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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329.
The judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is intended to prevent the unjustified extension of patent rights beyond the term of a patent. See In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892–93 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MPEP §804.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical in scope and therefore do not support a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, the claims are not patentably distinct because the presently claimed subject matter merely constitutes an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329.
Claims 1–20 of the instant application are directed generally to an inventory system and inventory method employing storage and retrieval equipment and handling equipment operating under a control system for transporting inventory receptacles within a warehouse environment.
Claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329 are likewise directed to an inventory system and inventory method including storage and retrieval equipment, handling equipment, dispatch instructions, inventory receptacles, inventory racks, and movement of inventory receptacles to service destinations.
Instant claim 1 recites:
an inventory system comprising a control system;
target storage and retrieval equipment;
target handling equipment including a jacking mechanism;
determining a target inventory receptacle;
determining target storage and retrieval equipment and target handling equipment;
sending a first dispatching instruction to the target storage and retrieval equipment and a second dispatching instruction to the target handling equipment;
the target storage and retrieval equipment taking out the target inventory receptacle and directly or indirectly providing the target inventory receptacle to the target handling equipment; and
the target handling equipment obtaining the target inventory receptacle using the jacking mechanism and transporting the target inventory receptacle to a workstation.
Patent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329 recites:
a control system;
storage and retrieval equipments;
handling equipments;
each handling equipment including a jacking mechanism and a target identification assembly;
determining a target inventory receptacle;
determining target storage and retrieval equipment and target handling equipment;
sending a dispatching instruction;
taking out the target inventory receptacle;
directly or indirectly providing the target inventory receptacle;
obtaining the target inventory receptacle using the jacking mechanism and target identification assembly;
identifying and aligning the target inventory receptacle as the jacking mechanism lifts the target inventory receptacle; and
transporting the target inventory receptacle to a workstation.
The patented claims therefore teach all limitations of instant claim 1 except that Patent 12,293,329 additionally requires a target identification assembly as part of the handling equipment and utilizes a common dispatching instruction rather than separate first and second dispatching instructions.
Providing separate dispatching instructions instead of a single dispatching instruction represents an obvious implementation choice that would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in warehouse control architectures.
Likewise, omission of the target identification assembly from the independent claim merely broadens the patented invention and does not impart patentable distinction.
Patent claim 1 expressly recites:
the target identification assembly identifies and aligns the target inventory receptacle as the jacking mechanism lifts the target inventory receptacle.
The instant application merely relocates this feature into dependent claim 10.
Accordingly, instant claim 1 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 1.
Instant claims 2–5 recite indirect transfer positions, transfer locations outside rack areas, direct transfer to handling equipment, and adjacent positioning.
Patent claims 2–4 recite substantially identical subject matter including:
preset transfer positions;
movement to transfer positions;
direct placement onto handling equipment; and
adjacent preset locations.
The differences between the claims constitute minor variations in wording and scope that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2–5 therefore are not patentably distinct over claims 2–4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329.
Instant claims 6–8 recite:
storage space identification marks;
receptacle identification marks;
bottommost compartment storage floors;
storage racks arranged below compartments.
Patent claims 5–7 recite corresponding limitations directed to:
storage space identification marks;
receptacle identification marks;
bottom-floor storage positions; and
inventory receptacle transfer between higher-floor positions and bottom-floor positions.
These limitations differ only in design implementation and would have been obvious design alternatives.
Claims 6–8 are therefore unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting.
Instant claim 9 recites:
target inventory receptacles located in rear rows;
temporary storage racks;
sequential removal of obstructing inventory receptacles;
restoration of inventory receptacles after retrieval.
Patent claim 8 recites substantially identical functionality involving:
rear-row receptacles;
temporary storage spaces;
sequential movement of obstructing receptacles;
restoration to original locations.
Patent claim 8 therefore renders instant claim 9 patentably indistinct.
Instant claim 10 recites:
target handling equipment further includes a target identification assembly;
target identification assembly identifies and aligns the target inventory receptacle as the jacking mechanism lifts the target inventory receptacle.
Patent claim 1 expressly recites the identical feature in independent form.
Thus, instant claim 10 is directly encompassed by patent claim 1 and is not patentably distinct therefrom.
Claims 11–20 are method claims corresponding substantially to the system limitations recited in claims 1–10.
Patent claims 9–20 recite corresponding method limitations including:
determining target inventory receptacles;
determining storage and retrieval equipment;
determining handling equipment;
dispatch instructions;
direct and indirect transfer;
identification marks;
rear-row retrieval operations;
target identification assemblies; and
inventory handling tasks.
The method claims of the instant application merely rearrange claim scope and presentation of limitations already recited in the patented claims.
Such variations constitute obvious modifications that would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the warehouse automation arts.
Accordingly, claims 11–20 are not patentably distinct over claims 9–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329.
The presently claimed invention merely omits certain limitations required by the patented claims, broadens certain features already claimed in the patent, or rearranges claim presentation between independent and dependent form.
These distinctions do not define a separate and patentably distinct invention.
Claims 1–20 are therefore rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,329.
This rejection may be overcome by: Filing a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c), if appropriate; or Demonstrating that the claims are patentably distinct from the patented claims. See MPEP §§804, 804.02, and 804.02(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights