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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3326452 A1 (herein Staffan).
Regarding claim 1 Staffan teaches A system for performing measurements in storage containers for storing items, wherein the storage containers are configured to be stored in an automated storage system (growth monitoring station 15 includes a transport system to move a selected storage container to the growth monitoring station 15… The growth monitoring station 15 may be fully automated, [0050]), the automated storage system comprising:
a framework structure forming a three-dimensional storage grid structure for storing the storage containers in storage columns (framework structure 2 having a three-dimensional framework of horizontal structural elements 3 and vertical structural elements 4, [0044]);
a first vehicle for carrying a storage container (load handling device 20, [0044]); and
a rail system arranged on the framework structure providing available routes for vehicles handling and transferring the storage containers to and from the storage columns (rail 21, and sliding rails, [0060]);
wherein the system for performing measurements comprises a testing station comprising measuring equipment for measuring conditions in the storage container (growth monitoring station includes sensors for determining a current growth status of crops in a storage container received in the growth monitoring station, [0058]; Conditions such as light, temperature, ambient water, vapor pressure, CO.sub.2 levels, etc. is oftentimes monitored, [0004]),
wherein the testing station is configured to communicate measurement data to a computer system (mobile sensor unit 22 is preferably configured to communicate with the growth controller 17, via e.g. a wireless connection, [0054]; controllers are preferably any other equivalent type of computing device, [0010]),
wherein the testing station is accessible to the first vehicle via the rail system ([0065] teaches transport of container 5 to growth monitoring station 15).
Regarding claim 2, Staffan teaches wherein the testing station is configured to position the measuring equipment onto the storage container (see growth monitoring station 15 and the associated transporting means, here in the form of a (belt) conveyor 13, [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Staffan teaches wherein the measuring equipment comprises: temperature measurement equipment; a moisture detector; a gas detector; and/or a camera for visual inspection of items stored in the storage container (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 (e.g. optical sensors, cameras, etc.) for determining a current growth status of crops in a storage container received in the growth monitoring station 15, [0048]; Conditions such as light, temperature, ambient water, vapor pressure, CO.sub.2 levels, etc. is oftentimes monitored, [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Staffan teaches wherein the conditions comprise a condition of contents of the storage container (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 (e.g. optical sensors, cameras, etc.) for determining a current growth status of crops in a storage container received in the growth monitoring station 15, [0048]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staffan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190128905 (herein Ott).
Regarding claim 3, Staffan does not teach, “wherein the system is configured to raise or lower the measuring equipment.” However, Ott teaches it is known in the art to lower and raise a measuring probe up and down via a z-rod ([0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Staffan does not teach, “wherein the system is configured to raise or lower the measuring equipment by: a rope, band, or wire controlled by an electric motor; or a robotic arm.” However, Ott teaches it is known in the art to lower and raise a measuring probe using a robot arm ([0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Staffan teaches, “wherein the measuring equipment comprises a sensor” (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 e.g. optical sensors, cameras, [0048]). Staffan does not teach, “wherein the storage container comprises a side having a hole for inserting the sensor into.” However, Ott teaches a container having a hole ([0028]), and pipette tip 5’, which is used as a measuring probe, can be lowered into the hole 20 ([0055]). It would have been obvious to place a hole, as taught by Ott, in container 5 of Staffan. One would have been motivated to place the hole for at least the purpose of being able to measure the contents of the container.
For claims 3-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the probe assembly of Ott into the monitoring station of Staffan. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of automating measurement and position of a probe ([0004], [0006]).
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staffan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2017254681 (herein Ellison).
Regarding claim 6, Staffan teaches “wherein the measuring equipment comprises a sensor” (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 e.g. optical sensors, cameras, [0048]). Staffan does not teach, “wherein the storage container comprises a slit or tunnel along an inside edge of the storage container for lowering the sensor into a bottom of the storage container.” However, Ellison teaches it is known in the art to lower a probe 24 using a slit (vertical channel 18, [0016], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Staffan does not teach, “wherein the testing station comprises a measuring platform configured to be lowered onto the storage container, the measuring equipment being mounted onto the measuring platform, wherein the measuring platform is configured to fit over a top opening of the storage container.” However, Ellison teaches it is known in the art to mount a probe 24 on an equivalent platform (coupling 16) capable of moving vertically. It would have been obvious to place the probe assembly of Ellison in the monitoring station of Staffan, where it would be placed over a top of the opening of container 5 of Staffan to satisfy the configuration of the present invention.
Regarding claim 10, Staffan does not teach, “wherein the measuring equipment is on the measuring platform and inside the storage container when the measuring platform is on the storage container.” However, Ellison teaches a probe 24 on an equivalent platform (coupling 16) capable of moving vertically. It would have been obvious to place the probe assembly of Ellison in the monitoring station of Staffan, where it would be placed over a top of the opening of container 5 of Staffan to satisfy the configuration of the present invention.
For claims 6, 9, and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the probe positioning assembly of Ellison into the monitoring station of Staffan. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of improving precision and positioning of sensory equipment for reliable measurements ([0006]).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staffan in view of US20180276608 (herein Stadie).
Regarding claim 11, Staffan teaches a method for performing measurements in storage containers (storage container, [0050]) for storing items using a testing station (growth monitoring station 15, [0050]), wherein the storage containers are configured to be stored in an automated storage system (storage system 1, [0045], Fig. 1), the automated storage system comprising:
a framework structure forming a three-dimensional storage grid structure for storing the storage containers in storage columns (framework structure 2 having a three-dimensional framework of horizontal structural elements 3 and vertical structural elements 4, [0044]);
a first vehicle for carrying a storage container (load handling device 20, [0044]); and
a rail system arranged on the framework structure providing available routes for vehicles handling and transferring the storage containers to and from the storage columns (rail 21, and sliding rails, [0060]); wherein the method comprises:
placing a storage container in the testing station by the first vehicle (storage containers 5 can be moved from a position within the framework structure 2 to the growth monitoring station 15 via a conveyor 13. The load handling device 20 and conveyor 13 are considered to be included in a transport system, [0048]);
positioning the storage container onto measuring equipment attached to the testing station for measuring conditions in the storage container (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16, [0048]);
performing measurements to collect measurement data (sensors 16 (e.g. optical sensors, cameras, etc.) for determining a current growth status of crops in a storage container received in the growth monitoring station 15, [0048]); and
transmitting the measurement data to a computer system (mobile sensor unit 22 is preferably configured to communicate with the growth controller 17, via e.g. a wireless connection, [0054]; controllers are preferably any other equivalent type of computing device, [0010]).
Further regarding claim 11, Staffan does not teach, “wherein each of the vehicles comprises a vehicle controller communicating with a central computer system controlling operation of the automated storage system.” However, Stadie teaches it is known in the automated storage art to equip vehicles (robots 210a, 210b and 210c, [0109]) each having controllers 224 that communicate with and are controlled by a master controller (base station controller 206, [0119]).
Regarding claim 14, Staffan teaches performing measurements by performing measurements of temperature, moisture and/or gas level in the storage container and/or by using cameras for visual inspection of the items (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 e.g. optical sensors, cameras, [0048]).
For claims 11 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the robots 210 of Stadie into the containers 5 of Staffan. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of improving coordinating and controlling product movement ([0002]).
Claim(s) 12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staffan and Stadie as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ott.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Staffan and Ott does not teach, “raising the measuring equipment.” However, Ott teaches it is known in the art to lower and raise a measuring probe up and down via a z-rod ([0052],-[0053]). Staffan teaches “transporting the storage container to a next destination by the first vehicle” (see transport system 13, [0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Staffan does not teach, “raising or lowering the measuring equipment by a robotic arm.” However, Ott teaches it is known in the art to lower and raise a measuring probe using a robot arm ([0053]).
Regarding claim 17, Staffan teaches, “wherein the measuring equipment comprises a sensor” (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 e.g. optical sensors, cameras, [0048]). Staffan does not teach, “wherein the method comprises inserting the sensor into a hole in a side of the storage container.” However, Ott teaches a container having a hole ([0028]), and pipette tip 5’, which is used as a measuring probe, can be lowered into the hole 20 ([0055]). It would have been obvious to place a hole, as taught by Ott, in container 5 of Staffan. One would have been motivated to place the hole at least the purpose of being able to measure the contents of the container.
For claims 12 and 16-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the probe assembly of Ott into the monitoring station of Staffan. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of automating measurement and position of a probe ([0004], [0006]).
Claim(s) 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staffan and Stadie as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ellison.
Regarding claim 15, Staffan and Stadie do not teach, “raising or lowering the measuring equipment by a rope, band, or wire controlled by an electric motor.” However, Ott teaches it is known in the art to raise and lower a probe by actuating a rope (probe slides by actuating the pulley cable along the vertical slide channel, [0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Staffan teaches “wherein the measuring equipment comprises a sensor” (growth monitoring station includes sensors 16 e.g. optical sensors, cameras, [0048]). Staffan does not teach, “wherein the method comprises lowering the sensor into a bottom of the storage container using a slit or tunnel along an inside edge of the storage container.” However, Ellison teaches it is known in the art to lower a probe 24 using a slit (vertical channel 18, [0016], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Staffan does not teach, “wherein the measuring equipment is on a measuring platform, wherein the method further comprises placing the measuring platform on the storage container with the measuring equipment inside the storage container.” However, Ellison teaches it is known in the art to mount a probe 24 on an equivalent platform (coupling 16) capable of moving vertically. It would have been obvious to place the probe assembly of Ellison in the monitoring station of Staffan, where it would be placed over a top of the opening of container 5 of Staffan to satisfy the configuration of the present invention.
For the above claims 15 and 18-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the probe positioning assembly of Ellison into the monitoring station of Staffan. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of improving precision and positioning of sensory equipment for reliable measurements ([0006]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staffan and Stadie as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20180215037 (herein High).
Regarding claim 13, Staffan and Stadie do not teach, “wherein the method comprises: after the transmitting, storing the measurement data and performing an analysis of the measurement data; and transmitting instructions, regarding where to transport the storage container, from the central computer system to the first vehicle based on a result of the analysis.” However, High teaches an autonomous storage facility (100, Fig. 1A) having sensors 245 that transmit attributes of objects from storage to computer 202 ([0042]). The system subsequently can compare attributes to detect a change, for example ([0023], [0025]), or detect an optical tag ([0039]), and then the system uses a routing engine 220 that uses the attributes detected for routing instructions to transport the objects to a particular location ([0039]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the automated routing system of High into the storage system of Staffan. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of automating navigation and storage in a facility ([0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights