodule with a voltage monitoring device, which is configured for detecting a failure of a supply voltage for the submodule and displaying the failure of a supply voltage by an error message also after the supply voltage has been switched on again,Strasser teaches the claimed voltage-monitoring device and its issuance of error messages in [0022].
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) masking, suppressing and/or automatically acknowledging error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions relating to said failure of the supply voltage when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode,
and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage can be acknowledged at the same time.In combination with Onishi and Jamison, Strasser’s device would issue the claimed error messages and Jamison’s method would suppress them according to option a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison, wherein - the control system comprises a submodule with a voltage monitoring device, which is configured for detecting a failure of a supply voltage for the submodule and displaying the failure of a supply voltage by an error message also after the supply voltage has been switched on again, and wherein the energy saving module is configured for: a) masking, suppressing and/or automatically acknowledging error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, and/or b) suppressing or automatically acknowledging error diagnosis functions relating to said failure of the supply voltage when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, and/or c) providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage can be acknowledged at the same time, as taught by Strasser, because firstly the usage of a voltage-monitoring device is a commonplace and well known means of detecting power interruption or other forms of power failures, and secondly because as already motivated for Onishi in view of Jamison, when an energy-saving mode has been switched to after a power failure there is no longer any need for staff to see or respond to error messages associated with the power failure because the failure has been acknowledged and responded to.
Claims 18 and 22 disclose methods whose limitations directly parallel the systems of claim 2 and 6 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and further in view of Taylor, et al., US 2010/0322473 (hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding claims 4 and 20,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 3 but not all aspects of:
wherein the energy saving module comprises multiple energy switching modules, each of which is assigned to a zone of the zones and configured for switching the respective zone from the normal operating mode to the energy saving mode and from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode as required. While it might be presumed that the multiple conveyance devices and conveyance zones of Onishi, each of which can be independently switched on or off, have corresponding energy switching modules, these modules are not explicitly disclosed.
Taylor, an invention in the field of package tracking on a conveyor, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the energy saving module comprises multiple energy switching modules, each of which is assigned to a zone of the zones and configured for switching the respective zone from the normal operating mode to the energy saving mode and from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode as required.Taylor teaches a conveyor divided into segments (zones) each of which has its own switchable power supply unit (energy switching module) in [0040]. In combination with Onishi, Onishi’s area-selectable energy modes would be implemented through switch control of Taylor’s power supply units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi, wherein the energy saving module comprises multiple energy switching modules, each of which is assigned to a zone of the zones and configured for switching the respective zone from the normal operating mode to the energy saving mode and from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode as required, as taught by Taylor, because most multi-zone conveyance devices including most conventional conveyor belt systems incorporate separate switchable power supplies for each segment or zone of conveyance.
Claim 20 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 5, 10, 13, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and further in view of De La Rosa, et al., US 11,203,491 (hereinafter De La Rosa).
Regarding claims 5 and 21,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 3 but not:
wherein the picking system comprises an integrity monitoring device, which is configured for monitoring an integrity of the zone in the energy saving mode, wherein the integrity of the zone is violated at least whenever the integrity monitoring detects an access to the zone by a person,The references do not teach the claimed integrity monitoring device.
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) displaying error messages assigned to the zone at an output device when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and masking, suppressing and/or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, and/or
b) executing error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and suppressing or automatically acknowledging their execution if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified,
and/or c) displaying error messages assigned to the zone at an output device when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone can be acknowledged at the same time if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified. While Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the general suppression of error messages, neither reference teaches the claimed integrity-related messages.
De La Rosa, an invention in the field of safety systems, teaches:
wherein the picking system comprises an integrity monitoring device (cameras 470, 480: fig. 4), which is configured for monitoring an integrity of the zone in the energy saving mode, wherein the integrity of the zone is violated at least whenever the integrity monitoring detects an access to the zone by a person,De La Rosa teaches a camera that acts as an integrity monitoring device in C10/L48-51 in that it detects human presence.
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) displaying error messages assigned to the zone at an output device when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and masking, suppressing and/or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, and/or
b) executing error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and suppressing or automatically acknowledging their execution if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified,
and/or c) displaying error messages assigned to the zone at an output device when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone can be acknowledged at the same time if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified. In combination with Onishi and Jamison, De La Rosa’s integrity-monitoring device would cause the energy saving module to issue the claimed error messages when an intrusion of a human (integrity violation) was detected and Jamison’s method would suppress them according to option a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison, wherein the picking system comprises an integrity monitoring device, which is configured for monitoring an integrity of the zone in the energy saving mode, wherein the integrity of the zone is violated at least whenever the integrity monitoring detects an access to the zone by a person, and wherein the energy saving module is configured for: a) displaying error messages assigned to the zone at an output device when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and masking, suppressing and/or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, and/or b) executing error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and suppressing or automatically acknowledging their execution if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, and/or c) displaying error messages assigned to the zone at an output device when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone can be acknowledged at the same time if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, as taught by De La Rosa, for several reasons. Firstly, the integrity-monitoring device would be obvious because human access to operating conveyance devices may pose a danger to them, and also because there may be a security concern for access in some cases. The use of cameras and other sensors to detect human presence in dangerous or forbidden areas is widespread in the art. Moreover, when conveyance devices are powered down in a power outage, they pose no danger to human workers nearby and in any event, regardless of the reason for the error messages, when power is restored the need for staff to respond to error messages associated with an energy-saving mode is eliminated as normal operating mode resumes.
Claim 21 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 10,
Onishi in view of Jamison and De La Rosa teaches the limitations of claim 5 and also:
wherein the integrity monitoring device comprises at least one of a door switch, a light barrier, a light grid, a surveillance camera and/or a motion detector for monitoring an access to the zone by a person in the energy saving mode. De La Rosa teaches the surveillance camera option in C10/L48-51. All the other devices listed are likewise well known in the art for the purpose.
Regarding claim 13,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 5 but not all aspects of:
wherein the picking system additionally comprises a safety system supplied with energy by the energy supply system, wherein in the energy saving mode, at least a part of the energy supply system for the safety system is switched off. While Onishi teaches selectively disabling systems in energy saving mode by switching them off, neither reference teaches a safety system as claimed.
De La Rosa, an invention in the field of safety systems, teaches:
wherein the picking system additionally comprises a safety system supplied with energy by the energy supply system, wherein in the energy saving mode, at least a part of the energy supply system for the safety system is switched off.De La Rosa teaches the claimed safety system in the form of a camera that is used to detect human presence in a zone. In combination with Onishi and Jamison, Onishi’s selective switching mechanism would remove the power for Jamison’s camera in a zone for which the conveyance equipment is currently powered down to save energy during a power failure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison, wherein the picking system additionally comprises a safety system supplied with energy by the energy supply system, wherein in the energy saving mode, at least a part of the energy supply system for the safety system is switched off, as taught by De La Rosa, because when a conveyance zone is powered down during a power failure, on the one hand all collocated systems including safety systems may also be shut down, and on the other hand even when a conveyance safety system may be selectively or independently powered, there is no reason to do so during the period in which the conveyance system is shut down, and so additional power can be saved by shutting down the safety system as well.
Claims 7-8 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and further in view of Strasser and De La Rosa.
Regarding claims 7 and 23,
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 3 but not:
wherein the picking system comprises an integrity monitoring device, which is configured for monitoring an integrity of the zone in the energy saving mode, wherein the integrity of the zone is violated at least whenever the integrity monitoring device detects an access to the zone by a person, The references do not teach the claimed integrity monitoring device.
the control system comprises a submodule with a voltage monitoring device, which is configured for detecting a failure of a supply voltage for the submodule and displaying the failure of a supply voltage by an error message also after the supply voltage has been switched on again,Though both inventions can detect power interruptions, neither reference teaches the claimed voltage monitoring device.
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) displaying error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified,
and/or b) executing error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone, including error diagnosis functions relating to said failure of the supply voltage , when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and suppressing or automatically acknowledging their execution if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified,
and/or c) displaying error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, can be acknowledged at the same time if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified. While Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the general suppression of error messages, neither reference teaches the claimed integrity-related or voltage-supply-related messages explicitly.
De La Rosa, an invention in the field of safety systems, teaches:
wherein the picking system comprises an integrity monitoring device, which is configured for monitoring an integrity of the zone in the energy saving mode, wherein the integrity of the zone is violated at least whenever the integrity monitoring device detects an access to the zone by a person,De La Rosa teaches a camera that acts as an integrity monitoring device in C10/L48-51 in that it detects human presence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison wherein the picking system comprises an integrity monitoring device, which is configured for monitoring an integrity of the zone in the energy saving mode, wherein the integrity of the zone is violated at least whenever the integrity monitoring device detects an access to the zone by a person, as taught by De La Rosa, because human access to operating conveyance devices may pose a danger to them, and also because there may be a security concern for access in some cases.
Strasser, an invention in the field of position monitoring, teaches:
the control system comprises a submodule with a voltage monitoring device, which is configured for detecting a failure of a supply voltage for the submodule and displaying the failure of a supply voltage by an error message also after the supply voltage has been switched on again,Strasser teaches the claimed voltage-monitoring device and its issuance of error messages in [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison, the control system comprises a submodule with a voltage monitoring device, which is configured for detecting a failure of a supply voltage for the submodule and displaying the failure of a supply voltage by an error message also after the supply voltage has been switched on again, as taught by Strasser, because the usage of a voltage-monitoring device is a commonplace and well known means of detecting power interruption or other forms of power failures.
Strasser and De La Rosa together teach:
and the energy saving module is configured for:
a) displaying error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified,
and/or b) executing error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone, including error diagnosis functions relating to said failure of the supply voltage , when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and suppressing or automatically acknowledging their execution if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified,
and/or c) displaying error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, can be acknowledged at the same time if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified.In combination with Onishi and Jamison, Strasser and De La Rosa respectively teach the error messages appropriate to voltage supply and integrity violation detections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison, wherein the energy saving module is configured for: a) displaying error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and masking, suppressing or automatically acknowledging error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, and/or b) executing error diagnosis functions or troubleshooting functions assigned to the zone, including error diagnosis functions relating to said failure of the supply voltage , when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and suppressing or automatically acknowledging their execution if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, and/or c) displaying error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, when switching the zone from the energy saving mode to a normal operating mode if the integrity of the zone is violated when switching as specified, and providing an error message acknowledgement element when switching from the energy saving mode to the normal operating mode, by means of which multiple error messages assigned to the zone, including error messages relating to said failure of the supply voltage, can be acknowledged at the same time if the integrity of the zone is inviolate when switching as specified, as taught by Strasser and De La Rosa, because regardless of the source and nature of error messages associated with an energy saving mode, when the energy saving mode is over, there will be no further need for staff to respond to such error messages.
Claim 23 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claims 8 and 24, see the rejection of claims 7 and 23, above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and De La Rosa and further in view of Mutsono Yasuto, JP 2000242874 (hereinafter Mutsono).
Onishi in view of Jamison and De La Rosa teaches the limitations of claim 5 but not:
wherein an integrity acknowledgement element is configured for resetting a violated integrity of the zone upon actuation. The references do not teach the claimed resetting activity.
Mutsono, an invention in the field of security alerting, teaches:
wherein an integrity acknowledgement element (external input device 6: fig. 1) is configured for resetting a violated integrity of the zone upon actuation. Mutsono teaches resetting a security alert in [0020]. An “integrity violation” is the detection of human intrusion, and corresponds to a security alert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi, Jamison, and De La Rosa, wherein an integrity acknowledgement element is configured for resetting a violated integrity of the zone upon actuation, as taught by Mutsono, because where “integrity violations” or human intrusions cause alerts, alarms, notifications, or error messages, it is well-nigh universal practice in the arts to provide a means of resetting the alerting means after the violation is resolved or ceases.
Claims 12, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and De La Rosa and further in view of Wang, et al., CN 207750218 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claims 12 and 27,
Onishi in view of Jamison and De La Rosa teaches the limitations of claim 5 but not:
wherein the integrity monitoring device comprises an emergency stop and/or emergency shutdown actuating element acting upon the energy supply of the zone, and the integrity of the zone is violated only as long as the emergency stop and/or emergency shutdown actuating element is pushed or locked.
De La Rosa does not teach the claimed emergency shut-down element and its behavior.
Wang, an invention in the field of emergency shutdown resetting for fuel pumps, teaches:
wherein the integrity monitoring device comprises an emergency stop and/or emergency shutdown actuating element (emergency stop button 308: fig. 2) acting upon the energy supply of the zone, and the integrity of the zone is violated only as long as the emergency stop and/or emergency shutdown actuating element is pushed or locked. Wang teaches an emergency stop button in [0021] which disengages to reset the system when the button is pressed again, which is a step of unlocking the actuating element as claimed. In combination with the other references, this action would stand down from the “integrity violation” invoked by pressing the button in the first place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi, Jamison, and De La Rosa, wherein the integrity monitoring device comprises an emergency stop and/or emergency shutdown actuating element (emergency stop button 308: fig. 2) acting upon the energy supply of the zone, and the integrity of the zone is violated only as long as the emergency stop and/or emergency shutdown actuating element is pushed or locked, as taught by Wang, because virtually all systems (apart from applicant’s system of claim 11) that provide emergency stop mechanisms provide a means of resetting a stopped system or clearing a warning condition such as applicant’s integrity violation condition; unlocking a locked stop button (for example by pressing it again) is a common and well understood means of doing so.
Claim 27 discloses a method whose limitations directly parallel the system of claim 12 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 25,
Onishi in view of Jamison and De La Rosa teaches the limitations of claim 5 but not:
wherein an integrity acknowledgement element resets a violated integrity of the zone upon actuation.De La Rosa does not teach the claimed acknowledgement element or the resetting of an integrity violation while the other references do not teach the violation.
Wang, an invention in the field of emergency shutdown resetting for fuel pumps, teaches:
wherein an integrity acknowledgement element resets a violated integrity of the zone upon actuation.Wang teaches an emergency stop button in [0021] which disengages to reset the system when the button is pressed again, which is an acknowledgement of the violation as claimed, and thus constitutes an integrity acknowledgement element. In combination with the other references, this action would stand down from an “integrity violation” invoked by pressing the button in the first place. As seen in claims 12 and 27, the pressing of an emergency stop button invokes an integrity violation according to applicant’s usage of the term, and thus Wang’s emergency stop button is both an integrity monitoring device and an integrity acknowledgement element. In combination with Onishi’s selectably switchable conveyance zones, pressing Wang’s button a second time would reset an “integrity violation” in a zone caused by pressing the button a first time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Onishi, Jamison, and De La Rosa wherein an integrity acknowledgement element resets a violated integrity of the zone upon actuation, as taught by Wang, because any abnormality or alarm notification mechanism must include some means of resetting the mechanism so as to resume normal operations and such devices are well-nigh universal in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Jamison and further in view of Cyrulik, et al., US 2019/0210816 (hereinafter Cyrulik).
Onishi in view of Jamison teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the zones are limited by construction measures, wherein an access to the zone by a person is enabled only at a passage. The references do not teach the claimed measures or passage.
Cyrulik, an invention in the field of access zones for storage and retrieval systems, teaches:
wherein the zones are limited by construction measures, wherein an access to the zone by a person is enabled only at a passage. Cyrulik teaches the claimed measures, zone, and passage in [0029] and claims 3-8. The portion of a warehouse aisle described as being made accessible to humans in [0029] is the claimed passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Onishi and Jamison, wherein the zones are limited by construction measures, wherein an access to the zone by a person is enabled only at a passage, as taught by Cyrulik, because where there are safety concerns for allowing human staff to be in the vicinity of picking and conveyance machinery, safe zones for human access enable maintenance as well as collaborative human picking activity to proceed without risk to workers are indicated, and such areas are well known in a wide variety or arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claims 11 and 26, applicant discloses an emergency stop actuating element (e.g. an emergency stop button) that can be used to invoke an “integrity violation” (condition in which an emergency exists in a zone for a conveyance mechanism) that will remain in violation even if the button is “unlocked”, i.e. even if the emergency stop mechanism is overridden or reset. Systems employing emergency stop features most often comprise override or reset features such that a mistaken emergency stop can be undone, or that a legitimate emergency stop can be undone when the reason for the emergency stop no longer obtains. Applicant’s system is unusual not just in that claims 11 and 26 disclose no means for ending its “integrity violation” status, but in actively specifying that a particular unlocking or undoing mechanism for the emergency stop feature does not suspend the alert or emergency state caused by activating the mechanism (e.g. pressing a stop button). Of course, a means may well exist for suspending an alert state or resuming normal operation apart from unlocking the emergency stop actuating element itself, but industrial art that discloses specifically that the unlocking or resetting of an emergency stop element does not suspend an alert or reenable a system to resume functioning was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding dependent claims 16 and 29, reference Jamison (invoked in the rejection of claim 1 to teach the suppression of error messages in combination with primary reference Onishi) teaches the suppression of all error messages and does not provide a means for the selection of certain error messages associated with a zone to mask, suppress, or automatically acknowledge as claimed. While various means of making selections from lists are well known, the selection of certain error messages associated with a zone and susceptible to masking, suppression, or automatic acknowledgement in a manner structurally and motivationally compatible with the other references could not be adduced. Thus, the matter of claims 16 and 29 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,851,129 and US 2010/0194564 detect human presence near a conveyor. US 2007/0168753 teaches suppressing selected error messages. US 2019/0113229 teaches energy-saving modes for conveyors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights