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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
Note that in accordance with the previous Remarks filed 10/27/2025, claims 1-6 and 12-22 were elected for examining on the merits without traverse; and claims 7-11 and 23-28 were withdrawn or non-elected for examining.
Currently in accordance with the claim filing on 05/11/2026, claims 1-8, 13, 14, 18 and 19 have been amended and claims 12, 16, 17 and 20-29 are cancelled. Because claims 7-11 have been withdrawn from examining on the merits according to the Remarks filed 10/27/2025 and have not been rejoined, only claims 1-6, 13-15, and 18-19 are being examined in the current Office Action and hence, pending.
This application is a Continuation of 16711192 (filed 12/11/2019, now U.S. Patent # 11518043), which claims foreign priority to applications of JAPAN: 2018-238830 (filed 12/20/2018) and 2019-196805 (filed 10/29/2019).
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.
Claim 19 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following claims fail to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the function recited in a claim invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
Claim 19 recites limitation using “means for, step for, or generic placeholder” to perform tasks as follow:
“transmission unit configured to transmit…” (line 8).
These limitations pass the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181, hence they are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for each of these limitations. Applicant has provided no means for ascertaining the requisite structure, material, or acts for performing these tasks anywhere in the specification. Hence, examiner has concluded that the specification is silent as to any corresponding structure, material, or acts for these generic placeholders.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more
Claim 18 is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting and receiving data wirelessly. The processes for transmitting a wireless signal by a transmission apparatus, and receiving the wireless signal by a reception apparatus are there all describing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of the wireless signal...includes at least a first operation data indicating a first operation of the apparatus in a first period and a second operation data indicating a second operation of the apparatus in a second period different from the first period are well-understood and conventional activities previously known to the industry. None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination, provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAPOOR et al. (US 20170075331 A1, hereinafter KAPOOR), in view of Wicks et al. (US 20150352721 A1, hereinafter Wicks).
Regarding claim 1, KAPOOR teaches a communication apparatus comprising (in general, see fig. 8 along with fig. 3-4, and their respectively paragraphs):
a transmission apparatus configured to transmit a wireless signal including operation instruction for an apparatus (KAPOOR, see at least para. 59 along with para. 34, “...the process proceeds to step S110 in which one or more workpieces 16, 18 are assigned to one or more of the robots. Step S110 is performed by the pick scheduler 104 to generate one or more queues as illustrated in FIG. 3. When multiple robots 14 are present, step S110 is performed by creating respective queues for each of the plurality of robots 14. Step S110 can be performed by a user interacting with PLC 10 to configure the pick scheduler 104. Step S110 can be performed according to the sequential queuing, product type queuing, custom queuing, or a combination thereof...”)
and
a reception apparatus configured to receive the wireless signal (KAPOOR, see at least para. 59-60 in view of para. 41 of fig. 3, “...In step S112, a robot 14 is controlled to begin tracking a first workpiece 16, 18 in the queue of a robot 14...”, note that “...The robots 14 are controlled to manipulate each workpiece in the order specified by the respective queues. The queue for each robot is thus an example of a schedule that includes information representing an order in which the workpieces are to be manipulated...”),
wherein the transmission apparatus transmits, to the reception apparatus, the wireless signal including at least a first operation instruction indicating a first operation of the apparatus in a first period and a second operation instruction indicating a second operation of the apparatus in a second period different from the first period. (KAPOOR, see at least para. 41-42 of fig. 3-4, for a non-limiting example, “...FIG. 4 illustrates data for seven workpieces, workpieces A-G, which are examples of individual workpieces corresponding to workpieces 16 and 18. As illustrated in FIG. 4, workpiece information can represent the position of each workpiece in an X-direction and a Y-direction in a common coordinate system. Similarly, the workpiece information can represent a Z-direction position...”, note that “...A queue represents an order, or sequence, in which the individual robot 14 will manipulate the individual workpieces...”).
KAPOOR does not specifically teach operation data.
Wicks teaches operation data (Wicks, see at least para. 94, “...the results data may indicate the position, depth, and orientation of boxes within the wall of items that may be retrieved by the robotic arm. In some embodiments, the results data may further include instructions, codes, and/or commands for controlling the robotic arm, such as instructions that may cause motors of the robotic arm to move the arm in various directions for various periods in order to be aligned with verified target items...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 2, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 1.
KAPOOR in view of Wicks further teaches the transmission apparatus transmits, to the reception apparatus, the, and the wireless signal includes information that specifies operation data to be executed from among the as least first operation date and the second operation data (KAPOOR, see at least para. 41-42 of fig. 3-4, for a non-limiting example, “...FIG. 4 illustrates data for seven workpieces, workpieces A-G, which are examples of individual workpieces corresponding to workpieces 16 and 18. As illustrated in FIG. 4, workpiece information can represent the position of each workpiece in an X-direction and a Y-direction in a common coordinate system. Similarly, the workpiece information can represent a Z-direction position...”, note that “...A queue represents an order, or sequence, in which the individual robot 14 will manipulate the individual workpieces...”; Wicks, see at least para. 94, operation data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 3, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 2.
KAPOOR in view of Wicks further teaches the transmission apparatus transmits, to the reception apparatus, a plurality of wireless signals including the wireless signal in chronological order starting with the operation data to be executed specified by the information (KAPOOR, see at least para. 41-42 of fig. 3-4, for a non-limiting example, “...FIG. 4 illustrates data for seven workpieces, workpieces A-G, which are examples of individual workpieces corresponding to workpieces 16 and 18. As illustrated in FIG. 4, workpiece information can represent the position of each workpiece in an X-direction and a Y-direction in a common coordinate system. Similarly, the workpiece information can represent a Z-direction position...”, note that “...A queue represents an order, or sequence, in which the individual robot 14 will manipulate the individual workpieces...”; Wicks, see at least para. 94, operation data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 4, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 3.
KAPOOR in view of Wicks further teaches wherein the transmission apparatus includes: a memory configured to store at least the first operation data and the second operation data; a transmission data generation unit combines the first operation data and the second operation data as the wireless signal; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the wireless signal. (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 5A/B/C in view of fig. 3, take fig. 5A as a non-limiting example, “...The workpieces in FIG. 5A are arranged in order, such that workpiece A is first in sequence, and workpiece G is last according to the X position along workpiece supplier 22. Sequential queuing is performed by assigning each workpiece to robot # 1 and robot # 2 in an alternating sequence such that each robot is assigned to every other workpiece...”, note that “...This assignment can be performed by creating a queue for each robot 14. A queue represents an order, or sequence, in which the individual robot 14 will manipulate the individual workpieces...”; Wicks, see at least para. 94, operation data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 5, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 2.
KAPOOR in view of Wicks further teaches wherein in a case where the wireless signal is transmitted from the transmission apparatus to the reception apparatus, the reception apparatus executes the operation data specified by the information (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 5A/B/C along with para. 31, take fig. 5A as a non-limiting example, “...The workpieces in FIG. 5A are arranged in order, such that workpiece A is first in sequence, and workpiece G is last according to the X position along workpiece supplier 22. Sequential queuing is performed by assigning each workpiece to robot # 1 and robot # 2 in an alternating sequence such that each robot is assigned to every other workpiece...”, note that “...The personal computer 32 is connected to the PLC 10 via an Ethernet connection or wireless network, for example. This allows a user to control the operation of a robot 14 by interacting with the PLC 10 itself, ...”; Wicks, see at least para. 94, operation data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 6, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 2.
KAPOOR in view of Wicks further teaches wherein in a case where the wireless signal is transmitted from the transmission apparatus to the reception apparatus, the reception apparatus does not execute the predetermined operation data other than the predetermined operation data specified by the information (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 5A/B/C along with para. 31, take fig. 5A as a non-limiting example, “...The workpieces in FIG. 5A are arranged in order, such that workpiece A is first in sequence, and workpiece G is last according to the X position along workpiece supplier 22. Sequential queuing is performed by assigning each workpiece to robot # 1 and robot # 2 in an alternating sequence such that each robot is assigned to every other workpiece...”, note that “...The personal computer 32 is connected to the PLC 10 via an Ethernet connection or wireless network, for example. This allows a user to control the operation of a robot 14 by interacting with the PLC 10 itself, ...”; Wicks, see at least para. 94, operation data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 13, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 1.
KAPOOR does not specifically teach the transmission apparatus transmits the wireless signal by at least one of Wi-Fi Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.1 communication, fourth generation (4G) communication, fifth generation (5G) communication.
Wicks teaches the transmission apparatus transmits the wireless signal by at least one of Wi-Fi Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.1 communication, fourth generation (4G) communication, fifth generation (5G) communication (see at least para. 44 and fig. 1, for one non-limiting example, using WiFi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in production apparatus claim format.
In addition, KAPOOR in view of Wicks also teaches a second apparatus including a movement mechanism and a driving source configured to be moved by the movement mechanism (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 1 and fig. 6), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in robot apparatus claim format.
In addition, KAPOOR in view of Wicks also teaches an apparatus comprising a robot arm including an end effector (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 1 and fig. 6), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in transmission apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 14-15, and 18-19, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights