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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lert et al (US 2016/0355337). Relative to claims 1-2 and 7, Lert discloses:
Claim 1) A material handling system (10)(Para. 0189) for sorting a plurality of items into groups of one or more items, comprising:
a controller (450) including a processor and a memory (Para. 0208);
a rack structure (see storage structure 130) defining a plurality of destination (picking workstations having O-totes) areas at vertically spaced elevations (Fig. 3C)(Para. 0190, 0218, workstations are on different levels)(see Fig. 6B, 20B, 23A-23C, 24A),
at least some destination areas of the plurality of destination areas (workstations) are dimensioned and arranged to receive a container (container, such as O-Tote, P-Tote) and each container is dimensioned and arranged to receive a corresponding group of one or more items (Para. 0174); and
a plurality of delivery vehicles (T-Bots, or Bots) each configured to receive a respective item of the plurality of items to be sorted and operable to transport the respective item to any destination area (workstation) of the plurality of destination areas (Para. 0232), each delivery vehicle (bots) comprises:
a power source for driving the delivery vehicle (Para. 0243, see drive and actuator), and a transfer mechanism (900)(Fig. 33) operative to transfer a received item to a container disposed at a selected destination area (Fig. 34A)(Para. 0242);
the processor (see CPU) executes instructions, stored in the memory, for:
controlling operation of the plurality of vehicles (Para. 0208),
for identifying a destination area designated to receive a group of items that includes an item received by a delivery vehicle of the plurality of delivery vehicles (;
for determining, by reference to a database associating each order with a respective group of items, that the designated destination area of the plurality of destination areas has accumulated all items required to form a corresponding complete group of items, and
for providing an indication that the designated destination area of the plurality of destination areas has accumulated a complete group of items.
Claim 2) the memory further includes instructions executable by the processor for tracking availability of the destination areas.
Claim 7) a plurality of guide rails disposed within the rack structure, the guide rails being vertically spaced from one another and arranged such that the delivery vehicles are guided to move horizontally at a plurality of vertical levels.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert. Relative to claims 4, Lert discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the memory further includes instructions executable by the processor for identifying an alternative destination area to the designated destination area in response to an event, and for controlling the movement of at least one delivery vehicle to reach the alternative destination area.
Lert teaches: instructions executable by the processor for identifying an alternative destination area to the designated destination area in response to an event, and for controlling the movement of at least one delivery vehicle to reach the alternative destination area as an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify A with the X as taught in B for the purpose of Z.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
Claims 3, and 5-6 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Relative to claims 3, 5-6, the closest available prior art does not disclose:
instructions executable by the processor for reserving destination areas for reassignment to other groups;
determining that the second designated destination area of the plurality of destination areas has not, within a defined time window, accumulated all items required to form the second group of items.
Relative to claims 8-11, the closest available prior art does not disclose:
A material handling system for sorting a plurality of items into groups of one or more items, comprising:
a controller including a processor and memory;
determining that at least one destination area of the plurality of destination areas has failed to accumulate all items required to form a corresponding complete group of items prior to expiration of an applicable time limit, as claimed.
Relative to claims 12-20, the closest available prior art does not disclose:
A method of operating a material handling system to sort a plurality of items
into groups of one or more items, comprising:
determining that the second selected destination area has not accumulated, prior to expiration of a time interval, all items required to complete the second group of items, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 571-272-6911. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
