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
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 26, 37-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,014 in view of US 2012/0101627.
Regarding claim 26 of the instant application, all of the features, including the elevated platform, the mobile transport device including wheels and configured to transport and deposit a selected article to a receiving platform; and a controller configured to: receive an order, direct delivery to a selected article to a delivery location, direct the mobile transport device to transport the selected article and sort the selected article and determine the order has been completed are claimed in claim 1 of the previously issued patent.
US ‘014 does not specifically teach that the controller is configured to direct removal of the receiving container and update a status of the order, as claimed. US ‘627 teaches a system for order fulfilling including a controller configured to control the steps of the system, where the controller directs removal of the an order receiving containers and updates the statues of the order, see paragraph 0080.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the controller steps taught by US ‘627 with the system of US ‘014 in order to achieve the predictable result of managing and monitoring the order picking system to indicate when orders are fulfilled and ready to ship.
Regarding claims 37-45, the US ‘014 claims these features in corresponding claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, and 18. While the claim language is not identical, the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims of issued patent.
Claims 26, 37-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 17, 20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,447 in view of US 2012/0101627.
Regarding claim 26 of the instant application, all of the features, including the elevated platform, the mobile transport device including wheels and configured to transport and deposit a selected article to a receiving platform; and a controller configured to: receive an order, direct delivery to a selected article to a delivery location, direct the mobile transport device to transport the selected article and sort the selected article and determine the order has been completed are claimed in claim 1 of the previously issued patent.
US ‘447 does not specifically teach that the controller is configured to direct removal of the receiving container and update a status of the order, as claimed. US ‘627 teaches a system for order fulfilling including a controller configured to control the steps of the system, where the controller directs removal of the order receiving containers and updates the statues of the order, see paragraph 0080.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the controller steps taught by US ‘627 with the system of US ‘447 in order to achieve the predictable result of managing and monitoring the order picking system to indicate when orders are fulfilled and ready to ship.
Regarding claims 37-45, the US ‘44 claims these features in corresponding claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 17, 20, and 22. While the claim language is not identical, the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims of issued patent.
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.
Claim(s) 26-33, 35-38, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toebes (US 10,214,354) in view of Lert (US 2012/0101627).
Regarding claim 26, Toebes teaches a system comprising:
a platform, 70, elevated from a proximal surface, a layout of the platform comprising a plurality of fingers extending from a highway, see figures 1a, where the fingers are the aisles between storage racks and the highway is the floor space at the bottom of the figure;
a mobile transport device,10, including wheels that contact the platform for the mobile transport device for travel about the platform, the mobile transport device configured to transport and deposit a selected article to a receiving container, 540, proximal the platform; and
a controller configured to:
receive an order;
direct delivery of a selected article to a delivery location;
direct the mobile transport device to transport the selected article received at the delivery location and sort the selected article to the receiving container, wherein the receiving container corresponds to the order, see column 12, line 17 through column 13, line 24.
Toebes does not teach that the controller is also configured to:
determine the order has been completed;
direct removal of the receiving container; and update a status of the order in an electronic database. US ‘627 teaches a system for order fulfilling including a controller configured to control the steps of the system, where the controller directs removal of the order receiving containers and updates the statues of the order, see paragraph 0080.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the controller steps taught by US ‘627 with the system of Toebes in order to achieve the predictable result of managing and monitoring the order picking system to indicate when orders are fulfilled and ready to ship.
Regarding claim 27, Toebes teaches the layout of the platform comprises three fingers extending from the highway, see figure 1A.
Regarding claim 28, Toebes teaches a width of the highway is greater than the width of a finger, see finger 1A.
Regarding claim 29, Toebes teaches the layout of the platform comprises a multiple level arrangement comprising a lower-level platform and a higher-level platform, see figures 1B and 1C.
Regarding claim 30, Toebes teaches a first type of products are handled on the lower- level platform and a second type of products are handled on the higher-level platform, where it is understood that storage containers, 40, are stored on the racks and hold different types of products and are handled by mobile transport devices on the lower and upper levels.
Regarding claim 31, Toebes teaches the selected article is deposited into the receiving container through an opening in the platform, see the VTSL and VSR, which are openings in the platform that mobile transport travels through to deposit articles into the receiving containers.
Regarding claim 32, Toebes teaches a plurality of delivery locations, 80, are arranged along the highway.
Regarding claim 33, Toebes teaches a plurality of storage devices are arranged along a finger, 30S.
Regarding claim 35, Toebes teaches the delivery location comprises a destination container, wherein an order-removing equipment, 10’, performs removal of the destination container.
Regarding claim 36, Toebes teaches the order-removing equipment comprises one of: a rail-based equipment, an autonomous mobile robot (AMR), and an automated guided vehicle (AGV), 10’.
Regarding claim 37, Toebes teaches comprising an information acquisition device configured to interact with an identifier associated with the selected article, see column 5, lines 30+ which teaches reading SKUs on products.
Regarding claim 38, Toebes teaches a destination for the selected article is determined based on an interaction of the information acquisition device with the identifier, see column 5, lines 30+.
Regarding claim 40, Toebes teaches the delivery location comprises an elevator, VTSL, configured for transporting the selected article to an above floor level or a below floor level.
Regarding claim 41, Toebes teaches the system is installed at one of: a retail store, a fully or partially automated retail order fulfillment store, and a local fulfilment center, see column 2, lines 53+.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toebes (US 10,214,354) in view of Lert (US 2012/0101627) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Mohan et al. (US 2020/0017297).
Regarding claim 39, Toebes teaches the system is used inside a an order fulfillment center, not necessarily a retail store. Mohan et al. teaches an order fulfillment system that is used inside a retail store, where a delivery location is an aisle segment of a retail store, see figure 1 and paragraph 0025. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to used the delivery system taught by the combination of Toebes and Lert inside a retail store, as taught by Mohan et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of automating the order picking within a retail store.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, 42-45 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.
Claim 34 claims that the platform assembly includes wheels. The examiner was unable to find a teaching of system, as claimed, that includes an elevated platform that includes wheels to provide mobility. The platforms of the prior art, such as taught by Toebes, are fixed within a space, such as a warehouse, and are not mobile.
Claim 42 claims that the system further includes a hanging vehicle. Toebes does not teach the hanging vehicle, as claimed. While hanging vehicles are well known in the prior art, see previously cited references to Peng, the prior art does not teach the combined system as claimed including the hanging vehicles and mobile transport vehicles. There is no motivation to modify the prior art to teach the full system, as claimed, and as such, claim 42 and claims that depends therefore are found to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included to show further examples of order fulfillment systems similar to the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
18 February 2026