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
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 20 and its dependent claims have been withdrawn.
No arguments were made with respect to claims 21 and 22
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 20, 1 ,2, 23 and 38-42 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.
Applicant amended claim 20 to remove the alternative placement language by replacing ORs with. This renders the claim unclear as the blocking container can only be in one of the positions listed at a time. The claim should be rewritten in a way similar to ‘that the placing-back position is chosen from an original storage position of the at least one blocking container, an original storage position of the target container and other empty storage position; or picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot’. Applicant is not required to use the language suggested by the examiner. Claims 40-42 have a similar issue to that cited in claim 20 as they claim alternative embodiments but do not use alternative language leaving the claims reading as the blocking container options can exist at the same time. Appropriate amendments to claim 20 and 40-42 to clarify that these are a selection of options chosen from and not coexistent outcomes.
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) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. US 2019/0352092 in view of Zhang et al. CN 107226310 A.
Zheng discloses an electronic device, comprising:
(Re claim 21) “at least one memory and at least one processor” (‘AGV’ abstract, para 0008), . “the at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions, and the at least one processor is used to execute the computer-readable instructions, wherein, the at least one processor executes the computer-readable instructions to achieve a container transporting method based on dense storage, the method comprising at least one of a picking-up process and a return process, wherein the picking-up process comprises: picking-up, in a case that at least one blocking container that blocks pickup of a target container is stored on a storage rack, the at least one blocking container from the storage rack by at least one robot and temporarily storing the at least one blocking container on a cache mechanism of the at least one robot, wherein the target container is one of at least one container to be picked up; and
picking-up, by the at least one robot, the target container from the storage rack and storing the target container on a cache mechanism of the at least one robot, and picking-up the at least one blocking container from the cache mechanism of the at least one robot and placing the at least one blocking container on the storage rack at an original storage position of the at least one blocking container, an original storage position of the target container or other empty storage position” (para 0054). “the return process comprises: placing, in a case that at least one blocking container that blocks return of a target container is stored on a storage rack, the at least one blocking container from an original storage position of the at least one blocking container on the storage rack to a position that does not form a block by at least one robot, wherein the target container is one of at least one container to be returned; and picking-up, by the at least one robot, the target container from the cache mechanism of the at least one robot and placing the target container at a return position on the storage rack” (para 0054. ‘fetch or place’ abstract). The return process is just the reverse of the picking process same the place process would be the reverse of the fetch process.
Zheng does not disclose picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot.
Zhang teaches picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot (page 6 lines 7-13).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Zheng to include picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot because when the cache is full the robot cannot perform any other tasks.
Zheng discloses a container transporting system based on dense storage, wherein the system comprises at least one robot, the at least one robot performs at least one of a picking-up process and a return process, wherein the picking-up process comprises:
(Re claim 22) “picking-up, in a case that at least one blocking container that blocks pickup of a target container is stored on a storage rack, the at least one blocking container from the storage rack by at least one robot and temporarily storing the at least one blocking container on a cache mechanism of the at least one robot, wherein the target container is one of at least one container to be picked up; and picking-up, by the at least one robot, the target container from the storage rack and storing the target container on a cache mechanism of the at least one robot, and picking-up the at least one blocking container from the cache mechanism of the at least one robot and placing theat (the at) least one blocking container on the storage rack at an original storage position of the at least one blocking container, an original storage position of the target container or other empty storage position” (para 0054). “the return process comprises: placing, in a case that at least one blocking container that blocks return of a target container is stored on a storage rack, the at least one blocking container from an original storage position of the at least one blocking container on the storage rack to a position that does not form a block by at least one robot, wherein the target container is one of at least one container to be returned; and picking-up, by the at least one robot, the target container from the cache mechanism of the at least one robot and placing the target container at a return position on the storage rack” (para 0054. ‘fetch or place’ abstract). The return process is just the reverse of the picking process same the place process would be the reverse of the fetch process.
Zheng does not disclose picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot.
Zhang teaches picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot (page 6 lines 7-13).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Zheng to include picking-up, in a case that the cache mechanism of the at least one robot is entirely occupied by the at least one blocking container, the target container by the at least one robot from the storage rack and keeping the target container on the at least one robot because when the cache is full the robot cannot perform any other tasks.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art was found which would, alone or in combination, reject the limitations of claim 20 and its dependent claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655