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 .
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 1-10 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.
Relative to claims 1 and 9, “referred to as picking holders” is unclear. The claim recites “movable picking holders” previously in the claim. Applicant should delete “referred to as picking holders” for clarity.
Relative to claims 2 and 4, the claims appear to recite the same features. Claim 2 recites the reception device is adaptable to said picking holders. Claim 4 states the reception device is modifiable. What is the difference between the two claims.
Any claims not mentioned above are rejected because of their dependency from a rejected claim.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-6 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang, Jin-gang (CN 106 379 681 B). Relative to claims 1-2, and 4-6, Huang discloses:
claim 1) An autonomous mobile robot (1)(Fig. 1) for picking orders of products stored in a warehouse, the autonomous mobile robot (1) comprises:
a reception device (Fig. 2) configured to receive at least two movable picking holders for said products, referred to as picking holders (see lifting device 5 and 2 arms Ref. 2, the lifting device 5 with the 2 arms receives 2 holders 15)(Fig. 1);
and at least two independent retainers, each independent retainer being configured to retain a respective one of said at least two picking holders (15) on said autonomous mobile robot (retainer is grippers 9 on each arm 2, see gripper 9 on first arm and gripper 9 on second arm, the grippers 9 on each arm is independent for gripping a holder);
claim 2) said reception device is adaptable to said picking holders (arms 2 extend and retract to pick totes 15)(Fig. 1)(See English translation of Detailed description, Page 10, Para. 4, sentence beginning with “As shown in Fig. 3”);
claim 4) said reception device has a modifiable structure for adapting to said picking holders (the arms 2 extend and retract as necessary to reach the tote 15 to place or remove the tote from the shelf; Page 10, Para. 4);
claim 5) at least two independent retainers are carried by said reception device (the set of 2 arms Ref. 2 includes retainers, or grippers 9)(Fig. 4); and
claim 6) the at least two independent retainers are in the form of:
a magnetic system cooperating with said picking holders;
a mechanical system corresponding to retaining protrusions or tongues of said picking holders (the grippers 9 cooperate with grooves or ribs 24 of tote; See English translation of the Detailed Description, Page 11, Para. 4, sentence beginning with “The side wall of the box”)(4); or
a mechanical locking system cooperating with a part of said picking holders.
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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang. Relative to claims 3 and 7, Huang discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, including: the reception device (set comprising 2 arms Ref. 2) comprises a solid structure secured to said robot.
Huang does not expressly disclose: said reception device is removable; or the reception device is removably secured to said robot.
Huang teaches: reception device is removable; and the reception device is removably secured to said robot, as an obvious matter of design choice.
Huang can be modified so that the reception device (i.e., the device comprising the 4 arms 2 mounted on the lifting device 5) is removably secured to replace the arms 2 and lifting device 5 if due to wear and tear for maintenance. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(C) “Making Separable”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the robot of Huang so that the reception device is removably secured to the robot as a matter of design choice in order to replace the arms for routine maintenance due to wear and tear.
Claim(s) 8 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Swiercz et al (US PG. Pub. 2018/0285808). Relative to claim 8, Huang discloses all claim limitations above, but does not expressly disclose: a detection module configured to detect a depositing of at least one product in at least one of said movable picking holders.
Swiercz teaches: a detection module configured to detect a depositing of at least one product in at least one of said movable picking holders (see proximity sensors 216 detect placement if item in bin 214, Para. 0025; 0022), for the purpose of providing a modern inventory system that is capable of handling a large number of inventory tasks, efficiently utilizes resources, reduces costs, minimizes space, and increases throughput (Para. 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Huang with the detection module for detecting a depositing the product as taught in Swiercz, for the purpose of providing a modern inventory system that is capable of handling a large number of inventory tasks, efficiently utilizes resources, reduces costs, minimizes space, and increases throughput.
Claim(s) 9 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Swiercz et al (US PG. Pub. 2018/0285808). Relative to claim 9, Huang discloses: A method for preparing orders for products stored in a warehouse by at least one autonomous mobile robot (1), the autonomous mobile robot ( 1) comprising:
a reception device configured to receive at least two movable picking holders (15) for said products, referred to as picking holders (see lifting device 5 and 2 arms Ref. 2, the lifting device 5 with the 2 arms receives 2 holders 15)(Fig. 1); and
at least two independent retainers (9), each independent retainer (9) being configured to retain a respective one of said at least two picking holders (15) on said autonomous mobile robot (1).
Huang does not expressly disclose: the method comprises: depositing, by an order picker, at least one product of a first order in at least one first of the movable product picking holders carried by said at least one autonomous mobile robot; and
depositing, by an order picker, at least one product of a second order in at least one second of the movable product picking holders carried by said at least one autonomous mobile robot.
Swiercz teaches: depositing, by an order picker (worker, 208), at least one product of an order in at least one first of the movable product picking holders (214) carried by said at least one autonomous mobile robot (20)(Para. 0025); and
depositing, by an order picker, at least one product of an order in at least one second of the movable product picking holders (214) carried by said at least one autonomous mobile robot (20)(Para. 0025, sensors detect the user depositing items into a bin 214 on an inventory holder, the bins may each comprise items belonging to separate orders; Para. 0046), for the purpose of providing a modern inventory system that is capable of handling a large number of inventory tasks, efficiently utilizes resources, reduces costs, minimizes space, and increases throughput (Para. 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Huang with the depositing, by an order picker, a product of an order into the movable picking product holders carried by the autonomous mobile robot, as taught in Swiercz, for the purpose of providing a modern inventory system that is capable of handling a large number of inventory tasks, efficiently utilizes resources, reduces costs, minimizes space, and increases throughput.
Relative to claim 9, Huang in view of Swiercz does not expressly disclose the order picker placing a product of a first order in a first of the movable picking holders, and placing a product of a second order in a second of the movable picking holders.
Huang implies the order picker places a product of a first order in a first of the movable picking holders, and places a product of a second order in a second of the movable picking holders as an obvious matter of design choice since sorting items into bins such that each bin on an inventory holder comprises items belonging to a corresponding order for that bin is well known in the art for filling orders within a warehouse or materials handling facility. See MPEP §2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huang in view of Swiercz, to include placing a product belonging to a first order in a first picking holder, and a product belonging to a second order into a second picking holder, as a matter of design choice since sorting items into bins such that each bin on an inventory holder comprises items belonging to a corresponding order for that bin is well known in the art for filling orders within a warehouse or materials handling facility.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Galluzzo et al (US PG. Pub. 2020/0316786). Relative to claim 10, Huang discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the autonomous mobile robot detecting the depositing at least one product in at least one of said movable picking holders.
Galluzzo teaches: the autonomous mobile robot (transport robot, 900)(Fig. 1) detecting the depositing at least one product in at least one of said movable picking holders (145)(Para. 0119, see sensors 110 that can detect items deposited within the tote 145), for the purpose of providing a system and method for autonomously picking and placing items or bins to or from storage locations within a logistics facility that does not require significant changes to existing infrastructure, reduces manual labor, and minimizes costs (Para. 0002, 0006, 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the robot of Huang to detect the depositing of a product in a movable picking holder as taught in Galluzzo, for the purpose of providing a system and method for autonomously picking and placing items or bins to or from storage locations within a logistics facility that does not require significant changes to existing infrastructure, reduces manual labor, and minimizes costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655