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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 26,40,45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maynard et al. PGPub 2005/0095094 in view of Wagner et al. PGPub 2018/0273297.
Maynard discloses, regarding claim 26, A robotic material handling system comprising:
a vehicle (10) with transport wheels (24) rotatably mounted thereon, the vehicle comprising a material handler (12; see at least fig.44,45) with a tilt tray (14) having a first section configured for tilting at a first angle relative to a vertical of the vehicle to deposit a first article carried on the first section, and a second section configured for tilting at a second angle different from the first angle relative to the vertical of the vehicle to deposit a second article carried on the second section (see at least fig.4,9,13 and ¶0103).
Maynard further discloses a controller (11) configured to direct the vehicle to autonomously deliver the first article to a destination container (see at least ¶0097,0099), but does not expressly disclose a wireless controller configured to direct the vehicle to autonomously deliver the first article to a destination container.
Wagner teaches the use of a wireless controller (70) configured to direct the vehicle (130) to autonomously deliver the first article to a destination container (32) (see at least ¶0079, fig.15).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the controller with wireless capabilities, as taught by Wagner, in the device of Maynard, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of enabling communication over short or long distances while saving the cost of not having to provide wiring between a transmitter and receiver.
Maynard further discloses, regarding claim 40, wherein the first section of the tilt tray deposits the first article in the destination container; and, the second section of the tilt tray deposits the second article in one of: the first destination container, and a second destination container (see at least fig.4,9,13, ¶0103).
Regarding claim 45, wherein the first section of the tilt tray and the second section of the tilt tray are further configured to tilt in a same direction relative to the vertical of the vehicle (in the direction towards destination containers 21; see fig.4).
5. Claims 38,39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maynard et al. PGPub 2005/0095094 and Wagner et al. PGPub 2018/0273297 further in view of Forrest PGPub 2003/0121760.
Maynard discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 38,39.
Forrest teaches [regarding claim 38] wherein the first section of the tilt tray is set at the first angle for depositing the first article (“predetermined operating angle” disclosed in ¶0031, fig.1,4), and [regarding claim 39] wherein the second section of the tilt tray is set at the first angle for depositing the second article (“predetermined operating angle” disclosed in ¶0031, fig.1,4).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the first section of the tilt tray is at the first angle for depositing the first article, set the second section of the tilt tray is at the first angle for depositing the second article, as taught by Forrest, in the device of Maynard, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of evenly distributing the load in different directions (see at least Abstract).
6. Claims 27,32-34,36,41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maynard et al. PGPub 2005/0095094 and Wagner et al. PGPub 2018/0273297 further in view of Kappelgaard et a. USP 7,212,884.
Maynard discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 27,32-34,36,41-43.
Kappelgaard teaches [regarding claim 27] the controller configured to send instructions to the material handler to adjust a delivery parameter of the first article [regarding claim 42] wherein adjusting the delivery parameter comprises adjusting one or more of a: tilt speed, tilt angle, acceleration of tilt, and travel speed of the article according to a characteristic of the article, [regarding claim 41] and travel speed of an article moving down either of the first and second section of the tilt tray, [regarding claim 36] wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the delivery parameter by adjusting a motion parameter of a tilt tray section, and [regarding claim 43] wherein the characteristic of the article comprises: a weight, a volume, or a specific handling requirement of an article (C4/L58-64).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller to send instructions to the material handler to adjust a delivery parameter of the first article, wherein adjusting the delivery parameter comprises adjusting one or more of a: tilt speed, tilt angle, acceleration of tilt, and travel speed of the article according to a characteristic of the article, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the delivery parameter by adjusting a motion parameter of a tilt tray section, and wherein the characteristic of the article comprises: a weight, a volume, or a specific handling requirement of an article, as taught by Kappelgaard, in the device of Maynard, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of handling an article in accordance with article properties so as to prevent damage (C4/L61-64).
Kappelgaard further teaches [regarding claim 32] wherein at least one of the first section and second section of the tilt tray comprises a conveyor that moves relative to a plate portion of the tilt tray section (C4/L6-15), [regarding claim 33] further comprising a controller configured to adjust the delivery parameter by adjusting a speed of a moving belt of the conveyor according to product specifications of an article moved by the conveyor (C4/L58-60), [regarding claim 34] wherein a travel speed of an article moving down the first section or the second section of the tilt tray is controlled by adjusting a speed of the conveyor (C4/L58-60).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the first section and second section of the tilt tray comprises a conveyor that moves relative to a plate portion of the tilt tray section, further comprising a controller configured to adjust the delivery parameter by adjusting a speed of a moving belt of the conveyor according to product specifications of an article moved by the conveyor, wherein a travel speed of an article moving down the first section or the second section of the tilt tray is controlled by adjusting a speed of the conveyor, as taught by Kappelgaard, in the device of Maynard, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of facilitating easier handling and distribution of articles.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 29-31,35,37,44 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.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Michael C McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights