DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 2/18/2026 has been entered and is treated below.
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 Objections
Claims 6 and 15-16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6 “robots” in line 3 should be robot. In claims 15-16 and 18 “robot” should be robots. 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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 includes “the bin” at line 3 but it is not clear if this intended to be a particular bin, or merely one of the plurality of bins. Clarification is necessary. Claim 8 also refers to “the bin” at line 4.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 17 and 19 refer to “the transportation robot” but it is not clear which specific robot this language is referring to. Clarification is necessary.
The language “another transport robot” is used through claim 1, in so far as this language always refers to the same robot, each instance after the first should read “the another transfer robot.”
Claim 8 refers to “a picking station” but this element is now introduced in claim 1 as amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0145045 to Mountz in view of US 11,975,744 to Stuhaug.
Regarding claim 1 Mountz discloses an automated storage and retrieval system comprising: a rack storing a plurality of bins for containing items (see figures 1 and 2 showing multiple levels each storing a bins 30); one or more transportation robots (20) for transporting the bin between the rack and a picking station (50p) and a device control unit (see figure 3); wherein the rack includes a plurality of floors each of which stores the plurality of bins (see figures 1 and 2 showing multiple levels each storing a bins 30), and allows the one or more transportation robots to run along a surface thereof (see figure 1),
Mountz does not disclose at least one target bin is positioned in a section of a floor from the plurality of floors that does not face a movement route of the one or more transportation robots and is surrounded on multiple sides by one or more obstructive bins that are arranged between the target bin and the movement route blocking direct transportation of the target bin, the one or more robots are configured to move the one or more obstructive bins to enable another transportation robot to transport the target bin and the device control is configured to, transmit a transportation instruction to another transport robot for transportation of the target bin, and transmit a movement instruction to the one or more transportation robots for moving the one or more obstructive bins to enable another transportation robot to transport the target bin.
Stuhaug teaches a matrix storage system including at least one target bin is positioned in a section of a floor from the plurality of floors that does not face a movement route of the one or more transportation robots and is surrounded on multiple sides by one or more obstructive bins that are arranged between the target bin and the movement route blocking direct transportation of the target bin (col. 3 lines 27-32), the one or more robots are configured to move the one or more obstructive bins to enable another transportation robot to transport the target bin (col. 3 lines 28-35) and the device control is configured to, transmit a transportation instruction to another transport robot for transportation of the target bin (col. 3 lines 15-20), and transmit a movement instruction to the one or more transportation robots for moving the one or more obstructive bins to enable another transportation robot to transport the target bin (col. 3 lines 30-45) in order to provide access to any desired bin while maintaining a dense packing of the stored bins (see figure 1 and abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Mountz to include at least one target bin is positioned in a section of a floor from the plurality of floors that does not face a movement route of the one or more transportation robots and is surrounded on multiple sides by one or more obstructive bins that are arranged between the target bin and the movement route blocking direct transportation of the target bin, the one or more robots are configured to move the one or more obstructive bins to enable another transportation robot to transport the target bin and the device control is configured to, transmit a transportation instruction to another transport robot for transportation of the target bin, and transmit a movement instruction to the one or more transportation robots for moving the one or more obstructive bins to enable another transportation robot to transport the target bin, as taught by Stuhaug, in order to provide access to any desired bin while maintaining a dense packing of the stored bins.
Regarding claim 2 Mountz discloses the transportation robot is configured to be able to pass below the bin, and transport the bin in a state where the transportation robot lifts the bin from below (see figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 3 Mountz discloses the bin is supported on the floor by four support legs, and the transportation robot is configured to be able to enter below the bin from between a pair of the neighboring support legs (see figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claims 4-5, 9-12 and 15 these claims are entirely functional. The drive units of Mountz are capable of performing the claimed operations and thus read on the claims. See discussion above.
Regarding claim 6 Stuhaug discloses when there is a plurality of obstructive bins, each of the plurality of obstructive bins is moved by a respective individual transportation robot (col. 3 lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 7 Mountz discloses the floors define one or more retracted positions (see figure 2 showing open areas and picking stations) to which the one or more transportation robots temporarily retract the one or more bins which are the obstacles. The latter half of the claim is functional and Mountz is capable of performing the claimed operations and thus reads on the claims
Regarding claim 8 Mountz discloses a picking station defined in the rack and used to pick the item from the bin (50p), wherein the transportation robot transports the bin between the rack and the picking station (20 delivers bins to 50p for picking), and at a non-operation time of picking work of the item at the picking station, the transportation robot rearranges the bin containing the item necessary for the picking work after start of an operation. The latter half of the claim is functional and Mountz is capable of performing the claimed operations and thus reads on the claims
Regarding claim 16 Mountz discloses the length of at least one side of the one or more transportation robot is smaller than the length of each side of the bin (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 17 Mountz discloses the rack comprises one or more transportation elevators (80) for transporting the transportation robot between the plurality of floors.
Regarding claim 18 Mountz discloses each transportation elevator is arranged in one section in the movement route of the one or more transportation robot on each floor (see figure 1, robots 20 move between levels via 80).
Regarding claim 19 Mountz discloses the transportation robot is configured to change its height between a first configuration in which an upper surface of a housing is set to a first height, and a second configuration in which the upper surface of the housing is set to a second height higher than the first height (see docking actuator 130).
Regarding claim 20 Mountz discloses in the first configuration, the transportation robot is adapted to enter the space below a bin main body from between the plurality of support legs of the storage bin (see figure 1), and upon changing from the first configuration to the second configuration, the transportation robot lifts and holds the storage bin on the upper surface of the housing (130 raises 110 to lift the item).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the particular configuration of the sectional floor each supported by the columns at the corners thereof differentiate the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mountz and Stuhaug as set forth in detail above.
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 MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights