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 § 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.
Claims 49-51 and 64 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.
Relative to claims 49-51, it is not clear as to what the Applicant means by “u-shaped” inventory or shipping container conveyors forming a loop, or a pair of u-shaped shipping container conveyors forming a loop. Is Applicant referring to the shape of the conveyors in Fig. 26?
Claim 64 recites the limitation "the perception" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese et al (US 10,919,151) in view of Murphy (US 10,471,597). Relative to claims 46, Marchese discloses:
An automated packing system (see Ref. 104, 112, 114, 124, 122 in Fig. 1) for placing one or more objects into a shipping container (see “tote container”; Col. 12, lines 45-46), the automated packing system comprising:
a programmable motion device (robotic picking arm, 210, 128) including an end effector (215)(Fig. 1-2), the programmable motion device (210) having a range of operation at an automated workstation (104)(Fig. 1)(Col. 9, lines 27-29);
a perception system comprising a plurality of cameras (220)(Fig. 2) at the workstation (200)(Col. 9, lines 8-13), each of the plurality of cameras (220) having a field of view including at least a portion of the workstation (Col. 9, lines 61-67)(Fig. 2);
an inventory container (tote 240), the inventory container containing the one or more objects (250)(Col. 9, lines 23-25);
a shipping container (“tote container”)(Col. 12, lines 44-45); and
a central control system (317)(Fig. 3) in communication with the programmable motion device (210) and the perception system (2201-N)(Col. 11, lines 38-47),
the central control system (317) uses the perception system (2201-N) to locate the inventory container (Col. 11, lines 42-46), locate an object (“object”) of the one or more objects in the inventory container (240)(Col. 11, lines 50-55), guide the end effector (2150 of the programmable motion device (210) to pick the object (Col. 12, lines 20-25), determine a pose of the object on the end effector (215)(Col. 9, lines 61-65, Col. 10, lines 10-15, images of an item being manipulated by the picking arm 210 are captured, during which the item’s position and pose can be determined and used to control the movement of the robotic arm); locate the shipping container (shipping container is a specified destination location, such as a tote container, which is located by the cameras; Col. 12, lines 42-53), guide the end effector (215) of the programmable motion device (210) to the shipping container (Col. 12, lines 38-53), and guide the end effector (215) of the programmable motion device (210) to place the object at a determined orientation in the shipping container (tote container) using the pose (Col. 12, lines 38-53).
Marchese does not expressly disclose:
an inventory conveyor adjacent the automated workstation, at least a portion of the inventory conveyor is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device;
a shipping container conveyor adjacent the automated workstation, at least a portion of the shipping container conveyor is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device;
the inventory container is provided on the inventory conveyor;
the shipping container is provided on the shipping container conveyor; or
the central control system is in communication with the inventory conveyor, the shipping container conveyor.
Murphy teaches:
an inventory conveyor (see “first position” on conveyor where tote 916 is resting; Col. 16, lines 62-63)(Fig. 9) adjacent the automated workstation (see Ref. 900, workstation includes station where items are transferred between totes, inventory holders 926, pallets 924, automated devices 112, second automated devices 914, 920 in Fig. 9), at least a portion of the inventory conveyor (“first position” where tote 916 is resting)(Fig. 9) is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device (second automated device, 914)(Fig. 9)(Col. 17, lines 1-5);
a shipping container conveyor (see induction transport, 910, where totes 918 are resting/loaded at a second position, Col. 16, lines 63-67) adjacent the automated workstation (Fig. 9), at least a portion of the shipping container conveyor (part of Ref. 910 with totes 918) is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device (914)(Fig. 9);
the inventory container (tote, 916)(Fig. 9) is provided on the inventory conveyor (Fig. 9)(Col. 16, lines 61-63; Col. 17, lines 1-8);
the shipping container (918) is provided on the shipping container conveyor (Col. 16, lines 63-67); and
the central control system (robot controller, 390)(Fig. 3) is in communication with the inventory conveyor, the shipping container conveyor (Col. 10, lines 17-20; Col. 17, lines 55-63; Col. 11, lines 50-55; Col. 17, lines 30-44, the control system uses images from the workstation environment, including the locations of totes, 916, 918, and transport, 910).
Murphy teaches the: inventory conveyor, shipping container conveyor, and the central control system in communication with the inventory conveyor, the shipping container conveyor, mentioned above, for the purpose of providing a system and method for adaptively controlling industrial robotic systems through the use of machine learning so that robotic arms can handle items with improved success, thereby minimizing delays in workflow (Col. 1, lines 5-10, Col. 1, lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Marches with the inventory conveyor, shipping container conveyor, and the central control system in communication with the inventory conveyor, as taught in Murphy for the purpose of providing a system and method for adaptively controlling industrial robotic systems through the use of machine learning so that robotic arms can handle items with improved success, thereby minimizing delays in workflow.
Claim(s) 47-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese and Murphy as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 2003/0075051). Relative to claims 47-50, Marchese and Murphy discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
the central control system stops the inventory conveyor when the perception system determines the inventory container is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device;
the central control system stops the shipping container conveyor when the perception system determines the shipping container is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device;
the inventory container conveyor is a U-shaped conveyor forming a loop; or
the inventory container conveyor comprises a pair of U-shaped conveyors, each of the pair of U-shaped conveyors forming a loop.
Watanabe teaches:
the central control system (SR)(Fig. 2) stops the inventory conveyor (L1-L3)(Fig. 1) when the perception system (determines the inventory container is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device (RB1-RB3)(Para. 0035);
the central control system (SR)(Fig. 2) stops the shipping container conveyor (L4)(Fig. 1) when the perception system determines the shipping container (50)(Fig. 1) is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device (Para. 0037, supply line L4 stops when empty lunch box arrives at a predetermined position near RB1); and
the inventory container conveyor (L1, L2, or L3) is a U-shaped conveyor (Fig. 2); or the inventory container (L1, L2, L3) conveyor comprises a pair of U-shaped conveyors, each of the pair of U-shaped conveyors (see U-shaped conveyors L1, L2, L3 with trays 10 moving towards conveyor L4 and away from L4)(Fig. 2), for the purpose of providing a robot system for dishing food contained in a food conveying container using a robot that can handle different shaped foods securely (Para. 0001-0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify Marchese in view of Murphy with the stopping the inventory and shipping conveyor when the perception system determines the inventory/shipping container is within the range of operation of the programmable motion device, as taught in Watanabe for the purpose of providing a robot system for dishing food contained in a food conveying container using a robot that can handle different shaped foods securely.
Relative to claims 49-50, Marchese in view of Murphy and Watanabe discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose the each of the U-shaped inventory conveyors form a loop.
Watanabe shows the supply lines or conveyors L1-L3 carrying the trays 1, each line L1, L2, L3 having a conveying section moving towards the line L4 and away from the supply line for depositing trays onto the line L4 and taking away trays (see Fig. 1).
It is obvious that each of the supply lines L1-L3 or inventory conveyors may be arranged to form a loop so that the trays 1 of food are continuously brought towards the supply line L4 to load food items onto the boxes and then moved away to maximize efficiency and reduce delays. Also, unpicked food items on the trays 1 can be eventually picked and placed into another lunch box 50, thereby maximizing use of each of the loaded trays 1 and minimizing the number of trays required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchese in view of Murphy and Watanabe so that the supply lines L1-L4 form a loop, and so that the supply line L4 is U-shaped, as mentioned above so that food trays and lunch boxes can be continuously supplied and removed as needed to improve efficiency and reduce delays.
Claim(s) 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese and Murphy as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Lert (US 2012/0101627). Relative to claim 51-52, Marchese in view of Murphy discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
claim 51) the shipping container conveyor is a U-shaped conveyor forming a loop; or
claim 52) the shipping container conveyor comprises a pair of U-shaped conveyors, each of the pair of U-shaped conveyors forming a loop.
Lert teaches: the shipping container conveyor (34)(Fig. 7C) is a U-shaped conveyor forming a loop (on the left side of Fig. 7C, order tote conveyor, Ref. 34 is rounded to form a U-shape, and forms a loop, order totes travel along the direction of the arrows, see “order totes have a looped arrangement, similar to conveyor 32”, Para. 0065), for the purpose of providing an automated order replenishment system and method that lowers costs, reduces manual labor, and increases throughput (Para. 0003; 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Marchese in view of Murphy with the shipping container conveyor configured as a U-shaped conveyor forming a loop as taught in Lert, for the purpose of providing an automated order replenishment system and method that lowers costs, reduces manual labor, and increases throughput.
Relative to claim 50, the disclosure of Marchese in view of Murphy and Lert discloses all claim limitations mentioned above but does not expressly disclose: the shipping container conveyor comprises a pair of U-shaped conveyors, each of the pair of U-shaped conveyors forming a loop.
Lert discloses the shipping container conveyor as a U-shaped conveyor forming a loop as mentioned above (see Ref. 34, Fig. 7C, in Lert). Lert can be modified to include a pair of U-shaped order tote conveyors 34 formed as a loop as a matter of design choice.
The disclosure teaches that the order totes OT may travel around the one or more loops substantially without disrupting a flow of order tote on conveyor, so that the misqueued order totes are placed in a proper location or sequence for filling. The order tote conveyor having one or more loops suggests that there can be more than one U-shaped order tote conveyor 34 path for moving the order totes OT.
Moreover, providing an additional order tote conveyor 34 formed as a loop increases the number of order totes OT that can be continuously supplied and filled, thereby increasing throughput. See MPEP §2144.04(B); 2144.05 (II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchese in view of Murphy and Lert so that the order tote conveyors comprises a pair of U-shaped conveyors, each forming a loop as mentioned above, to provide a continuous flow of order totes, and to increase the number of order totes OT that can be continuously supplied and filled.
Claim(s) 53, 57-58, and 61-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese in view of Doppler et al (US 2021/0024298). Relative to claims 53, 57-58, Marchese discloses:
claim 53) An automated packing system (Fig. 2) for placing a plurality of objects into a shipping container (tote container; Col. 12, lines 45-46), the automated packing system comprising:
a programmable motion device (210)(Fig. 2) including an end effector (215)(Fig. 2), the programmable motion device having a range of operation at an automated workstation (robotic picking environment, 200)(Fig. 2);
a perception system comprising a plurality of cameras (220)(Fig. 2) at the workstation, each of the plurality of cameras (220) having a field of view including at least a portion of the workstation (Col. 9, lines 61-67)(Fig. 2);
an inventory container (tote 240) containing at least one of the plurality of objects (Col. 9, lines 23-25);
a shipping container (“tote container”)(Col. 12, lines 44-45); and
a central control system (110, 317)(Fig. 3) in communication with the programmable motion device (317) and the perception system (220), the central control system (317) uses the perception system to:
locate each of the plurality of inventory containers (2201-N)(Col. 11, lines 38-47),
locate an object in a respective inventory container (240)(Col. 11, lines 50-55), guide the end effector (215) of the programmable motion device (210) to pick the object, determine a pose of each object of the plurality of objects on the end effector (215)(Col. 9, lines 61-65, Col. 10, lines 10-15, images of an item being manipulated by the picking arm 210 are captured, during which the item’s position and pose can be determined and used to control the movement of the robotic arm),
locate the shipping container (see specified destination location, such as a tote container, which is located by the cameras; Col. 12, lines 42-53), guide the end effector of the programmable motion device (210) to the shipping container, and guide the end effector of the programmable motion device (210) to place each object of the plurality of objects at a determined orientation in the shipping container (tote container) using the pose of each object of the plurality of objects (Col. 12, lines 38-53);
claim 57) the perception system includes actuatable lighting modules (light sources 230(1)-(B) that emit light, see Fig. 2) controlled by the central control system (110)(Col. 10, lines 18-23);
claim 58) the central control system (100, 150) determines a pose authority of each object of the plurality of objects on the end effector (215) using the perception system (a 3D surface model is retrieved based on a unique identifier on the object, to determine a plurality of candidate contact points for holding the item; Col. 10, lines 22-28, the storage 340 includes item models 350 and suction attribute data 353; Col. 11, lines 26-30, based on images, the robotic control component 317 determines which of the 3D item models best matches the appearance of the item in the captured images, Col. 11, lines 50-59), and
uses the determined pose authority when guiding the end effector (215) of the programmable motion device (210) to place each object of the plurality of objects in the shipping container (system uses model to determine how to release the item into the destination container, Col. 12, lines 38-41).
Marchese does not expressly disclose:
an inventory conveyor adjacent the automated workstation, at least a portion of the inventory conveyor within the range of operation of the programmable motion device;
a shipping container conveyor adjacent the automated workstation, at least a portion of the shipping container conveyor within the range of operation of the programmable motion device;
a sequence of a plurality of inventory containers provided on the inventory conveyor containing at least one of the plurality objects;
the inventory container is provided on the inventory conveyor;
the shipping container is provided on the shipping container conveyor; or
the central control system is in communication with the inventory conveyor and the shipping container conveyor;
the control system uses the perception system to locate each object of the plurality of objects in a respective inventory container, guide the end effector of the programmable motion device to sequentially pick each object of the plurality of objects.
Doppler teaches:
an inventory conveyor (12, 13)(Fig. 2) adjacent the automated workstation (2)(Fig. 2), at least a portion of the inventory conveyor (12) within the range of operation of the programmable motion device (60)(Para. 0165; 0230);
a shipping container conveyor (35, 36)(Fig. 2) adjacent the automated workstation (2)(Fig. 2), at least a portion of the shipping container conveyor (35, 36) within the range of operation of the programmable motion device (60)(Fig. 2)(Para. 0190);
a sequence of a plurality of inventory containers (5a-5n)(Fig. 2, 5a) provided on the inventory conveyor (12) containing at least one of the plurality objects (Para. 0159; 0163; 0175);
the inventory container (5) is provided on the inventory conveyor (12)(Fig. 2);
the shipping container (33) is provided on the shipping container conveyor (35, 36)(Fig. 2)(Para. 0190); and
the central control system (31, 64)(Fig. 2) is in communication with the perception system (62), inventory conveyor (12) and the shipping container conveyor (35, 36)(see Fig. 2)(Para. 0233); and
the control system (64)(Fig. 2) uses the perception system (62a, 62b)(2) to locate each object (see goods) of the plurality of objects in a respective inventory container (5)(Para. 0233), and guide the end effector of the programmable motion device (60) to sequentially pick each object of the plurality of objects (Para. 0289, goods are repeatedly picked).
Doppler teaches: the inventory conveyor, shipping container conveyor, and the central control system in communication with the inventory conveyor and the shipping container conveyor, and using the perception system to locate each object of the plurality of objects, and guide the end effector of the programmable motion device to sequentially pick each object of the plurality of objects as mentioned above, for the purpose of providing an improved method for fully automated picking of different goods from source containers into target containers by a robot at a picking station that has high picking performance, minimizes disruptions, and can correct errors during picking (Para. 0001; 0003; 0007; 0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Marchese with the: the inventory conveyor, shipping container conveyor, and the central control system in communication with the inventory conveyor and the shipping container conveyor, and locating each object of the plurality of objects, and guiding the end effector of the programmable motion device to sequentially pick each object of the plurality of objects mentioned above, as taught in Doppler for the purpose of providing an improved method for fully automated picking of different goods from source containers into target containers by a robot at a picking station that has high picking performance, minimizes disruptions, and can correct errors during picking.
Relative to claims 61-64, the disclosure of Marchese includes:
claim 61) A method of automatically packing a shipping container (tote container) with a plurality of objects from an automated storage and retrieval system (fulfillment center; Col. 9, lines 5-7), the method comprising:
providing a supply bin (item tote, 240 or storage container) at a supply station (200) from the automated storage and retrieval system (Fig. 2);
detecting an object (250) in the supply bin (240) using a perception system at the supply station (Col. 9, lines 10-18);
grasping the object (250) with a programmable motion device (210) at the supply station (200)(Fig. 2)(Col. 9, lines 59-65);
determining a pose held of the object as the programmable motion device (210) moves the object (Col. 9, lines 61-65, Col. 10, lines 10-15); and
placing the object in a shipping container (“tote container”) using the programmable motion device and the determined pose held (Col. 12, lines 44-45);
claim 62) determining a pose authority of the object (250) and using the determined pose authority when placing the object in the shipping container (Col. 10, lines 22-28; Col. 11, lines 26-30; Col. 11, lines 50-59); and
claim 63) determining a pose held assessment of the object (item) and using the pose held assessment when placing the object in the shipping container (Col. 12, lines 38-41); and
claim 64) using the perception system (see Ref. 62a, 62b, and 65a, 65b)(Fig. 2) to determine a volume of the shipping container (cameras 65a, 65b capture 3D images of the target containers 33, and the available holding capacity), and using the determined volume when placing the object in the shipping container (Para. 0237).
Marchese does not disclose: the supply bin at the supply station is provided on an inventory conveyor from the automated storage and retrieval system.
Doppler teaches: the supply bin (5)(Fig. 2) at the supply station (2)(Fig. 2) is provided on an inventory conveyor (source container conveying means, 12)(Fig. 2) from the automated storage and retrieval system (1)(Fig. 1)(Para. 0165), for the purpose of providing an improved method for fully automated picking of different goods from source containers into target containers by a robot at a picking station that has high picking performance, minimizes disruptions, and can correct errors during picking (Para. 0001; 0003; 0007; 0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Marchese so that the supply bin at the supply station is provided on an inventory conveyor mentioned above, as taught in Doppler for the purpose of providing an improved method for fully automated picking of different goods from source containers into target containers by a robot at a picking station that has high picking performance, minimizes disruptions, and can correct errors during picking.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese and Doppler as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Chavez (US 2023/0260071). Marchese in view of Doppler discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the perception system includes at least one 3D camera providing a combination of 2D and 3D data.
Chavez teaches: the perception system includes at least one 3D camera providing a combination of 2D and 3D data (Para. 0030, see point cloud data generated by 3D sensors, with sets of point cloud data associated with a frame of 2D image data) for the purpose of providing a multicamera image processing system for detecting objects to be operated by the robotic system that can respond to changing conditions (Para. 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Marchese in view of Doppler so that the perception system includes at least one 3D camera providing a combination of 2D and 3D data as taught in Chavez, for the purpose of providing a multicamera image processing system for detecting objects to be operated by the robotic system that can respond to changing conditions.
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese and Doppler as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of McCalib et al (US 9,637,319). Relative to claim 65, Marchese in view of Doppler discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: using the perception system to monitor the shipping container and determining if the object moves after the object is placed in the shipping container.
McCalib teaches: using the perception system (128)(Fig. 1) to monitor the shipping container (106)(Fig. 1) and determining if the object moves after the object is placed in the shipping container (Col. 10, lines 30-34, lines 48-50, lines 57-67, system determines if an item has been placed within the tote, and after scanning after being placed, can sense whether the item is still present by determining the presence of the item, and the orientation of the item), for the purpose of providing a tote handling system and method in a pick-to-order system, to facilitate movement of totes to and from an operator that reduces costs, is less time-consuming to manufacture, and is easier to operate in order fulfillment environments (Col. 1, lines 25-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Marchese in view of Doppler with using the perception system to monitor the shipping container and determining if the object moves after the object is placed in the shipping container, as taught in McCalib, for the purpose of providing a tote handling system and method in a pick-to-order system, to facilitate movement of totes to and from an operator that reduces costs, is less time- consuming to manufacture, and is easier to operate in order fulfillment environments.
Claim(s) 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese and Doppler as applied to claims 57 above, and further in view of Worsley et al (US 2016/0090248).
Relative to claims 59-60, Marchese in view of Doppler discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the central control system determines a volume of the shipping container using the perception system; or
the shipping container is a cardboard box.
Worsley teaches: the central control system (see control systems; Para. 0046) determines a volume of the shipping container (“container”) using the perception system (see cameras and other imaging devices; Para. 0055), for the purpose of providing a system and method for automatically loading items at a given location using robots, that minimizes manual labor, increases safety, improves adverse working conditions, and improves job satisfaction (Para. 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the method of Marchese in view of Doppler with the central control system determines a volume of the shipping container using the perception system, as taught in Worsley, for the purpose of providing a system and method for automatically loading items at a given location using robots, that minimizes manual labor, increases safety, improves adverse working conditions, and improves job satisfaction.
Relative to claim 60, Marchese in view of Doppler and Worsley does not expressly disclose the shipping container is a cardboard box.
Worsley discloses filling, packing, and delivering shipments of items for delivery to customers in response to an order such as by placing items into a container (envelope, bag, crate, or box) with a sufficient amount of dunnage. The packed containers are delivered by car, truck, train, ship, aircraft, or any other means (Para. 0055).
It is well known that packed containers or boxes of ordered items for delivery to customers include cardboard boxes. Moreover, it appears that the box moving along the conveyor in Fig. 1A is a cardboard box. See MPEP §2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchese in view of Doppler and Worsley so that the shipping container is a carboard box, as a matter of design choice, since it is well known that shipping boxes or containers for delivery to customers include cardboard boxes.
Claim(s) 54-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese and Doppler as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Kalm (US 10,875,719).
Relative to claims 54-55, Marchese in view of Doppler discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, including: the inventory conveyor (12) is a roller conveyor, and the shipping container conveyor (35, 36) is a roller conveyor (see Fig. 1 & 3 in Doppler).
Marchese in view of Doppler does not expressly disclose:
claim 54) the inventory roller conveyor includes at least one roller mounted on a force torque sensor and, the central control system uses a position of the inventory container using the force torque sensor to control motion of the sequence of the plurality of inventory containers on the inventory conveyor; or
claim 55) the shipping container roller conveyor includes at least one roller mounted on a force torque sensor, and the central control system uses a position of the shipping container using the force torque sensor to control motion of the shipping container on the shipping container conveyor.
Kalm teaches:
claim 54) the inventory roller conveyor (see conveyor 127 that moves trays 117, (Col. 2, lines 55-56; Col. 3, lines 37-39)(Fig. 2) includes at least one roller mounted on a force torque sensor (see “pressure sensors”; Col. 7, lines 27-35) and, the central control system (100, 202)(Fig. 5) uses a position of the inventory container (117) using the force torque sensor (“pressure sensor”) to control motion of the sequence of the plurality of inventory containers (117) on the inventory conveyor (127)(Col. 7, lines 33-40); and
claim 55) the shipping container roller conveyor (see conveyors 151, 153 that move containers 119 that receive items)(Fig. 2)(Col. 2, lines 55-56; Col. 4, lines 26-33) includes at least one roller mounted on a force torque sensor (“pressure sensor”, Col. 7, lines 27-35), and the central control system (100, 202) uses a position of the shipping container (119) using the force torque sensor (“pressure sensors”) to control motion of the shipping container (119) on the shipping container conveyor (Col. 7, lines 33-40), for the purpose of providing a modern inventory system that can respond to a large number of diverse inventory requests, that is more efficient, minimizes space and equipment, improves throughput, reduces backlogs, and improves overall performance (Col. 1, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify system of Marchese in view of Doppler with the inventory and shipping conveyors including at least one roller mounted on a force torque sensor, and using a position of the inventory/shipping containers using the force torque sensor to control motion of the sequence of the containers described above, as taught in Kalm for the purpose of providing a modern inventory system that can respond to a large number of diverse inventory requests, that is more efficient, minimizes space and equipment, improves throughput, reduces backlogs, and improves overall performance.
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
Prosecution Insights