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 1-2, 4-5 and 7-10 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 10 were amended and claims 3 and 6 are canceled. The instant application was submitted following an RCE automatically triggered by a QPIDs case which reopened prosecution following applicant’s IDS disclosure.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026, regarding the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Generally, we find that applicant’s argument is based on the inventor’s unclaimed intentions rather than the language of the claims themselves. We address the arguments in detail below.
Applicant first argues that reference Tate, cited as primary in the rejection of these claims in the previous office action, cannot be combined with references Kim and Hance to teach their amended claims because Tate “actively teaches away from such a technology”, the technology in question being alleged to pertain to the “pre-learning” of position information related to position information that enables the coarse and fine positioning of a crane for picking items from shelves in a warehouse. For the sake of argument, we stipulate that Tate teaches away from learning in disclosing a system that is capable of precise positioning without learning every time a crane moves to a shelf. Unfortunately, while the inventor may well have had the intention of “pre-learning” (or learning for future reference) such information, no such claim or limitation is evident in the instant application.
To begin with, words such as “learn” and “learning” (and related terms and phrases) do not appear in the claims at all. Applicant argues that the storage of identification information obtained by its crane could only be performed for the purpose of learning a position for future positioning of the crane. However, no such reason or purpose is recited, and there are many plausible reasons we can imagine for storing this information, including: inventory control and stock-keeping; detecting incorrect or imprecise label, stock or shelf positioning for later correction by warehouse staff; and logging of crane activity for performance analysis. In the absence of a claimed purpose for applicant’s information storage (or such a blatantly obvious purpose that no other reasonable purpose can be conceived), we cannot agree that Tate teaches away from the claims because Tate might store the information for some reason apart from crane position learning.
We do note, however, that applicant’s instant specification does support the idea of learning position information, stating this goal in [0007] and [0010], citing figs. 4 and 7 as methods for learning, and also disclosing aspects of the method over the course of [0046]-[0057]. Of course, in the absence of an invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the instant specification is generally employed to resolve questions of possession, written support, and indefiniteness that may be raised according to 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), and does not fix the metes and bounds of the invention. Incorporating these manifold disclosures into the claims far exceeds our capacity to introduce an examiner’s amendment, and so we must reject the amended claims on the same obviousness grounds as in the previous action at least until such time as the claims are again amended to properly support applicant’s traversal argument. Of course, such amendment may trigger new search and result in the discovery of new references in consequence.
Applicant next argues that regardless of the question of teaching away, Kim only stores the data and does not calculate “absolute coordinates from two different sources”. First, the claim does not in fact disclose the calculation of absolute coordinates, but rather discloses the calculation of identification code position information using the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in an image; this information may or may not pertain to absolute coordinates which we note an aside are not mentioned in the instant specification; no mention is made of any absolute positioning nor indeed of any coordinates whatsoever.
More importantly, however, we did not cite Kim as teaching this calculation in any event in the previous office action, but rather cited Kim’s teaching for the purpose of storing the position information for later use. We cited Hance in the rejection of canceled claim 3 to teach the calculation using relative position of an identification code in an image in the context of Tate’s overall method, and now in the instant action, in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 below which incorporate the limitations of canceled claim 3, we cite Hance again for the same reason.
Finally, applicant argues for the unexpected result that their system can “automatically learn the precise absolute position of an identification code simply by affixing it to an installation location without precise alignment (e.g., roughly by hand).” Putting aside the question of unexpectedness, no such outcome or consequence is evident in applicant’s claims, no claim regarding anything like “absolute position” is found, and no mention of precision of label or code alignment or of a means or method of affixing them is made either. If applicant had actually claimed these outcomes or consequences and if they had been deemed not to result from the reference teachings or designs their argument might have more weight, but in the absence of such claim language we cannot base allowability on the inventor’s unclaimed intentions.
We find some support for at least a purported difficulty in affixing labels in previous systems in [0075], and some support for a method related to the labels in [0046]-[0047], [0053] and figs. 4-5 that might be the basis for explicit amendments that would enable applicant’s arguments to find some traction even though we cannot agree with them in this action.
For these several reasons, we therefore sustain our rejections and make this action final. However, as noted above, there appears to be some scope for amending the claims to incorporate the inventor’s heretofore unclaimed intentions, though there is no guarantee such amendments will be granted allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Note: the rejections below are repeated almost verbatim from the previous office action except for the rejection of claims 1 and 10 which were amended with the matter of claim 3 and thus require combination with claim 3’s teaching reference, Hance.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate, et al., JP 06239410 (hereinafter Tate) in view of Kim, et al., US 2008/0044262 (hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Hance, et al. US 2018/0088586 (hereinafter Hance).
Regarding claim 1,
Tate discloses:
An automated warehouse system comprising: an automated warehouse in which an object to be transported is transferred by using a crane (unnumbered device mounting components 5, 6, 17: fig. 4 per [0014]);Tate discloses the automated warehouse in [0001].
And a control device (controller 1: fig. 1) for controlling the crane, the automated warehouse system including a plurality of placement parts (cargo receiving member 12: fig. 2) in which to place the object to be transported and which are fixed to the automated warehouse,
each of the plurality of placement parts having marked thereon an identification code (targets 13: figs. 2-3) representing identification information for identifying that placement part, the crane including a carriage provided with a fork (fork 5: fig. 4) for transferring the object to be transported and equipped with an image taking section (visual detector 6: fig. 4) for taking an image, The carriage is structure 4 (not in figure) that raises and lowers fork 5 in fig. 4 as disclosed by Tate in [0009].
the control device being configured to: detect the identification information represented by the identification code from an image that is taken by the image taking section and that contains the identification code of a placement part of the plurality of placement parts;Tate discloses a detailed method of combined “coarse” or “rough” and “precise” or “fine” positioning in [0011]-[0016]. The identification information posted on the shelves 12 (“placement parts”) is disclosed in [0011] and the operation of the “image taking section” 6 as well.
However, Tate does not disclose all aspects of:
store the identification information having been detected and crane position information concerning a position where the crane is located when the image is taken, with the identification information having been detected and the crane position information being associated with each other;While Tate discloses the detected identification information, the determined crane position information when the image is taken and the association thereof in [0008], it does not explicitly disclose storing this information.
calculate identification code position information concerning a position of the identification code from the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in the image;While Tate discloses a method of fine adjustment of crane and fork position, it is not based on relative positions within an image.
and adjust a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the calculated identification code position information in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported.Tate discloses the adjustment of fork position both by “traveling” (movement of the crane or the overall vehicle on its rail) and “lifting” (motion of the “carriage” or lifting platform that raises the fork) in accordance with the identification code information in [0008] and in greater detail in [0015]. The case of loading of the object to be transported is also disclosed in [0015]. Because the “calculated identification code position information” refers to a calculation of the previous limitation that Tate does not perform, we refer below to the teaching of reference Hance for this clause.
Kim, an invention in the same field as Tate, teaches the missing aspect of:
store the identification information having been detected and crane position information concerning a position where the crane is located when the image is taken, with the identification information having been detected and the crane position information being associated with each other;Like Tate, Kim generally controls a crane in accordance with position and identification information determined by an optical sensor. Kim discloses the storage of identification information in its [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Tate to store the identification information having been detected and crane position information concerning a position where the crane is located when the image is taken, with the identification information having been detected and the crane position information being associated with each other, as taught by Kim because it is routine and commonplace in industrial warehouse operations to store details of movement and transport tasks being undertaken in the memory and/or database of a controller or management computer system. Such storage may be, for example, to support the ongoing performance of a multi-step operation under remote computer control, to record the details of past operations in a log, to detect labeling or positioning errors, or to support process improvement over time.
Hance, an invention in the field of warehouse automation, teaches:
wherein the control device is configured to calculate the identification code position information from the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in the image.Like Tate, Hance teaches the recognition of storage locations by means of identification marks (barcodes in Hance’s case). In [0035], Hance teaches the consideration of relative distance and orientation of the barcodes, and provides more details about its method in [0095]-[0097]. In this combination, no new structure from Hance is required, merely the method of calculating position offsets.
and adjust a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the calculated identification code position information in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported.In combination with Tate, we adopt all of Tate’s structures and method except for the relative distance calculation of the limitation immediately above taught by Hance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Tate and Kim’s system, wherein the control device is configured to calculate the identification code position information from the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in the image, and also to adjust a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the calculated identification code position information in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported as taught by Hance, firstly because position calculations that make use of the relative position of the barcode or other identifier in an image enable greater precision than otherwise. Since this relative position determination and consequent calculation can be performed entirely in software after acquiring an image of the identification code, its implementation would yield routine and predictable results. As regards the second limitation, having already calculated an offset or relative position correction for stock or a storage location on a shelf, it would nonsensical not to employ the calculation for the actual loading of an object from the shelf.
Regarding claim 2,
Tate in view of Kim and Hance teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the control device is configured to: calculate, from the image containing the identification code and the crane position information, identification code position information concerning a position of the identification code; Tate discloses this method in [0011]-[0016].
and store the identification information and the identification code position information having been calculated, with the identification information and the identification code position information having been calculated being associated with each other.Kim discloses the storage of identification information in its [0073]. Tate’s method of [0011]-[0016] associates identification information and identification code position information.
Regarding claim 5,
Tate in view of Kim and Hance teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein: the placement part is a shelf (Tate, 12: fig. 2);
and the control device is configured to store the identification information corresponding to the shelf and the identification code position information with the identification information corresponding to the shelf and the identification code position information being associated with each other.Kim discloses the storage of the information in [0073].
Regarding claim 7,
Tate in view of Kim and Hance teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein: the carriage of the crane is provided with a fork for transferring the object to be transported; and the control device is configured to adjust a position of the fork relative to the placement part in accordance with the identification code position information, in a case of unloading, from the fork, the object to be transported.Tate discloses the fork 5 in [0009]-[0010], and the use of coarse and fine adjustments of both crane and fork position based on identification code position information in [0011]-[0016].
Regarding claim 8,
Tate in view of Kim and Hance teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the identification code (Tate, 13: fig. 3) is a two-dimensional code.
Regarding claim 10,
Tate discloses:
A method for controlling an automated warehouse in which an object to be transported is transferred by using a crane (unnumbered device mounting components 5, 6, 17: fig. 4 per [0014]),Tate discloses the automated warehouse in [0001].
the automated warehouse including a plurality of placement parts (cargo receiving member 12: fig. 2) in which to place the object to be transported and which are fixed to the automated warehouse,
each of the plurality of placement parts having marked thereon an identification code (targets 13: figs. 2-3) representing identification information for identifying that placement part,
the crane including a carriage provided with a fork (fork 5: fig. 4) for transferring the object to be transported and equipped with an image taking section (visual detector 6: fig. 4) for taking an image,The carriage is structure 4 (not in figure) that raises and lowers fork 5 in fig. 4 as disclosed by Tate in [0009].
the method comprising: detecting the identification information represented by the identification code from an image that is taken by the image taking section and that contains the identification code of a placement part of the plurality of placement parts;Tate discloses a detailed method of combined “coarse” or “rough” and “precise” or “fine” positioning in [0011]-[0016]. The identification information posted on the shelves (“placement parts”) is disclosed in [0011] and the operation of the “image taking section” 6 as well.
and adjusting a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the identification code position information obtained from the identification code and the crane position information, in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported.Tate discloses the adjustment of fork position both by “traveling” (movement of the crane or the overall vehicle on its rail) and “lifting” (motion of the “carriage” or lifting platform that raises the fork) in accordance with the identification code information in [0008] and in greater detail in [0015]. The case of loading of the object to be transported is also disclosed in [0015].
However, Tate does not disclose all aspects of:
storing the identification information having been detected and crane position information concerning a position where the crane is located when the image is taken, with the identification information having been detected and the crane position information being associated with each other;While Tate discloses the detected identification information, the determined crane position information when the image is taken and the association thereof in [0008], it does not explicitly disclose storing this information.
calculating identification code position information concerning a position of the identification code from the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in the image;While Tate discloses a method of fine adjustment of crane and fork position, it is not based on relative positions within an image.
and adjusting a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the calculated identification code position information, in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported.Tate discloses the adjustment of fork position both by “traveling” (movement of the crane or the overall vehicle on its rail) and “lifting” (motion of the “carriage” or lifting platform that raises the fork) in accordance with the identification code information in [0008] and in greater detail in [0015]. The case of loading of the object to be transported is also disclosed in [0015]. Because the “calculated identification code position information” refers to a calculation of the previous limitation that Tate does not perform, we refer below to the teaching of reference Hance for this clause.
Kim, an invention in the same field as Tate, teaches the missing aspect of:
storing the identification information having been detected and crane position information concerning a position where the crane is located when the image is taken, with the identification information having been detected and the crane position information being associated with each other;Like Tate, Kim generally controls a crane in accordance with position and identification information determined by an optical sensor. Kim discloses the storage of identification information in its [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Tate in storing the identification information having been detected and crane position information concerning a position where the crane is located when the image is taken, with the identification information having been detected and the crane position information being associated with each other, as taught by Kim because it is routine and commonplace in industrial warehouse operations to store details of movement and transport tasks being undertaken in the memory and/or database of a controller or management computer system. Such storage may be, for example, to support the ongoing performance of a multi-step operation under remote computer control, to record the details of past operations in a log, or to support process improvement over time.
Hance, an invention in the field of warehouse automation, teaches:
calculating identification code position information concerning a position of the identification code from the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in the image.Like Tate, Hance teaches the recognition of storage locations by means of identification marks (barcodes in Hance’s case). In [0035], Hance teaches the consideration of relative distance and orientation of the barcodes, and provides more details about its method in [0095]-[0097]. In this combination, no new structure from Hance is required, merely the method of calculating position offsets.
and adjusting a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the calculated identification code position information, in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported.In combination with Tate, we adopt all of Tate’s structures and method except for the relative distance calculation of the limitation immediately above taught by Hance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Tate and Kim’s method for calculating identification code position information concerning a position of the identification code from the crane position information and a relative position of the identification code in the image, and also and adjusting a position of the fork relative to the placement part by moving the crane and the carriage in accordance with the calculated identification code position information, in a case of loading, on the fork, the object to be transported, as taught by Hance, firstly because position calculations that make use of the relative position of the barcode or other identifier in an image enable greater precision than otherwise. Since this relative position determination and consequent calculation can be performed entirely in software after acquiring an image of the identification code, its implementation would yield routine and predictable results. As regards the second limitation, having already calculated an offset or relative position correction for stock or a storage location on a shelf, it would nonsensical not to employ the calculation for the actual loading of an object from the shelf.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate in view of Kim and Hance and further in view of Hocke, et al., US 2003/0187537 (hereinafter Hocke).
Tate in view of Kim and Hance teaches the limitations of claim 2, but not all aspects of:
the placement part is a device port including a receipt part or an issue part of a processing device configured to perform a process on the object to be transported;The references do not disclose device ports as part of their system.
and the control device is configured to store the identification information corresponding to the device port and the identification code position information with the identification information corresponding to the device port and the identification code position information being associated with each other.While Tate discloses this general method in its [0011]-[0016], Tate does not disclose that this method applies to device ports.
Hocke, an invention in the field of AMHS automation, teaches the missing aspects of the limitations:
the placement part is a device port (load port 2: fig. 1) including a receipt part or an issue part of a processing device configured to perform a process on the object to be transported;Hocke teaches in [0016] that load ports, commonplace structures in semiconductor fabs associated with processing devices, may be identified by barcodes. Such ports are employed both for “issuing” and “receiving” articles such as semiconductor wafers or pod carriers from processing devices. If Tate’s automated warehouse were used for storing semiconductor wafers to be processed by Hocke’s processing devices, its system and method could be applied to identifying the positions of load ports as identified by Hocke’s barcodes.
and the control device is configured to store the identification information corresponding to the device port and the identification code position information with the identification information corresponding to the device port and the identification code position information being associated with each other.As Tate discloses the general method in its paragraphs [0011]-[0016], Hocke’s teaching that load ports may be identified with barcodes adds the missing piece of the limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Tate and Kim’s system, wherein (i) the placement part is a device port including a receipt part or an issue part of a processing device configured to perform a process on the object to be transported; and (ii), and the control device is configured to store the identification information corresponding to the device port and the identification code position information with the identification information corresponding to the device port and the identification code position information being associated with each other, as taught by Hocke, because given the need to deliver and retrieve items from device ports, the method of Kim requires identification codes to be associated with these ports in order to assure accurate positioning of the crane used for this purpose. Since a stacking crane or other article handling device can just as easily deliver an article to a loading or unloading port as to a shelf or rack storage space, the combination would yield routine and predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate in view of Kim and Hance and further in view of Camenisch, et al., US 2019/0367239 (hereinafter Camenisch).
Tate in view of Kim and Hance teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the identification code is marked on a plate member or a sticker.Kim does not disclose the use of plates or stickers to mark or affix identification codes.
Camenisch, an invention in the field of product authentication, teaches:
wherein the identification code is marked on a plate member or a sticker.Camenisch teaches the use of barcode stickers in [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kim and Okada’s system, wherein the identification code is marked on a plate member or a sticker, as taught by Camenisch, because stickers provide a convenient means to label structures such as shelves, and because stickers can persist for long periods in a warehouse environment without maintenance and yet be removable and changeable when required.
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art disclosed in applicant’s new IDS, JP 2006206223 and JP 2002068410, cited by the Chinese patent office in the rejection of a Chinese application, could have been cited as part of rejection rationales in the instant action.
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 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