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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/203,572 filled on 05/09/2025.
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the dot (.) at the beginning of line 6-7 of claim 1 should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1-13, the reference number in punctuation marks () should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the vicinity” on line 14 (in step C1) to be corrected as “[[the]]a vicinity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 cites the phrase “different orders” one line 1 (in the preamble”, is the phrase referred to “different orders” as cited in the claim 1. Then the phrase “different orders” one line 1 of claim 2 to be corrected as “the different orders”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 cites “order-specific goods sector (7, 7.1, 7.2), where in claim 2 cites “a plurality of goods sectors (7, 7.1, 7.2)”.
Claims 9 and 10 cite the phrase “the good sectors (7)”. There is no specifically cited “goods sectors (7), instead claim 1 cites order-specific goods sectors. A consistency of wording of the phrase is required in the claims.
Claim 4 is directed to a picking system and depends on method claim 1. Claim 4 to be written as an independent “A system” claim including all the limitations of method claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is directed to “A computer program” claim and depends on method claim 1. Claim 12 to be written as an independent “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” claim including all the limitations of method claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is directed to “A computer program” claim and depends on method claim 2. Claim 13 to be written as an independent “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” claim including all the limitations of method claims 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
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 “computer program”, “non-transitory medium” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a computer program, computer, processor unit, memory unit, server, CPU, GPU” as described in the specification, Para. [0034]-[0035]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1-13, the claims cites reference number in punctuation marks (), where is not clear whether the reference numbers in the punctuation marks is a part of the claimed invention. In order to overcome the rejection, the reference number in the punctuation marks in claims 1-13 to be deleted or re-write the claims, such as, in claim 1, the phrase “picking goods (5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)” to be re-written as “picking the first good
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the receiving device can be marked by light signal” on line 2, however, based on the currently provided language it is unclear whether the receiving device is marked by light signal. Specifically, based on the currently provided claim language, the phrase "can be marked" is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Claim 1 cites “order-specific goods sectors (7, 7.1, 7.2), where in claims 2, 4, 12 and 13 cites “a plurality of goods sectors (7, 7.1, 7.2)”, which makes the claim conflict of interest and/or unclear because the same reference numbers (7, 7.1, 7.2) in the parenthesis are referred to two different goods sectors, i.e., “order-specific” goods sectors and in general, plurality of goods sectors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims 12 and 13 recite “A computer program” stored on a non-transitory medium comprising instructions….”. Considering the open ended definition of the computer program, it is computer software per se and is not a "process," a "machine," a "manufacture" or a "composition of matter," as defined in 35 USC § 101. In order to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicants are advised to amend the claim limitations as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having therein computer program comprising instructions….”.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), 35 U.S.C. 101, claims and drawings/specification objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Wolter Michael (EP4234460, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wolter) teaches a method for picking goods assigned to different orders using a first picking system (See Para. [0005], [0030], [0033], “the present invention relates not only to a picking system, but also to a picking method. The picking method according to the invention for the automatic assembly of order-specific pallets of goods in a central warehouse”) comprising a first automated guided vehicle (See Para. [0005], “the object of the present invention is to provide a picking system and a picking method of the type mentioned above, with which a fully automatic assembly of order-specific pallets of goods in a central warehouse”, and Para. [0030], “the loaded goods pallet can be transported by an automated guided vehicle on a travel path”), wherein a first good is assigned to a first order (See Para. [0007], “a number of loading stations for the order-specific pallets of goods to be loaded”) and
a second good is assigned to a second order (see Para. [0008], “pallets of goods with the goods required to fill the order-specific pallets of goods are provided at a plurality of transfer stations provided for this purpose, wherein these pallets of goods are advantageously transported to the respective transfer station by means of at least one autonomously driving, driverless transport vehicle and are placed there - preferably on a fixed storage position of the respective transfer station - in a stable manner”), with the following steps:
A1) providing the first good to be picked, assigned to the first order, at a first transfer position (see Para. [0008], “pallets of goods are advantageously transported to the respective transfer station by means of at least one autonomously driving, driverless transport vehicle and are placed there preferably on a fixed storage position of the respective transfer station”),
B1) picking up the first good to be picked at the first transfer position by an order picker (See Para. [0019], “automatic picking (such as, in particular, the at least one driverless transport vehicle for transporting the various pallets of goods to and from the site”),
C1) positioning the first automated guided vehicle together with the first picking system in the vicinity of the order picker (See Para. [0005], [0013], “the goods in question must be visibly provided at one of the transfer stations (and supplied to the relevant loading station by means of the loading robot), which may also require an exchange of the pallet of goods provided at a specific transfer station for another pallet of goods containing the goods still to be loaded during the picking process”),
E1) placing the first good to be picked in the first goods sector of the first goods receiving device by the order picker (See Para. [0035], “Goods containers are removed from a goods pallet and then places/stacked onto a goods pallet located at lodading station”),
A2) providing the second good to be picked, assigned to the second order, at a second transfer position (See Para. [0009], “pallet of apples can be provided at a first transfer station and a pallet of pears at a second transfer station”),
B2) picking up the second good to be picked at the second transfer position by the order picker (See Para. [0012], “picking apple and transport it to a suitable position on the goods pallet”),
C2) positioning the first automated guided vehicle together with the first order picking system in the vicinity of the order picker (See Para. [0019], “the driverless transport vehicles and the loading robot must also be able to determine their exact position and orientation within the order picking system in a suitable manner”), and
E2) placing the second good to be picked in the second goods sector of the first goods receiving device by the order picker (See Para. [0012], “picking goods and transport it to a pallet”).
Another prior art, Lindley et al. (US 2021/0269243, this reference is from IDS) teaches in para. [0002], “the invention relates to a storage and order-picking system for picking at least one ordered good into or onto a target loading aid, which comprises a first storage zone for storing goods of different types of good with the help of first loading aids, in which a plurality of goods are respectively receivable. Further, the storage and order-picking system has a second storage zone for storing the goods of different types of good with the help of second loading aids”.
Another prior art, Toebes (US 2016/0176638 A1) teaches, the automated guided vehicle 10 rotates so that the X axis of the automated guided vehicle 10 faces the storage locations 30S.
Nevertheless, the teaching of the prior arts as discussed above fails or suggest to teach the claimed feature of “a first goods receiving device rotatably mounted on the first automated guided vehicle for receiving goods in order- specific goods sectors assigned to the different orders, rotating the first goods receiving device relative to the first automated guided vehicle in such a way that a first goods sector of the first goods receiving device assigned to the first order faces the order picker, and rotating the first goods receiving device relative to the first automated guided vehicle in such a way that a second goods sector of the first goods receiving device assigned to the second order faces the order picker” and in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-13 depends either directly or indirectly upon claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-13 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency if claims are re-written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), 35 U.S.C. 101, claims and drawing/specification objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights