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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodrigues (US 2020/0316774).
Rodrigues (fig. 1-6) teaches a warehouse robot control method and related warehouse robot comprising:
(re: claims 1, 11, 12) acquiring image data of a target storage location corresponding to a carrying task through the image acquisition apparatus (fig. 2 showing robotic system comprising controller/processor elements linked to data acquisition elements 216 and imaging devices 222; fig. 3 showing sensor units configured to acquire image data; para. 24, 30-41, 66 teaching application of robotic system within warehouse environment via control logic, memory, software instructions and communication modules to execute process steps as described below);
performing detection processing on the image data of the target storage location (para. 26, 45-48, 87-95), and determining at least one of state information of the target storage location and state information of a target object, wherein the state information of the target storage location comprises obstacle information on a carrying path of the target storage location current damage degree information of the target object and current deformation degree information of the target object;
controlling, according to the determined at least one of state information, the carrying apparatus to execute the carrying task in response to determining that an execution condition of the carrying task is satisfied;
in case that the carrying task is a pickup task, the execution condition of the carrying task comprises at least one of the following:
no obstacle is present on a pickup path of the target storage location (fig. 3; para. 24, 26, 45-48, 63-70, 78, 87-95 teaching that control and imaging units generate a representation of detected environment including pickup and drop locations, wherein control module develops an object handling strategy using data to ensure obstacles/objects do not block access to target object and there is sufficient clearance for robot and target object during transport; see also para. 48 teaching use of various sensors, including 3-dimensional cameras and LIDAR, to generate representation of designated area—such as pickup and drop-off location of objects--
para. 89 teaching that object handling strategy includes instructions to “provide clearance” and “prevent…unintentionally contacting other objects or structures”);
the size of the target storage location satisfies a storage condition (para. 37, 81, 87-96, 116-117 teaching that object identity, pose and size are parameters in handling strategy that ensure that object has proper clearance during handling and storage of object);
wherein the pickup path refers to a path in a process that, after the warehouse robot moves to the front of a rack, the carrying apparatus picks up a box from the target storage location and moves the box to the temporary storage location (Id. with para. 24 teaching that pick up and drop off locations comprise warehouse and/or vehicles thus a path can be regarded as transport path from rack to a temporary storage location, such as a vehicle);
(re: claims 2, 13) wherein the acquiring image data of a target storage location corresponding to a carrying task through the image acquisition apparatus comprises:
controlling, in a case that the warehouse robot moves to a target location corresponding to the target storage location, the image acquisition apparatus to start and acquire the image data of the target storage location (para. 26, 48); or
controlling, in a case that the warehouse robot moves within a preset range around the target storage location, the image acquisition apparatus to start and acquire the image data of the target storage location;
(re: claims 3, 14) wherein the image acquisition apparatus is disposed on the carrying apparatus, and before the controlling the image acquisition apparatus to start and acquire the image data of the target storage location, the method further comprises:
controlling the carrying apparatus to be aligned with the target storage location (fig. 3 showing imaging units 222 mounted on robotic gripper element; para. 26, 28 teaching that imaging units are used to generate data of both pickup and storage locations wherein it is inherent that the imaging element is first aligned to acquire and generate image data);
(re: claim 4) wherein the carrying task is a storage task, and the execution condition of the carrying task comprises at least one of the following:
the target storage location is idle;
the size of the target storage location satisfies a storage condition; and
no obstacle is present on a storage path of the target storage location (supra teaching that object handling steps include ensuring that no obstacles are present);
(re: certain elements of claims 5, 15) sending error information to a server according to the image data of the target storage location in response to determining that the execution condition of the carrying task is not satisfied, wherein the error information comprises at least one of the following:
the state information of target storage location, the state information of the target object, and an execution condition item which is not satisfied (para. 86, 96-97 teaching error detection protocol where inconsistencies in object data is detected, wherein error information/notification can be sent to an operator);
(re: certain elements of claims 6, 16) after the sending the error information, further comprising:
controlling the warehouse robot to execute a corresponding error handling behavior (Id. teaching sending notification or transporting object to specific area);
(re: certain elements of claims 7, 17) wherein the error handling behavior is any one of the following:
stopping at a current location and waiting for an instruction; moving to a target point and skipping the current carrying task and executing a next carrying task (Id.);
(re: claims 8, 18) wherein the acquiring image data of a target storage location through the image acquisition apparatus comprises at least one of the following:
acquiring, by a first camera apparatus, two-dimensional image data of the target storage location;
acquiring, by a second camera apparatus, three-dimensional point cloud data of the target storage location; and
acquiring, by a laser radar apparatus, two-dimensional point cloud data of the target storage location (para. 48, 67 teaching application of imaging techniques to both pickup and task/storage location, wherein techniques include imaging with 2D or 3D cameras with visual and infrared capabilities that generate digital image or point cloud used for robotic applications);
(re: claims 9, 19) before the acquiring image data of a target storage location corresponding to a carrying task through the image acquisition apparatus, further comprising:
controlling the warehouse robot to move to the target storage location in response to an execution instruction of the carrying task (para. 24-26 teaching that robotic system tasks include unloading objects and then transferring said objects to a task/storage location).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (US 2020/0316774) in view of Goja (US 2019/0102874) and Tomiyama (US 10,542,219).
Rodrigues as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 5-7, 15-17) wherein sending error information and sending a scheduling instruction entails using a server.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the prior art may not be regarded as teaching (re: claims 1, 11, 12) determining the state information of the target storage location comprises obstacle information on a carrying path of the target storage location.
Goja, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage arts to utilize servers to store as well as send information/instructions relating to specific automated storage processes (fig. 2, 3 and para. 24, 56-58 teaching servers as part of control elements; see also fig. 9 and para. 48-50, 110-112, 125-127, 133-141 teaching that control elements are configured to analyze data from various imaging devices to predict item damage during carrying tasks and send related instructions/notifications).
Tomiyama further teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage arts for the robot warehouse control module to determine state information that includes obstacle and storage location size information that allows the robot to avoid obstacles during carrying tasks (fig. 1, 2 showing robot and control module integrated with obstacle sensor 13; col. 2, ln. 54-col. 3, ln.12; col. 9, ln. 27-40; col. 12, ln. 19-32 teaching obstacle sensor mounted on warehouse robot that provides mapping data of obstacles for route planning processes; see also fig. 9 and col. 9, ln. 40-col. 10, ln. 35 teaching storage location dimensional information that assists with carrying tasks processes).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., servers or control module processes) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. 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 modify the invention of Rodrigues for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “obstacle information on a carrying path of the target storage location”. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization as Rodrigues expressly teaches formulating an object handling strategy that avoids obstacles within the path (para. 89 teaching that object handling strategy includes instructions to “provide clearance” and “prevent… unintentionally contacting other objects or structures”). Moreover, the prior art also expressly teaches an obstacle sensor mounted on warehouse robot that provides mapping data of obstacles for route planning processes (Tomiyama, supra). Further, Applicant’s arguments that Tomiyama is limited to the path of the main body of the robot rather than a path related to the arm is simply not relevant as Rodrigues already teaches these types of clearance and object movement strategies. Further, Applicant’s additional argument that the prior art fails to teach instructions relating to whether size information satisfies a storage condition is also misplaced as Rodrigues expressly teaches that object size functions as a parameter when determining object handling strategies (para. 37-38, 81, 87-96 teaching acquiring object information—including dimensions, shape and weight, when formulating object handling strategies to ensure proper clearances) and Tomiyama also teaches see using object size in relation to the storage location when developing a carrying strategy (fig. 9 and col. 9, ln. 40-col. 10, ln. 35 teaching storage location dimensional information that assists with carrying tasks processes). Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
January 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights