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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “flexible bag” of claims 1, 8, and 15 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
While applicant’s drawings depict various machine structures meant to manipulate the claimed bag, the bag itself is not present in any figure despite evidently being of some importance to the invention. While system claims 1 and 15 might conceivably be satisfactory without a depicted bag as the bag is not comprised by the claimed system, the stages of deployment of the bag as claimed as part of the method of claim 8 seem to require an actual depiction of the bag in the various method steps, namely placing and securing the bag, placing items in the bag, and raising the sides of the bag around the items. The manner in which applicant’s bag hooks engage with the bag is also a matter for disclosure in graphical form as the text of the instant specification (page 11, paragraph 2) is somewhat ambiguous; are the hooks engaging with the sidewalls of the bag, or with the handles, which are conventionally at the top, or are both modes possible? While it is obvious how hooks may engage with bag handles, the manner in which the hooks engage with a bag’s sidewalls as disclosed and claimed appears to be a matter for graphical depiction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2 and 8 recite the term “gantry system”, not formally defined in the instant specification but supported, for example, in page 8, paragraph 1. The gantry appears as ref. char. 300 in fig. 2. This structure does not conform to the conventional usage of gantry in the art, but rather appears to be a rack comprising storage shelves and an integrated lifting device for accessing the shelves. In the instant office action, we interpret the term “gantry” not only according to applicant’s figure but also according to the ordinary usage of “gantry” in the art, i.e. a tall structure meant to support equipment from overhead.
Claim 2 recites the term “lifting arms”, not formally defined in the instant specification but supported, for example, in page 9, paragraph 2. These structures, ref. chars. 251-258 in fig. 3, do not conform to the usual usage of “arm” in the art as an elongated member fixed or mounted mechanically on one end, but rather appear to be nested interlocking sleeves that can be driven as a group to extend or retract in a vertical direction. In the instant office action, we interpret the term to include not only the structures applicant depicts in its figures but also more conventional usages of the term “lifting arm”. In contrast, applicant’s “hook arms” 209 in fig. 9 appear to conform to the usual meaning in the art of the word “arm”.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 14 recite the terms “telescoping delivery drive system” (claim 1, 3, and 5) and “telescoping lift system” (claim 14). We interpret these two terms as denoting the same device as the latter term does not appear in the instant specification. We further interpret “telescoping” as limiting the drive system to be extensible and retractable. In this office action, any lifting device that extends a structure in order to lift an article may be considered telescoping, including, for example, a scissor lift as well as the system of interlocking sleeves depicted in applicant’s fig. 3. Of course, claim 2 further limits the telescoping delivery drive system to be similar to that of fig. 3.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the term “customer retrieval operations”. The plain reading of this term in the context of the claim suggests that a customer is being retrieved. Although the term does not appear in the instant specification, it appears per page 3, paragraph 4 that it is the customer who is retrieving their purchased goods. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen Yeguang, US 2023/0149978 (hereinafter Chen) in view of Kovacic, Jan Peter, US 2006/0054395 (hereinafter Kovacic) and further in view of Werfring, et al., US 11,760,523 (hereinafter Werfring).
Regarding claim 1,
Chen discloses:
An automated product handling system (system of fig. 15) comprising:
a frame assembly (frame of 400: fig. 15) defining an interior space (interior of structure 400: fig. 15);
a multi-tiered gantry system (interior structure of 400: fig. 15) mounted within said frame assembly comprising a plurality of storage shelves (shelves of 400: fig. 15) arranged along a vertical axis;
a delivery box (transfer unit 100: figs. 1-2) mounted for vertical movement along said vertical axis adjacent to said storage shelves;While Chen’s fig. 15 shows the tiers of elevator 600 to be roller shelves, in [0171] Chen discloses that these may also be transfer units 100. As seen in figs. 1-2, the transfer units 100 are box shaped carriers and thus constitute the claimed delivery boxes.
a conveyor system (transmission assembly 130: figs. 1-2, [0108]-[0112]) mounted within said delivery box for horizontal movement toward and away from said storage shelves;
However, Chen does not disclose all aspects of:
a telescoping delivery drive system connected to said delivery box for moving said delivery box vertically to align with a selected storage shelf;Chen does not disclose the nature of the drive system for its elevator 600 and so we must invoke a teaching reference to demonstrate the obviousness of the “telescoping” aspect of the drive system.
and a bag handling mechanism within said delivery box comprising:Chen’s system appears to be intended to transfer rigid containers and not flexible bags and so it lacks these features.
vacuum cups positioned to secure a bottom portion of a flexible bag to said conveyor system,
and vertically moveable bag hooks configured to engage and lift side portions of said flexible bag.
Kovacic, an invention in the field of motorized lift platforms, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
a telescoping delivery drive system (20: figs. 2a-b) connected to said delivery box for moving said delivery box vertically to align with a selected storage shelf;In combination with Chen, Chen’s elevator 600 would make use of Kovacic’s lifting drive mechanism to move its transfer units 100 (delivery boxes) vertically to the level of a target storage shelf.
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 Chen with a telescoping delivery drive system connected to said delivery box for moving said delivery box vertically to align with a selected storage shelf, as taught by Kovacic, because an elevator or storage system lift necessarily requires some particular lifting mechanism, and because the particular mechanism of Kovacic combines two commonplace and reliable elements, a scissor lift and nested sleeved sections, both of which have been in widespread use for many generations.
Werfring, an invention in the field of bag emptier devices, teaches:
and a bag handling mechanism (hook features of fig. 4 and vacuum features of fig. 6) within said delivery box comprising:In combination with Chen, we adapt Chen’s transfer unit 100 (delivery box) with the indicated features of Werfring’s bag handling device.
vacuum cups (vacuum mandrels 10: fig. 6) positioned to secure a bottom portion of a flexible bag to said conveyor system (gripping bag, C3/L26-37),
and vertically moveable bag hooks (bag grippers 26: fig. 4) configured to engage and lift side portions of said flexible bag. As seen in fig. 4, Werfring’s bag grippers are hook-shaped and forming lateral prongs must necessarily grip its bags from the side. Werfring discloses lifting bags with the grippers in C2/L62-C3/L4).
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 Chen and Kovacic with a bag handling mechanism within said delivery box comprising: vacuum cups positioned to secure a bottom portion of a flexible bag to said conveyor system, and vertically moveable bag hooks configured to engage and lift side portions of said flexible bag, as taught by Werfring, firstly because transferring flexible bags as well as rigid containers is plainly a desirable expansion of capability, particular in a commercial environment where purchased goods are bagged for retrieval, secondly because in transferring, opening, filling, and emptying a bag through mechanical means it is necessary to secure the bag, and vacuum cups are a commonplace and widely employed mechanical means of performing this function, and thirdly because the use of hooks to transfer and open bags in similar industrial and commercial contexts to applicant’s invention is a widespread and commonplace practice, with such devices known (apart from Werfring’s teaching) for almost a century.
Regarding claim 2,
Chen in view of Kovacic and Werfring teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein said telescoping delivery drive system comprises: a plurality of nested lifting arms (Kovacic: fig. 1: 32, 34, 36, 38) including a bottom-most lifting arm fixed to a base of said gantry system and an upper-most lifting arm connected to said delivery box. This arrangement is seen in Kovacic’s figs. 2a-b (32-38 depicting nested sleeves or “lifting arms” per applicant’s usage) in the context of Chen’s fig. 16. Chen’s support frames 620 of its device 600 in fig. 16 would be lifted by means of Kovacic’s device installed below them in the base of the gantry structure 600, thus the bottom-most arm being fixed to the base as claimed, and the upper-most arm comprising a lifting surface connected to a transfer unit (delivery box) as claimed. Note that per Chen’s [0171] these support frames (roller shelves) 620 may be replaced with transfer units (delivery boxes) 100.
Regarding claim 4,
Chen in view of Kovacic and Werfring teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein said delivery box comprises: a front face forming a rectangular frame with an open interior for customer access;
a first side face forming a rectangular frame with an open interior for product loading; and a second side face forming a rectangular frame with an open interior facing said storage shelves. These arrangements are seen in fig. 8, with transfer unit 100 seen to comprise a rectangular frame, open front and back and interior, and side faces as claimed.
Regarding claim 5,
Chen in view of Kovacic and Werfring teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising: a control unit in communication with said telescoping delivery drive system and said bag handling mechanism for coordinating automated movement and operation thereof. Chen discloses a master controller for its various devices (some of which have individual controllers) in [0179]. In combination with Kovacic and Werfring, various of Chen’s controllers would control the devices of the teaching references.
Regarding claim 7,
Chen in view of Kovacic and Werfring teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein each storage shelf (Chen, transfer unit 100: figs. 1-2) comprises a motorized conveyor (Chen, transmission assembly 130: fig. 1; conveyor belt 132: fig. 2) for transferring bagged products between said delivery box conveyor system and said storage shelf. This arrangement can be seen in Chen’s figs. 9 and 15 where the fixed storage structure 400 comprises the same transfer units 100 (shelves) as the robot carrier 300.
Claims 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Kovacic, and Werfring, and further in view of Son Hyun Dong US 2010/0217433 (hereinafter Son).
Regarding claim 14,
Chen discloses:
A product storage and retrieval system (system of fig. 15) comprising:
a frame assembly (frame of 400: fig. 15);
a plurality of storage shelves (shelves of 400: fig. 15) arranged vertically within said frame assembly;
a delivery mechanism comprising:
a delivery box (transfer unit 100: figs. 1-2) mounted for vertical movement adjacent to said storage shelves,While Chen’s fig. 15 shows the tiers of elevator 600 to be roller shelves, in [0171] Chen discloses that these may also be transfer units 100. As seen in figs. 1-2, the transfer units 100 are box shaped carriers and thus constitute the claimed delivery boxes.
a horizontally extensible conveyor system (transmission assembly 130: fig. 1; conveyor belt 132: fig. 2) mounted within said delivery box,
However, Chen does not disclose all aspects of:
a telescoping lift system connected to said delivery box,Chen does not disclose the nature of the lift system for its elevator 600 and so we must invoke a teaching reference to demonstrate the obviousness of the “telescoping” aspect of the lift system.
and an automated bag handling system within said delivery box;Chen’s system appears to be intended to transfer rigid containers and not flexible bags and so it lacks these features.
and a control unit configured to: receive customer orders, coordinate product bagging operations, control vertical and horizontal movements of said delivery mechanism, and manage customer retrieval operations. While Chen discloses a variety of controllers intended to control the mechanical aspects of its system’s operation (i.e. vertical and horizontal movement and article retrieval), it does not disclose receiving and dispensing customer orders. Of course, article and container picking operations generally occur in the art in the context of customer order fulfillment, but these orders are usually managed by a Warehouse Management System or a Store Management System (depending on the commercial or industrial setting), which is not part of Chen’s invention.
Kovacic, an invention in the field of motorized lift platforms, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
a telescoping lift system (20: figs. 2a-b) connected to said delivery box,In combination with Chen, Chen’s elevator 600 would make use of Kovacic’s lifting drive mechanism to move its transfer units 100 (delivery boxes) vertically to the level of a target storage shelf.
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 Chen with a telescoping lift system connected to said delivery box, as taught by Kovacic, because an elevator or storage system lift necessarily requires some particular lifting mechanism, and because the particular mechanism of Kovacic combines two commonplace and reliable elements, a scissor lift and nested sleeved sections, both of which have been in widespread use for many generations.
Werfring, an invention in the field of bag emptier devices, teaches:
and an automated bag handling system (hook features of fig. 4 and vacuum features of fig. 6) within said delivery box;In combination with Chen, we adapt Chen’s transfer unit 100 (delivery box) with the indicated features of Werfring’s bag handling device.
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 Chen and Kovacic with an automated bag handling system within said delivery box, as taught by Werfring, because transferring flexible bags as well as rigid containers is plainly a desirable expansion of capability, particular in a commercial environment where purchased goods are bagged for retrieval, and because a wide variety of bagging, bag transfer, and bag emptying devices have been known to the art for generations.
Son, an invention in the field of store management systems, teaches:
and a control unit configured to: receive customer orders, coordinate product bagging operations, control vertical and horizontal movements of said delivery mechanism, and manage customer retrieval operations.Son’s invention concerns a store management system with integrated controller for dispensing goods in an automated store. The key features are disclosed in [0022]. In combination with Chen, which discloses controlling the mechanical aspects of the delivery mechanism, Son’s invention adds order management and dispensing goods to customers (customer retrieval operations).
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 Chen, Kovacic, and Werfring, with a control unit configured to: receive customer orders, coordinate product bagging operations, control vertical and horizontal movements of said delivery mechanism, and manage customer retrieval operations, as taught by Son, because in the context of a kiosk or automated store, it is plainly necessary for the system to manage customer orders and dispense goods to customers as claimed, and because a wide variety of vending machines and automated retail stores and kiosks have taught such devices and methods for many years.
Regarding claim 15,
Chen in view of Kovacic, Werfring, and Son teaches the limitations of claim 14 and also:
wherein said automated bag handling system comprises: vacuum cups (vacuum mandrels 10: fig. 6) positioned to secure a bottom portion of a flexible bag(gripping bag, C3/L26-37);
and mechanical hooks (bag grippers 26: fig. 4) mounted for vertical movement to lift side portions of said flexible bag. As seen in fig. 4, Werfring’s bag grippers are hook-shaped and forming lateral prongs must necessarily grip its bags from the side. Werfring discloses lifting bags with the grippers in C2/L62-C3/L4).
Regarding claim 17,
Chen in view of Kovacic, Werfring, and Son teaches the limitations of claim 14 and also:
wherein said delivery box comprises: a customer access opening; a product loading opening; and a storage shelf access opening. We consider that the three claimed openings of claim 17 do not disclose a different embodiment of applicant’s delivery box from that of claim 4, which discloses two openings and an open interior. This interpretation is supported by the instant specification in page 10, paragraph 2 which explains the open interior as a means of customer access. Chen again teaches these features of the transfer unit 100 (delivery box) in fig. 8, with openings to front and rear for shelf and product access and an open interior for direct customer access.
Regarding claim 19,
Chen in view of Kovacic, Werfring, and Son teaches the limitations of claim 14 and also:
wherein each storage shelf (Chen, transfer unit 100: figs. 1-2) comprises: a motorized conveyor (Chen, transmission assembly 130: fig. 1; conveyor belt 132: fig. 2) configured to transfer products between said delivery box conveyor system and said storage shelf. This arrangement can be seen in Chen’s figs. 9 and 15 where the fixed storage structure 400 comprises the same transfer units 100 (shelves) as the robot carrier 300.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Kovacic, and Werfring, and Son, and further in view of Gorman, John G., US 2020/0324974 (hereinafter Smith).
Chen in view of Kovacic, Werfring, and Son teaches the limitations of claim 14 but not:
further comprising: a mobile application interface enabling customers to: place orders, receive order status notifications, and initiate product retrieval operations.While Son teaches an automated store, it does not teach the use of a mobile app to perform the recited functions.
Gorman, an invention in the field of conveyer automation, teaches:
further comprising: a mobile application interface enabling customers to: place orders, receive order status notifications, and initiate product retrieval operations.Gorman teaches the use of a mobile app for its UI in [0091] and the other paragraphs cited. It teaches ordering in [0182], status notification in [0190], and retrieval in [0183].
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 Chen, Kovacic, Werfring, and Son, further comprising: a mobile application interface enabling customers to: place orders, receive order status notifications, and initiate product retrieval operations, as taught by Gorman, because these functions must be performed by an automated or unstaffed kiosk or store in order for a customer to be able to purchase and receive goods, and because the use of a customer’s mobile phone or similar device provides both increased convenience and the possibility of remote ordering over the older alternative of a fixed terminal in the store or kiosk. Of course, the use of mobile apps for ordering and receiving goods is widespread and commonplace in many commercial arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
Claims 3, 6, 16, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent method claim 8, while the combination of the three cited references Chen, Kovacic, and Werfring is considered to demonstrate the obviousness of some of applicant’s system claims, they do not teach the manifold method steps of claim 8 associated with that system. The combination of cited references merely has the capability of performing the method and does not explicitly teach applicant’s full method. Moreover no combination of other references teach all these steps taken together, especially including first selecting an optimal storage shelf based on delivery time and then, as part of bagging, placing items onto a bag and then lifting side portions of a vacuum-cup-secured bag around the articles to be purchased by a customer. We note that the majority of automatic bagging machines known to the art appear either to form a bag around articles to be packed or else first open a bag and then place articles into the bag from above, rather than employing applicant’s method of placing a bag flat, placing articles on the bag, and raising the bag around the articles to enclose them. In the context of applicant’s other steps of receiving a customer order from a mobile app, moving a delivery box to align with a storage shelf, and enabling customer retrieval of items using the mobile app (we note that these more commonplace steps could have been taught in combination by other references), the total method was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claims 9-13 inherit the allowability of claim 8.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 16, the combinations of Chen, Kovacic, and Werfring (and Son for claim 16) is rather complex as it stands when cited in the rejection of parent claims 1 and 14 (though we consider that together the combination satisfies the obviousness requirements of 35 U.S.C. 103). These references together and separately do not teach a conveyor that includes both bottom and top sliders, a conveyor belt, and also a linear actuator as required in claims 3 and 16. While all these various features are known to conveyor arts, we could not plausibly motivate their further combination with Chen, Kovacic, and Werfring (and Son for claim 16) as taught by other references without the contrived appearance of design by hindsight, an indicator for nonobviousness. Thus, the matter of these claims was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 18, while certain limitations of these claims are taught by other references, none of the references cited in rejection of the parent claims teach the claimed optimization of shelf storage position with respect to delivery time and customer proximity. Given the complexity of the combination invoked to reject the parent claims, we deemed the further combination of Chen, Kovacic, Werfring, and Son with a new reference to involve a contrived agglomeration of features which would have the appearance of design by hindsight and hence would fail to demonstrate obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim 18 further ramifies the untaught optimization feature of claim 6 with coordinated multi-shelf retrieval for large orders along with storage location reassignment. Again, these features are individually taught by other references but could not be combined in a simple enough manner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to do so. Thus, the matter of these claims 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 2,948,363 teaches an early example of applicant’s telescoping sleeved elevator. US 6,637,178 teaches the use of vacuum cups to secure the bottom of a bag. US 2020/0255218 teaches the use of hooks to match rings on the side of a bag for the purpose of lifting the bag.
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