Obviousness

Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

To determine obviousness, we consider whether a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have found the claimed invention of US patent 11273944 obvious at the time of the invention, given the prior art. This involves identifying a primary reference, and then looking for secondary references that would motivate a PHOSITA to combine them to arrive at the claimed invention.

Claim 1 Analysis

Claim 1 describes an adaptive container packaging assembly including:

• A container forming assembly providing varying sized containers.
• A product transport assembly with a robot arm to position product.
• A container shuttle assembly with:
  • A linear synchronous motor (LSM) guideway in an endless loop.
  • Multiple transport vehicles, each with multiple shuttles spaced apart to accommodate varying sized containers.
  • Each shuttle having an upper body secured to first and second guide rollers, and a carrier assembly on the upper planar surface.
  • The carrier assembly includes a pair of parallel first carrier sections, a second carrier section between and parallel to the first, and a holding block transverse to the first carrier sections.
  • Each first carrier section has leading extension members and a trailing extension member.

Primary Reference:

The patent itself incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,177,930 ("'930 patent") for the construction of the container forming apparatus, specifically for forming paperboard containers from flat blanks. The '930 patent therefore serves as an excellent starting point as it is directly related to a core component of the claimed invention.

Motivation to Combine and Secondary References:

A PHOSITA would be motivated to improve the efficiency and adaptability of the container forming apparatus described in the '930 patent, especially in environments requiring handling of varying sized containers, which the '930 patent may not explicitly address as a primary feature in the context of an adaptive loading assembly.

1. Linear Synchronous Motor (LSM) Guideway and Variable Spacing Shuttles:

   • U.S. Pat. No. 8,074,578 ("'578 patent") and U.S. Pat. No. 8,863,669 ("'669 patent") are explicitly incorporated by reference in US11273944 for the construction of the LSM guideway and the versatile control of linear synchronous motor propulsion systems. These patents disclose LSM systems with "long-stator linear motor sections" including "propulsion coils" and "position sensing logic" for controlling vehicle movement, velocity, and acceleration.
   • The motivation to combine the container forming capabilities of the '930 patent with an LSM guideway as taught by the '578 and '669 patents would be to achieve greater flexibility and efficiency in transporting containers of varying sizes. The '578 and '669 patents describe systems that allow for precise control over individual "shuttles" or "transport vehicles," enabling variable spacing between them. This directly addresses the problem of efficiently handling "varying sized containers" without downtime for adjustments, as highlighted in US11273944. A PHOSITA would recognize that such a system would eliminate the inefficiencies of "fixed pitch" systems for varying container sizes.
   • The concept of using a pair of shuttles (leading and trailing) spaced apart by a determined distance to accommodate varying sized containers is a direct application of the variable control capabilities of LSM systems described in the '578 and '669 patents.

2. Robot Arm for Product Positioning:

   • The use of a robot arm to position products in containers is a well-established practice in automated packaging. Patents such as US9309017B2 ("'017 patent") and US9731854B2 ("'854 patent") describe item loading apparatuses and product packaging systems, respectively, which commonly employ robotic arms for handling and placing products.
   • A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate a robot arm into the adaptive container loading assembly to automate the product loading step, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing manual labor. The robot arm, guided by a vision device (also a common component in automated systems), would complement the adaptive container forming and transport, completing a fully automated and flexible packaging line.

3. Specific Carrier Assembly and Holding Block Features:

   • While the specific design of the carrier assembly with its first and second carrier sections, leading and trailing extension members, and holding block might appear detailed, these elements are primarily mechanical solutions for securely holding and transferring containers on the shuttles. A PHOSITA, when designing a system to carry various container sizes on independently controlled shuttles, would consider various geometries for secure and adaptable gripping.
   • For example, a "fork shaped" first carrier section with leading and trailing extension members and a "u-shaped" pair of leading extension members would be conventional mechanical designs for engaging and supporting containers. Similarly, a holding block with "l-shaped" stops is a straightforward means to further secure a container. These structural elements would be within the purview of a mechanical engineer (a PHOSITA in this field) seeking to create a stable platform for containers on a moving shuttle, particularly one designed to adapt to different container sizes. The design of these elements would be an obvious choice for a PHOSITA optimizing container stability and transfer efficiency.

Conclusion:

A PHOSITA, seeking to create a more efficient and adaptive container loading assembly than what might be found in the '930 patent alone, would be motivated to combine its container forming capabilities with the LSM guideway and shuttle control systems taught by the '578 and '669 patents to enable variable spacing for different container sizes. Further, the integration of a robotic arm for product placement, as generally known in the art (e.g., from '017 or '854 patents), would be an obvious step for automating the entire process. The specific mechanical details of the carrier assembly and holding block would be considered conventional engineering solutions for securely handling containers of varying sizes on such a transport system. Therefore, the combination of these prior art references would render claim 1 of US11273944 obvious to a PHOSITA.