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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-31, 33-35, and 37-43 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, 13-14, 16, 18, 24, 31, and 33 were amended. Claims 12, 15, 32, and 36 were canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 8, 24, and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 8, 24, and 31 have been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected minor informalities in the claim language.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 32 has been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14, 21-29, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-14, 21-29, and 30-32 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 33-35 and 37-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Because we indicated in the first action on the merits that claim 36 contained allowable subject matter, and because we now reject claim 33 including canceled claim 36’s limitations, this action is a second non-final rejection rather than a final rejection. We overlooked the second and/or disjunct of canceled claim 36 in the first action; this disjunct provides the basis for our new rejection (see rejection of amended claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) below).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Although this interpretation was not used to inform any rejection cited below, we note that applicant’s use of the term “isolated” with respect to a storage space or zone in claims 24, 33, and 39, does not in itself necessarily mandate a walled or sealed-off space, but may admit the interpretation of a space separated from other spaces. So, for example, of three adjacent unwalled spaces, the two on either end could be considered isolated from one another by the interposition of the central space. If applicant wishes to specify isolation by means of sealing or walling, as is typical of gas-isolated and environmentally controlled storage spaces, they may prefer to provide additional detail regarding the nature of isolation in claims 24, 33, and 39. Claims 1, 7, and 23 already disclose a barrier that performs isolation, and claim 25 specifies explicitly that its isolated attic space is enclosed, but claims 24, 33, and 39 do not inherit any of these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 33-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Angelis, et al., US 10,202,240 (hereinafter De Angelis).
Regarding claim 33,
De Angelis discloses:
A computer-implemented method for controlling operation of robotic storage/retrieval vehicles (RSRVs) (708,709: fig. 12) in a multi-zone automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) (overall structure: fig. 12),
The multi-zone ASRS comprising a plurality of storage locations (spots for modules 400: fig. 12) configured to accommodate placement and storage of storage units (400: fig. 12) therein, a first storage zone (any of vertical column areas: fig. 12) comprising a first group of the storage locations and a second storage zone (any other of vertical column areas: fig. 12) isolated from the first storage zone and comprising a second group of the storage locations, the method employing a computerized control system in operable communication with the RSRVs,De Angelis discloses in fig. 12, isolated storage zones above and below the central horizontal track, each with its own environmental controller. De Angelis further discloses a computer system in control of its facility including vehicles (“pallet shuttles”) within the facility in claim 6.
wherein the computerized control system comprises a network interface coupled to a communication network, at least one processor coupled to the network interface, and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the non- transitory, computer-readable storage medium is configured to store computer program instructions,This limitation describes a general-purpose computer, universal in all technical arts. All modern computers have network interfaces connected to communication networks, at least one processor, and some form of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. De Angelis discloses a computer controlling its system in claim 6 reciting, “a computerized control system”.
which when executed by the at least one processor. cause the at least one processor to: for a deposit process in the second storage zone involving a deposit of a first one of the storage units in the second storage zone to a first one of the storage locations in the second storage zone, divide the deposit process into a first entrance task of carrying the first one of the storage units into the second storage zone and a second placement task of placing the first one of the storage units into the first one of the storage locations:De Angelis discloses two robotic vehicles in fig. 12, a shuttle 708, and a transfer car 709. In C5/L8-34, the transfer car moves the shuttle to a storage zone and then the shuttle places a storage unit in a storage location. This procedure constitutes the two tasks (entrance and placement) of the claim.
assign the first entrance task and the second placement task to a first RSRV (708: fig. 12) and a second RSRV (709: fig. 12) respectively selected from among the RSRVs positioned outside the second storage zone:Per the limitation above, these two RSRVs are De Angelis’ shuttle and transport 708 and 709 of fig. 12. As seen in fig. 12, these two vehicles are outside any of the storage zones, and move into a storage zone to store or retrieve a module 400.
and issue commands to the first RSRV and the second RSRV to execute the first entrance task and the second placement taskSee limitation above, and also De Angelis’ claim 6 disclosing computer control of the facility and robotic vehicles. For the vehicles to perform the assigned task the computer must necessarily issue commands to the vehicles.
and for a retrieval task associated with the second storage zone, assign the retrieval task to the second RSRV, wherein the retrieval task comprises retrieving a second one of the storage units from a second one of the storage locations in the second storage zone, and wherein the second one of the storage locations from which to retrieve the second one of the storage units is selected from among any of the storage locations available upstream and positioned en route from a buffer spot in the second storage zone to the second one of the storage locations in the second storage zone, and/or any of the storage locations available downstream and positioned en route from the second one of the storage locations in the second storage zone to an exit portal of the second storage zone.This retrieval task, the former limitation of canceled claim 36, is evidently a distinct and different task from the entrance task and the placement task of the above limitations. For this task we consider the second of the two and/or disjuncts of the limitation, namely, “and/or any of the storage locations available downstream and positioned en route from the second one of the storage locations in the second storage zone to an exit portal of the second storage zone.” De Angelis discloses in fig. 12 an isolated zone retrieval scenario in which the exit portal is connected via tracks to the left side of the figure near shuttle 708. Storage modules 400 are thus “downstream” as claimed and their storage locations are en route to the exit portal of the storage zone considered as the claimed second storage zone.
Regarding claim 34,
De Angelis discloses the limitations of claim 33 and also:
Wherein the first entrance task comprises a drop-off of the first one of the storage units in the second storage zone by the first RSRV. and a prompt exit of the first RSRV from the second storage zone after the drop-off,De Angelis discloses in C5/L8-34 that the shuttle may immediately return to the transport on completion of its task. This constitutes “prompt” exit.
Regarding claim 35,
De Angelis discloses the limitations of claim 34 and also:
wherein the drop-off performed by the first RSRV in the first entrance task comprises placement of the first one of the storage units at a buffer spot in the second storage zone for later retrieval of the first one of the storage units from the buffer spot by the second RSRV.De Angelis discloses in C5/L47-49 in that an entire storage zone may be considered a buffer spot. As such, any delivery task executed by De Angelis may be a delivery to a buffer spot. De Angelis discloses in C5/L8-34 that its shuttle and transport may either return to the elevator for assignment to other tasks, or may wait at the storage zone to perform a retrieval task. This constitutes the later retrieval of the storage unit from the buffer spot by the second RSRV.
Regarding claim 37,
De Angelis discloses the limitations of claim 33 and also:
wherein the second storage zone is characterized by a harsher operating environment for the RSRVs than the first storage zone.De Angelis discloses in C7/L60-67 and C8/L1-44 that any of its storage zones may be separately climate controlled and thus any second zone of De Angelis may have a harsher environment than any first zone.
Regarding claim 38,
De Angelis discloses the limitations of claim 33 and also:
wherein the second storage zone is a cooled storage zone having a lower environmental operating temperature than the first storage zone.De Angelis discloses in C7/L60-67 and C8/L1-44 that any of its storage zones may be separately climate controlled and thus any second zone of De Angelis may have a lower temperature than any first zone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-31, and 39-43 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding independent claim 1, while considerable prior art including that of reference De Angelis cited in rejection in the previous office action teaches the structures of applicant’s storage system, the robotic delivery method including buffering locations claimed as an aspect of applicant’s controller in amended claim 1 is not disclosed by De Angelis, and moreover, secondary references capable of teaching the controller’s method were not found to be structurally compatible with De Angelis in order to sustain a demonstration of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. One distinctive feature of applicant’s amended claim is that as part of a task that will require a robotic vehicle to move from a first zone to a second zone to retrieve a container, the vehicle is instructed to drop off its current load in a buffering location in the first zone. The vast majority of art teaching similar buffering actions in a storage system context specifies the article or container to be buffered as the target article for the task, in contrast to applicant’s method, which supposes the article carried by the robotic vehicle to be incidental to the task and so must be deposited in order to allow the vehicle to complete a task involving a different article. This unusual feature considerably reduces the scope of available prior art that might teach applicant’s method. In the context of applicant’s multi-zone dense-grid storage system, applicant’s method of delivery between two isolated storage zones interconnected by track layouts wherein buffers are present on the tracks and wherein as part of a retrieval task at a second storage zone a robotic vehicle first deposits its stored load in a buffer in a first zone before moving from the first storage zone to the second storage zone, was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-31 inherit the allowability of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 39, another variation on applicant’s task structure and buffering method is disclosed. In this case, after having delivered a container to a workstation for processing, a subsequent task causes a robotic vehicle to return the container from the workstation, not to the storage location in the storage zone from which it was originally retrieved, but rather to a buffer location in the storage zone that is distinct from any of the storage locations. Prior art tends mostly teaches buffering articles as part of a first path to a workstation or other destination, and not as part of a return path. Typically, prior art that teaches the return of containers after order fulfillment or other work at a workstation does not teach buffering at all as part of the return path. Again, applicant’s method was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claims 40-43 inherit the allowability of claim 39.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights