DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are under consideration in this application. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed December 2, 2025, with respect to objections to claims 8 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 8 and 20 have been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
We agree with applicant’s argument that primary reference Neiser (cited in the first action) does not disclose a human operator. Thus, Neiser cannot be said to anticipate independent claims 1, 15, and 19. We consider applicant’s further arguments regarding human operator safety to be neither here nor there, as no such requirement for operator safety appears in the instant claims. While design patterns for ensuring operator safety are indeed well known in many arts, they are regrettably far from universal. Applicant’s operator-safety argument was not required to overcome the first-action rejections in any event, however.
Due to the amendments to all independent claims, new search was triggered and different combinations of references have been invoked to support new rejections.
Examiner’s Note
6. The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. We apologize for overlooking the new claim objection and the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) cited below in the first action; had these been the only rejections we would have issued a second non-final action. However, the prior art rejections also cited below pursuant to applicant’s amendments compel a final rejection action.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “wherein the at least one port column is arranged at both sides” (Emphasis added.) One port column cannot be arranged on both sides of a structure. It appears the word “the” should be redacted in this claim, or else “at least one” should be “at least two” and the singular “column” changed to “columns”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
8. Claims 9-10 and 15-20 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the horizontal storage container supports" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claims introduce storage container supports that may or may not be horizontal.
Claim 10 (dependent indirectly on claim 1) and claim 20 (dependent on claim 19) recites the limitation, “wherein the product handling system comprises: an access station...” (emphasis added) in lines 2-3. However, an access station was previously introduced in parent claims 1 and 19, respectively. It is unclear whether applicant intends to introduce a second access station in claims 10 and 20. This amounts to a point of indefiniteness. If the parent claim’s access station is intended here, a new drafting approach may be necessary for referring to “the access station” directly rather than redundantly disclosing it as a constituent of the product handling system.
Claims 15 and 19 recite two limitations, following “a rail system comprising”: (i) “a plurality of stacks of storage containers arranged in storage columns located beneath a storage section of the rail system”, and (ii) “a container handling vehicle comprising a lifting device for lifting storage containers stacked in the stacks above the storage section.” (Emphasis added.) Either these two limitations are mutually contradictory or else the second storage section limitation lacks an antecedent basis. The claimed storage columns or stacks cannot be both above and below the claimed storage section of the rail system per applicant’s figures. This contradiction is a point of indefiniteness. Claims 16-18 and 20 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 15 and 19. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we interpret the second storage section limitation (ii) as referring to a storage location of the carousel system which is indeed below the storage columns in applicant’s fig. 5.
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.
9. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim, WO 2018233886 (hereinafter Austrheim) in view of Park, et al., KR 20190046212 (hereinafter Park).
10. Regarding claim 1,
Austrheim discloses:
A product handling system (the various elements of fig. 7) for retrieving and storing products within storage containers (6: fig. 1),
wherein the product handling system comprises: a rotatable container carousel (24: fig. 7) comprising: a rotational device having a rotational carousel axis (30: fig. 9), and a storage container support (unnumbered outer ring of device 30: fig. 9) connected to the rotational device at a radial carousel distance between the rotational axis of the rotational device and a horizontal center point of the storage container support, allowing rotation through at least a storage container loading position and a storage container accessing position,The storage container loading position is any of the positions accessible to a human worker as depicted in fig. 5, and the storage container access position is any of the positions on the opposite side of the carousel accessible to robots via port columns.
and an access station (21: fig. 5) arranged at least partly above the rotatable container carousel and comprising an area for a human on a side of the access station distal from the robotic picking device, wherein the access station is configured to allow an operator access to content within a storage container supported on the storage container support.This arrangement is seen in fig. 5 regarding the access station and the human operator, and in fig. 7 as regards the robotic access columns on the far side of the carousel.
However, Austrheim does not disclose:
a robotic picking device comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position, and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system,Austrheim’s carousel is accessed from above by mobile robots via port columns, not by a fixed robotic arm with a gripper.
Park, an invention in the field of logistics transport, teaches:
a robotic picking device (50’: fig. 5) comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position, and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system,These features of Park’s robot arm 50’ can be seen in fig. 5 including three arm segments and a rotating base (“base center position”) and a gripper. Robot arm 50’ can plainly adjust its radial distance to access the various storage units on the carousel as disclosed in [0102]. The controller is disclosed in [0068] for robot arm 50; in [0069] arm 50’ of fig. 5 is disclosed to be an instance of arm 50. In combination with Austrheim, we use Austrheim’s general storage system structure and individual carousel layout with Park’s robotic arm accessing containers from one or more such carousels that may be deployed around the robotic arm similarly to Park’s fig. 5.
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 Austrheim with a robotic picking device comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position, and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system, because the use of a robotic arm in connection with the carousel gives greater flexibility in both cross-access to multiple carousels and multiple containers on those carousels and in automating aspects of goods picking to and from containers that Austrheim’s system standing alone would have to concede to a human operator.
11. Regarding claim 2,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the first robotic segment is rotatably connected to the robotic base with a first rotational axis.Park depicts in fig. 5 that its robot 50’ has a robotic arm that is rotatably connected to the robotic base with a Z axis of rotation.
12. Regarding claim 3,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the robotic picking device further comprises: a second robotic segment rotatably connected to the first robotic segment, wherein a longitudinal orientation of the second robotic segment is adjustable relative to the first rotational axis.Park depicts in fig. 5 that its robot 50’ has a robotic arm that comprises three robotic segments. The two distal segments plainly have the ability to rotate on pivots hinging the arm segments, while the first segment can rotate about its base. While applicant’s term “longitudinal” is somewhat vague, we consider the common definition “running lengthwise rather than across” to apply to the orientations of the latter two segments of the robot arm and their adjustments with respect to the first rotational axis (z axis) of the first arm segment.
13. Regarding claim 4,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
wherein the second robotic segment comprises: a first end rotatably connected to the first robotic segment, and wherein the robotic picking device further comprises: a third robotic segment comprising: a first end rotatably connected to a second end of the second robotic segment, and a second end at least indirectly connected to the gripper.Park depicts this arrangement of arm 50’ in fig. 5.
14. Regarding claim 5,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the rotatable container carousel further comprises: a carousel arm extending radially from a central portion of the rotational device, and a carousel motor configured to rotate the carousel arm around the vertical rotational axis, wherein the storage container support is arranged at an end of the carousel arm distal to the vertical rotational axis.Austrheim depicts in fig. 9 six unnumbered radial arms extending from the center of device 31 to the outer ring previously identified as a storage container support arranged at the distal end of the arms. Austrheim discloses the motorization of the drive wheel of the carousel in P12/L21-23.
15. Regarding claim 7,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the product handling system comprises: a plurality of the rotatable container carousels distributed around the robotic picking device such that the storage container support of each of the rotatable container carousels may be rotated within a maximum radial extent of the robotic picking device.Park teaches a single robotic arm with access to multiple carousels in [0102].
16. Regarding claim 8,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 7, and also:
wherein each of the plurality of rotatable container carousels comprises a plurality of the storage container supports distributed around the rotational device.As each of the carousels of Austrheim and Park feature a plurality of storage container supports distributed around their rotational devices, it follows that a plurality of carousels also features a plurality of such storage container supports.
17. Regarding claim 9,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 7, and also:
wherein each of the horizontal storage container supports is connected to the rotational device at the radial carousel distance.Austrheim discloses unnumbered outer-ring container supports in its fig. 9 which are arranged at a radial carousel distance.
18. Regarding claim 10,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the product handling system comprises: an access station (21: fig. 5) arranged at least partly above at least one of the rotatable container carousels, wherein the access station comprises an access opening configured to allow an operator access to contents within a storage container supported on the storage container support.Austrheim depicts the claimed arrangement in figs. 5 and 7.
19. Regarding claim 11,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the system is configured such that a rotation of the storage container support around the rotational axis follows a circular trajectory with radius equal to the radial carousel distance, and where the maximum radial gripper distance is at least the distance from the base center position to the circular trajectory.Park depicts this arrangement in fig. 5. The claimed radial distance is plainly satisfied by Park’s carousel and robot arm or it would be unable to reach the storage positions on the carousel as disclosed in [0102].
20. Regarding claim 15,
Austrheim discloses:
An automated storage and retrieval system (1: fig. 1) comprising: a product handling system (the various elements of fig. 7) for retrieving and storing products within storage containers (6: fig. 1),
wherein the product handling system comprises: a rotatable container carousel (24: fig. 7) comprising: a rotational device having a rotational carousel axis (30: fig. 9), and a storage container support (unnumbered outer ring of device 30: fig. 9) connected to the rotational device at a radial carousel distance between the rotational axis of the rotational device and a horizontal center point of the storage container support, allowing rotation through at least a storage container loading position and a storage container accessing position,The storage container loading position is any of the positions accessible to a human worker as depicted in fig. 5, and the storage container access position is any of the positions on the opposite side of the carousel accessible to robots via port columns.
and an access station (21: fig. 5) arranged at least partly above the rotatable container carousel and comprising an area for a human on a side of the access station distal from the robotic picking device, wherein the access station is configured to allow an operator access to content within a storage container supported on the storage container support;This arrangement is seen in fig. 5 regarding the access station and the human operator, and in fig. 7 as regards the robotic access columns on the far side of the carousel.
a rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails (10: fig. 1) arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction and a second set of parallel rails (11: fig. 1) arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction, which first and second sets of rails form a grid pattern in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent grid cells (every rectangular grid section of the rails of fig. 1), each comprising a grid opening (tops of columns 12: fig. 1) defined by a pair of neighboring rails of the first set of rails and a pair of neighboring rails of the second set of rails; a plurality of stacks of storage containers (6: fig. 1) arranged in storage columns (12: fig. 1) located beneath a storage section of the rail system (every non-port-column grid cell of the rail system of fig. 1), wherein each storage column is located vertically below a grid opening (tops of columns 12: fig. 1); at least one port column (19, 20: fig. 1) located beneath a delivery section of the rail system (as seen in fig. 1, the port columns like all other columns are below the rail grid atop the storage system, and being void of storage units are thus beneath a “delivery section”) and vertically aligned with at least one possible storage container loading position (loading positions aligned with port columns 19,20: fig. 7) of the storage container support, the at least one port column being void of storage containers; and a container handling vehicle (9: fig. 1) comprising a lifting device (unnumbered but per P2/L7-9) for lifting storage containers stacked in the stacks above the storage section (42: fig. 7, see interpretation of storage section related to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) and drive means (see explanation below) configured to drive the vehicle along the rail system in at least one of the first direction and the second direction.Austrheim discloses all these standard features of a dense grid storage system in fig. 1. Austrheim discloses the claimed arrangement of wheels and the lifting device for its vehicle 9 in P3/L37-P4/L14. While Austrheim does not disclose a drive means explicitly, as its vehicles 9 are disclosed to move on the rail grid in P1/L36-P2/L6, they must have a drive means in order to move.
However, Austrheim does not disclose:
a robotic picking device comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position,Austrheim does not disclose the claimed picking device.
and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system,Lacking a robotic picking device, Austrheim only discloses control of the carousel.
Park, an invention in the field of logistics transport, teaches:
a robotic picking device (50’: fig. 5) comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position,These features of Park’s robot arm 50’ can be seen in fig. 5 including three arm segments and a rotating base (“base center position”) and a gripper. Robot arm 50’ can plainly adjust its radial distance to access the various storage units on the carousel as disclosed in [0102]. In combination with Austrheim, we use Austrheim’s general storage system structure and individual carousel layout with Park’s robotic arm accessing containers from one or more such carousels that may be deployed around the robotic arm similarly to Park’s fig. 5.
and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system,Park discloses a controller in [0068] for robot arm 50; in [0069] arm 50’ of fig. 5 is disclosed to be an instance of arm 50.
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 Austrheim with a robotic picking device comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position, and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system, because the use of a robotic arm in connection with the carousel gives greater flexibility in both cross-access to multiple carousels and multiple containers on those carousels and in automating aspects of goods picking to and from containers that Austrheim’s system standing alone would have to concede to a human operator.
21. Regarding claim 16,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein the delivery section of the rail system extends above at least a region of the product handling system.Austrheim depicts the claimed arrangement in figs. 5 and 7. The delivery section of the rail system is any portion of the rail system that extends over a port column because robots overhead at those location can lower storage containers for delivery through the port column to the carousel-based region of the product handling system below, as seen in the figures.
22. Regarding claim 17,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the product handling system comprises: a plurality of the rotatable container carousels distributed around the robotic picking device such that the storage container support of each of the rotatable container carousels may be rotated within a maximum radial reach of the robotic picking device,Park discloses one robotic picking device with access to two carousels in [0102].
and wherein the system comprises at least two port columns for each of the plurality of rotatable container carousels.Austrheim discloses the claimed port columns as 19,20 in fig. 7.
23. Regarding claim 18,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein the rail system extends on at least two opposite sides of the product handling system, and wherein the at least one port column is arranged at both sides.Austrheim depicts two pairs of port columns 19,20 in fig. 7, one pair on either side of the product handling system. As also seen in fig. 7, the rail network of the dense grid storage system also extends on opposite sides of the product handling system.
24. Regarding claim 19,
Austrheim discloses:
A method of handling contents within storage containers (6: fig. 1) stored in an automated storage and retrieval system (1: fig. 1) comprising: a product handling system (the various elements of fig. 7) for retrieving and storing products within storage containers
wherein the product handling system comprises: a rotatable container carousel (24: fig. 7) comprising: a rotational device having a rotational carousel axis (30: fig. 9), and a storage container support (unnumbered outer ring of device 30: fig. 9) connected to the rotational device at a radial carousel distance between the rotational axis of the rotational device and a horizontal center point of the storage container support, allowing rotation through at least a storage container loading position and a storage container accessing position,The storage container loading position is any of the positions accessible to a human worker as depicted in fig. 5, and the storage container access position is any of the positions on the opposite side of the carousel accessible to robots via port columns.
and an access station (21: fig. 5) arranged at least partly above the rotatable container carousel and comprising an area for a human on a side of the access station distal from the robotic picking device, wherein the access station is configured to allow an operator access to content within a storage container supported on the storage container support;This arrangement is seen in fig. 5 regarding the access station and the human operator, and in fig. 7 as regards the robotic access columns on the far side of the carousel.
a rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails (10: fig. 1) arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction and a second set of parallel rails (11: fig. 1) arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction, which first and second sets of rails form a grid pattern in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent grid cells (every rectangular grid section of fig. 1), each comprising a grid opening (tops of columns 12: fig. 1) defined by a pair of neighboring rails of the first set of rails and a pair of neighboring rails of the second set of rails; a plurality of stacks of storage containers (6: fig. 1) arranged in storage columns (12: fig. 1) located beneath a storage section of the rail system (every non-port-column grid cell of the rail system of fig. 1), wherein each storage column is located vertically below a grid opening; at least one port column located beneath a delivery section of the rail system (as seen in fig. 1, the port columns like all other columns are below the rail grid atop the storage system, and being void of storage units are thus beneath a “delivery section”) and vertically aligned with at least one possible storage container loading position of the storage container support (loading positions aligned with port columns 19,20: fig. 7), the at least one port column (19, 20: fig. 1) being void of storage containers; and a container handling vehicle (9: fig. 1) comprising a lifting device (unnumbered but per P2/L7-9) for lifting storage containers stacked in the stacks above the storage section (42: fig. 7, see interpretation of storage section related to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) and drive means (see explanation below) configured to drive the vehicle along the rail system in at least one of the first direction and the second direction,Austrheim discloses all these standard features of a dense grid storage system in fig. 1. Austrheim discloses the claimed arrangement of wheels and the lifting device for its vehicle 9 in P3/L37-P4/L14. While Austrheim does not disclose a drive means explicitly, as its vehicles 9 are disclosed to move on the rail grid in P1/L36-P2/L6, they must have a drive means in order to move.
However, Austrheim does not disclose:
a robotic picking device comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position,Austrheim does not disclose the claimed picking device.
and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system,Lacking a robotic picking device, Austrheim only discloses control of the carousel.
wherein the method comprises: A) rotating the rotational device of the rotatable container carousel to a rotational position where the storage container support is located vertically aligned below a target grid cell of the rail system, While Austrheim discloses the claimed structure, it does not disclose the method step.
B) moving a container handling vehicle carrying a target storage container with a target content on the rail system to the target grid cell above the storage container support,While Austrheim discloses the claimed structure, it does not disclose the method step.
C) placing the target storage container onto the storage container support by lowering the target storage container through the grid cell using the lifting device,While Austrheim discloses the claimed structure, it does not disclose the method step.
D) if the target storage container is outside a maximum radial extent of the robotic picking device, rotating the rotational device such that the storage container support with the target storage container is within the maximum radial extent,Austrheim discloses neither the claimed device nor the method step.
and E) picking the target content from within the target storage container by use of the gripper, Austrheim discloses neither the claimed device nor the method step.
wherein the steps A)-E) are controlled by the control system.
Park, an invention in the field of logistics transport, teaches:
a robotic picking device (50’: fig. 5) comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position,These features of Park’s robot arm 50’ can be seen in fig. 5 including three arm segments and a rotating base (“base center position”) and a gripper. Robot arm 50’ can plainly adjust its radial distance to access the various storage units on the carousel as disclosed in [0102]. In combination with Austrheim, we use Austrheim’s general storage system structure and individual carousel layout with Park’s robotic arm accessing containers from one or more such carousels that may be deployed around the robotic arm similarly to Park’s fig. 5.
and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system,Park discloses a controller in [0068] for robot arm 50; in [0069] arm 50’ of fig. 5 is disclosed to be an instance of arm 50.
D) if the target storage container is outside a maximum radial extent of the robotic picking device, rotating the rotational device such that the storage container support with the target storage container is within the maximum radial extent,This method step is so essential to the basic nature of a goods carousel, which in the art is used to rotate carried items for access by human or robotic operators, as to be obvious to be a person of ordinary skill in the art.
and E) picking the target content from within the target storage container by use of the gripper,This method step is all but inherent in the idea of a robotic gripper, a device whose universal function is a pick target content. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have wide experience of picking objects from containers by means of robotic grippers.
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 Austrheim with a robotic picking device comprising: a robotic base at a base center position, a first robotic segment connected to the robotic base, and a gripper connected at least indirectly to the first robotic segment, the gripper being spaced at an adjustable radial gripper distance between the base center position and the gripper such that the gripper is as least within reach of the storage container accessing position, wherein the gripper is configured to releasably grab a product from within a storage container positioned in the storage container accessing position, and wherein the rotatable container carousel and the robotic picking device are configured to be in signal communication with a control system, and also D) if the target storage container is outside a maximum radial extent of the robotic picking device, rotating the rotational device such that the storage container support with the target storage container is within the maximum radial extent, and E) picking the target content from within the target storage container by use of the gripper. With respect to the device limitations, the obviousness would be plain because the use of a robotic arm in connection with the carousel gives greater flexibility in both cross-access to multiple carousels and multiple containers on those carousels and in automating aspects of goods picking to and from containers that Austrheim’s system standing alone would have to concede to a human operator. With respect to the method steps, these steps describe the basic functionality of a goods carousel with an associated robotic gripper accessing the carousel, and as such a person of ordinary skill in the art would be broadly familiar with the teaching.
Claimed method steps A-C above are obvious in view of the combination of Austrheim and Park and further in view of Austrheim itself according to these rationales:
wherein the method comprises: A) rotating the rotational device of the rotatable container carousel to a rotational position where the storage container support is located vertically aligned below a target grid cell of the rail system, Austrheim’s structure of figs. 7 and 9 is such that its storage container supports are always aligned below a target grid cell of the rail system, the target grid cell being one of the port columns 19, 20.
B) moving a container handling vehicle carrying a target storage container with a target content on the rail system to the target grid cell above the storage container support,Austrheim’s disclosure of a standard dense-grid storage system with a top-mounted rail grid structure, well known in the art, so strongly implies the method of moving a container handling vehicle to a target grid cell that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious.
C) placing the target storage container onto the storage container support by lowering the target storage container through the grid cell using the lifting device,Austrheim’s structure again determines this method step to the point of obviousness to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Its container handling vehicle is explicitly configured with a lifting device whose purpose is to raise and lower containers through grid cells.
wherein the steps A)-E) are controlled by the control system.While Austrheim does not explicitly disclose these method steps (hence the obviousness rationales cited above), it does disclose a control system for its ASRS and handling system in P4/L34-41.
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 Austrheim to perform the method: wherein the method comprises: A) rotating the rotational device of the rotatable container carousel to a rotational position where the storage container support is located vertically aligned below a target grid cell of the rail system, B) moving a container handling vehicle carrying a target storage container with a target content on the rail system to the target grid cell above the storage container support, C) placing the target storage container onto the storage container support by lowering the target storage container through the grid cell using the lifting device, and wherein the steps A)-E) are controlled by the control system, because these method steps are the basic, common, and well-known functions of the structures disclosed by Austrheim as part of its dense-grid storage system and because all such method steps in the art, when automated, are controlled by control systems. Such storage systems are the subject of myriad patent publications by assignees such as Autostore, Ocado, and Attabotics, and these functions would be obvious by reason of ubiquity.
25. Regarding claim 20,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 19 and also:
wherein the product handling system further comprises: a plurality of the rotatable container carousels, and an access station arranged at least partly above at least one of the rotatable container carousels, wherein the access station comprises an access opening configured to allow an operator access to contents within a storage container supported on the storage container support,Austrheim depicts the claimed arrangement of carousel, access station, and access openings in figs. 5 and 7.
wherein the method further comprises: F) placing the target content into an accessed storage container supported on the storage container support of one or more rotatable container carousels arranged nearest the access station.Following the pattern of the method step limitation rationales A-E of claim 19, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a robotic gripping device to place an article in a container on a carousel in the context of the system and structures disclosed by Austrheim and Park, which plainly support the claimed method even if they do not explicitly disclose these well-understood steps.
26. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim in view of Park and further in view of Bastian, et al., US 2008/0181753 (hereinafter Bastian).
27. Regarding claim 12,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the product handling system further comprises: a camera system comprising: a camera configured to visually inspect contents within a storage container when the storage container support is oriented in, or approaching, a picking position, and a camera transmitter configured to transmit information from the visual inspection of the contents to the control system.Neither reference teaches cameras.
Bastian, an invention in the field of warehouse automation, teaches the limitation:
wherein the product handling system further comprises: a camera system (510: fig. 5, [0050]) comprising: a camera configured to visually inspect contents within a storage container when the storage container support is oriented in, or approaching, a picking position, and a camera transmitter configured to transmit information from the visual inspection of the contents to the control system.Bastian teaches in fig. 5 and [0050] a vision system 510 that is mounted on the distal end of its robotic arm 416. In combination with Austrheim and Park, Park’s robotic arm would likewise mount a vision system on its distal end. As Park’s robotic arm can access all the contents of containers on its carousels, Bastian’s vision system would likewise be able to inspect the contents of the containers. In [0050] Bastian teaches that its robotic arm (which comprises the vision system) communicates via wired or wireless connections, and thus transmits information as claimed.
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 Austrheim and Park, wherein the product handling system further comprises: a camera system comprising: a camera configured to visually inspect contents within a storage container when the storage container support is oriented in, or approaching, a picking position, and a camera transmitter configured to transmit information from the visual inspection of the contents to the control system, as taught by Bastian, because as Bastian teaches in [0050] the vision system can be used by a vision system to locate items automatically for picking and also to remotely inspect items in totes (containers) both functions commonly required of picking operations in warehouses.
28. Regarding claim 13,
Austrheim in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the product handling system further comprises: a rotatable camera system comprising a camera base arranged above the rotatable container carousel and a camera rotatably connected to the camera base, wherein the rotatable camera system is configured such that the camera may visually inspect contents within a storage container when the storage container support is oriented in, or approaching, a picking position.Neither reference teaches cameras.
Bastian, an invention in the field of warehouse automation, teaches the limitation:
wherein the product handling system further comprises: a rotatable camera system (510: fig. 5) comprising a camera base arranged above the rotatable container carousel and a camera rotatably connected to the camera base, wherein the rotatable camera system is configured such that the camera may visually inspect contents within a storage container when the storage container support is oriented in, or approaching, a picking position.Bastian teaches in fig. 5 and [0050] a vision system 510 that is mounted on the distal end of its robotic arm 416. In combination with Austrheim and Park, Park’s robotic arm would likewise mount a vision system on its distal end. As Park’s robotic arm can access all the contents of containers on its carousels, Bastian’s vision system would likewise be able to inspect the contents of the containers. Park’s robotic arm is mounted on a rotatable base and the segments of its robotic arm are likewise rotatable, and thus the combined camera system of Park and Bastian is also rotatable. Park’s robot arm is mounted above its carousels, and so the combination arm and camera would likewise be above the carousel as claimed.
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 Austrheim and Park, wherein the product handling system further comprises: a rotatable camera system comprising a camera base arranged above the rotatable container carousel and a camera rotatably connected to the camera base, wherein the rotatable camera system is configured such that the camera may visually inspect contents within a storage container when the storage container support is oriented in, or approaching, a picking position, as taught by Bastian, because as Bastian teaches in [0050] the vision system can be used by a vision system to locate items automatically for picking and also to remotely inspect items in totes (containers), both functions commonly required of picking operations in warehouses. It would have been obvious for the camera to be rotatable because in the context of an array of carousels and containers arranged around a central point, the camera must be able to rotate to access all the carousels and containers. Without this rotational feature, a plurality of cameras would have to be deployed, increasing the cost and complexity of the system.
29. Regarding claim 14,
Austrheim in view of Park and Bastian teaches the limitations of claim 13, and also:
wherein the rotatable camera system further comprises: a camera arm rotationally coupled at one longitudinal position to the camera base, wherein the camera is coupled to the camera arm at another longitudinal position.As the vision system of the combination of Austrheim, Park, and Bastian is mounted at the end of a robotic arm, this robotic arm may also be considered the camera arm. Per applicant’s fig. 5, the camera base can be considered the base of the robot arm, not a component of the camera itself. In Park’s fig. 5, the base and the end-effector are coupled to the arm at different longitudinal positions. As Bastian’s vision system is mounted like the end-effector at the distal end of a robotic arm, this means the vision system and base in the combination of Austrheim, Park, and Bastian have the claimed positional coupling.
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 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