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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control system in claims 21 and 38-40.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 21-40 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.
Claims 21-40 lack a transitional phrase (i.e., “comprising” or “consisting of”) and therefore it is not clear whether the claims are open-ended or closed. Furthermore, it is not clear where the preamble to the claim ends and body of the claim begins. See MPEP 2111.03 regarding transitional phrases.
In order to further examine the claims, they will be interpreted as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gachisoft (KR 20170047844 A).
Consider claim 21. Gachisoft teaches a control system configured to: control transport of an article carried by a computer controlled transport vehicle (1) to a destination, wherein a tray, belt, or carrier (14) attached to the computer controlled transport vehicle engages the article; and manipulate the tray, belt, or carrier from a first position to a second position to deposit the article at the destination (see fig. 8), wherein the manipulation is adjusted to adjust a deposit period for the article (time of deposit).
Consider claim 37. Gachisoft teaches that the computer controlled transport vehicle comprises a push bar for diverting the article (bar at lateral side of 14; see fig. 1a).
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.
Claims 22-27, 30-35, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gachisoft (KR 20170047844 A) in view of Lykkegaard (US 2015/0122611 A1).
Consider claims 22-27. Gachisoft teaches adjusting a diverting attribute of a diverting arm to deposit the article at the destination (angle of arms at lateral sides of 14; see fig. 1a), but does not explicitly teach that the manipulation is further adjusted based on a characteristic determined for the article. Lykkegaard teaches a control system configured to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for an article (see paragraph [0021]), the characteristic comprises one or more of: a deposit acceleration, a deposit angle, a deposit period, and a deposit movement (see paragraph [0021]), the manipulation occurs over a specific span of time (period of inclination angle adjustment), adjusting a pushing attribute (angle a) of a pushing device (A1, A2) to deposit the article at the destination, the pushing attribute based on the characteristic determined for the article (see paragraph [0021], and the characteristic determined for the article is one of: acquired by the control system, and provided to the control system (see paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gachisoft’s control system to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for the article as taught by Lykkegaard in order to adapt to articles having different shapes, weights, orientations, etc. (see Lykkegaard, paragraph [0021]).
Consider claim 30. Lykkegaard teaches that the control system is further configured to: adjust a deceleration of a speed of the manipulation of the tray, belt, or carrier from a first position to a second position to cause the article to slide across a tray surface, traverse a belt, or move away from the computer controlled transport vehicle, and deposit at the destination (adjust from moving to not moving along the surface).
Consider claim 31. Lykkegaard teaches that the control system is further configured to: adjust an acceleration of a speed of the manipulation of the tray, belt, or carrier from the first position to the second position to cause the article to slide across a tray surface, traverse a belt, or move away from the computer controlled transport vehicle, and deposit at the destination (adjust from not moving to moving along the surface).
Consider claim 32. Lykkegaard teaches that the system is further configured to: set a first deposit angle for a first article, and set a second deposit angle different from the first deposit angle for a second article (see fig. 11 and paragraph [0021]).
Consider claim 33. Lykkegaard teaches that the tray, belt or carrier carries two articles at a same time, wherein the system is further configured to: set a first deposit angle for a first article, andset a second deposit angle different from the first deposit angle for a second article (see fig. 11 and paragraph [0021]).
Consider claim 34. Lykkegaard teaches that the system is further configured to a maintain a sortation criteria of the article to thereby maintain a predetermined orientation of the article (see fig. 11 and paragraph [0021]).
Consider claim 35. Gachisoft teaches that the system is further configured to eliminate a chance of the article being mis-diverted to a wrong destination (by maintaining proper inclination; see fig. 11 and paragraph [0021]).
Consider claim 39. Gachisoft teaches a control system configured to: control transport of an article carried by a computer controlled transport vehicle (1) to a destination, wherein a tray (14) attached to the computer controlled transport vehicle engages the article, wherein the tray comprises a tilting divert mechanism (see fig. 8); and manipulate the tray from a first position to a second position to deposit the article at the destination (see fig. 8).
Gachisoft does not explicitly teach that the manipulation is adjusted based on a characteristic determined for the article. Lykkegaard teaches a control system configured to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for an article (see paragraph [0021]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gachisoft’s control system to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for the article as taught by Lykkegaard in order to adapt to articles having different shapes, weights, orientations, etc. (see Lykkegaard, paragraph [0021]).
Consider claim 40. Gachisoft teaches a control system configured to: control transport of an article carried by a computer controlled transport vehicle (1) to a destination, wherein a tray, belt, or carrier (14) attached to the computer controlled transport vehicle engages the article; and manipulate the tray, belt, or carrier from a first position to a second position to deposit the article at the destination (see fig. 8), wherein the manipulation occurs over a specific span of time (time of deposit).
Gachisoft does not explicitly teach that the manipulation is adjusted based on a characteristic determined for the article. Lykkegaard teaches a control system configured to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for an article (see paragraph [0021]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gachisoft’s control system to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for the article as taught by Lykkegaard in order to adapt to articles having different shapes, weights, orientations, etc. (see Lykkegaard, paragraph [0021]).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gachisoft (KR 20170047844 A) in view of Applewhite et al. (US 2011/0229292 A1), hereafter referred to as Applewhite.
Consider claims 28 and 29. Gachisoft does not explicitly teach that the destination is a receptacle. Applewhite teaches manipulation of a tray, belt, or carrier (40) from a first position (fig. 4) to a second position (fig. 5), causing an article to deposit at a receptacle (20) that is one of a: tote (20), carton, bag, and Gaylord liner. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gachisoft’s control system with a receptacle as taught by Applewhite in order to safely contain the article for further transportation or processing.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gachisoft (KR 20170047844 A) in view of Lykkegaard (US 2015/0122611 A1) in view of Applewhite (US 2011/0229292 A1).
Consider claim 38. Gachisoft teaches a control system configured to: control transport of an article carried by a computer controlled transport vehicle (1) to a destination, wherein a tray, belt, or carrier (14) attached to the computer controlled transport vehicle engages the article; and manipulate the tray, belt, or carrier from a first position to a second position to deposit the article at the destination (see fig. 8).
Gachisoft does not explicitly teach that the manipulation is adjusted based on a characteristic determined for the article to adjust a deposit characteristic of the article. Lykkegaard teaches a control system configured to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for an article to adjust a deposit characteristic of the article (see paragraph [0021]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gachisoft’s control system to adjust manipulation based on a characteristic determined for the article to adjust a deposit characteristic of the article as taught by Lykkegaard in order to adapt to articles having different shapes, weights, orientations, etc. (see Lykkegaard, paragraph [0021]).
Gachisoft in view of Lykkegaard does not explicitly teach that the destination is one of: a tote, a carton, a bag and, a Gaylord liner. Applewhite teaches manipulation of a tray, belt, or carrier (40) from a first position (fig. 4) to a second position (fig. 5), causing an article to deposit at one of a: tote (20), carton, bag, and Gaylord liner. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of Gachisoft in view of Lykkegaard with a tote as taught by Applewhite in order to safely contain the article for further transportation or processing.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-26, 28-32, and 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,351,092. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims use equivalent language and the instant claims encompass the patented claims.
Conclusion
There are currently no prior art rejections for claim 36.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652