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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brady et al. (US 2022/0097969 A1), hereafter referred to as Brady.
Consider claim 1. Brady teaches an article sorting facility wherein a plurality of transport vehicles (robotic drive units) travel on a floor and transport articles to sort the articles, the article sorting facility comprising: supply units (627) configured to supply the articles to the plurality of transport vehicles; and a plurality of receivers (634) configured to receive the articles from the plurality of transport vehicles, wherein: the floor comprises: an aisle area (proximate “633” in fig. 6) along the floor; a supply area (627) including the supply units; and a connection area (629) connecting the aisle area to the supply area, the plurality of receivers is arranged along the aisle area (see fig. 6), the floor comprises, in an area other than the aisle area (proximate “631”, for example), a standby area for the plurality of transport vehicles to wait before entering the aisle area.
Consider claim 2. Brady teaches a control system (1100, 1200) configured to control the plurality of transport vehicles. Brady’s control system is capable of performing the recited functional language: in response to a receiver of the plurality of receivers being in a non-receiving state in which the articles are unreceivable by the receiver, the control system performs a first standby process of causing, among the plurality of transport vehicles, all of one or more transport vehicles transporting articles to the receiver in the non-receiving state to wait in the standby area (region proximate “631”, for example). Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 3. Brady teaches a control system (1100, 1200) configured to control the plurality of transport vehicles. Brady’s control system is capable of performing the recited functional language: at each of the plurality of receivers, a first batch process of receiving, among the articles, an article of a type and in a quantity each specified in a piece of order information, and then performs a second batch process of receiving, among the articles, an article of a type and in a quantity each specified in another piece of order information, and wherein in response to a receiver of the plurality of receivers being in an incomplete state in which the first batch process is not complete, the control system performs a second standby process of causing, among the plurality of transport vehicles, all of one or more transport vehicles transporting articles to the receiver in the incomplete state for the second batch process to wait in the standby area. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 4. Brady’s control system is capable of performing the recited functional language: in response to the incomplete state of the receiver being removed, the control system causes the one or more transport vehicles transporting, for the second batch process, the articles to the receiver with the incomplete state being removed to travel from the standby area to the receiver. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 5. Brady teaches a first lifter (left 631 in figs. 6 and 7) and a second lifter (right 631) each configured to transport the plurality of transport vehicles in a vertical direction, and wherein: the floor comprises a first layer (fig. 6) and a second layer (fig. 7) at respective levels different in the vertical direction, the first layer includes the aisle area and the supply area, the second layer comprises a return aisle (729) on which the plurality of transport vehicles travel, the first lifter connects a terminal end of the aisle area to the second layer, the second lifter connects a terminal end of the return aisle to the first layer (see figs. 6 and 7), and the standby area is included in the second layer (proximate “631” in fig. 7, for example).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady (US 2022/0097969 A1).
Consider claim 6. Brady teaches first and second lifters (631) configured to transport the plurality of transport vehicles in the vertical direction, wherein the first layer (fig. 6) includes the connection area (629), and the second lifter connects the terminal end of the return aisle to the supply area (see figs. 6 and 7). Brady’s first and second lifters connect the standby area to the connection area (see figs. 6 and 7), but Brady does not explicitly teach a third lifter as specifically claimed. It would have been obvious to modify Brady’s facility with a third lifter, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to duplicate the lifters of Brady in order to improve throughput and efficiency of the facility in the event that there is a bottleneck at the elevators.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various article sorting facilities having supply areas, aisle areas, connection areas, and/or elevators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights