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 .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, and 14-18 were amended. Claims 9-10 were canceled.
Examiner’s Note
3. The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
4. Before addressing specific arguments, we make the general observation that applicant’s system claims 6, 8, 11, 13, and 19 recite limitations of the form “[the structure] is configured such that [the device] can [perform an action]”. Similarly, system claims 1, 2, 8, and 16 recite the phrase “configured to allow”. These limitation forms declare a capability “in posse” but not the actual performance “in esse” of the action. Where limitations of this form appear, it suffices for prior art cited in rejection to also exhibit a similar capability, but such art is not required to disclose that it actually performs the action so long as the capability is plain.
5. Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed November 3, 2025, with respect to an objection to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 14 has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 13 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.
As applicant has amended the independent claims, thus mandating new search, the new art cited in rejection constitutes grounds for a final rejection action instead of a second non-final action.
7. Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed November 3, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 5, 12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5, 12, and 14-20 have been withdrawn.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 14, we consider applicant’s arguments regarding the rigidity or lack thereof of reference Mantovani’s angled or hanging supports to be neither here nor there, as applicant’s claims do not specify rigidity. Similarly, applicant’s arguments regarding the purpose of the supports is not persuasive because no such purpose is declared in the claims. However, we concede that adopting Mantovani’s supports in the context of Elazary’s system (or for that matter in combination with new reference Miyahara, which replaces Elazary in the instant action) would require a substantial amount of incidental redesign unmotivated by any clear benefit, thus rendering the combination unobvious. For this reason we withdraw the rejections of claims 5, 12, and 14.
The first-action obviousness rejection of independent claim 15 has been overcome by amendment. No suitable prior art was found after additional search that anticipates or renders amended claim 15 obvious. Because we consider claims 15-20 to now contain allowable subject matter, we will omit any further discussion of applicant’s arguments regarding these claims.
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.
8. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara, et al., US 2019/0150375 (hereinafter Miyahara) in view of McGee, et al., US 2005/0234592 (hereinafter McGee).
9. Regarding claim 1,
Miyahara discloses:
A system (10: fig. 1) comprising: a grow space (11: fig. 1) including: one or more grow trays (P: figs. 2-3);
and one or more grow tray supports (unnumbered shelves of racks 13, 14: figs. 2-3);
a mobile robot (12: figs. 2-3) configured to perform transport or task automation within the grow space, the mobile robot including:
a mobility mechanism (121,122: figs. 2-3);
and a lift (124-126: figs. 2-3), wherein the lift is configured to allow the mobile robot to lift a grow tray off of a grow tray support and to transport the grow tray above or below a stationary height of the one or more grow trays.Miyahara’s robot 12 plainly has many features in common with applicant’s robot 108 depicted in fig. 1B of the instant application. Applicant’s robot base is below all trays like Miyahara’s, it moves in the same sense below and to the side of the trays as does Miyahara’s, and like Miyahara’s its attachment or lift may be above the grow trays.
However, Miyahara does not explicitly disclose:
[the mobile robot including:] one or more sensors; a processor; memory;Although they are commonplace in virtually all robots, Miyahara does not disclose these features of its robot.
McGee, an invention in the field of robotics, teaches:
one or more sensors; a processor; memory;McGee teaches in [0004] that conventional robots have these features.
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 Miyahara, wherein its robot comprises one or more sensors; a processor; memory, as taught by McGee, because virtually all robots possess these features. Industrial robots are almost all computer-controlled, thus requiring processors and memory, and almost all industrial robots are designed to perform mechanical tasks such as picking and placing objects that frequently require sensors to guide their execution.
10. Regarding claim 2,
Miyahara in view of McGee teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the lift is further configured to allow transport of the grow trays at a transport height that is different from a stationary height of any other grow trays.As seen in figs. 2-3, Miyahara’s robot can transport trays over a wide continuous range of heights. Given a finite number of grow trays, an infinitude of heights in the range accessible to Miyahara’s robot must be different from the height of all other grow trays. We note that a lift “configured to allow” an action provides a capability in posse and is not claimed to actually perform the action as part of a method.
11. Regarding claim 3,
Miyahara in view of McGee teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the grow space is configured such that the mobile robot travels underneath columns or rows of grow trays at a transport height that is different from a stationary height of the one or more grow trays or grow tray supports.Miyahara discloses this arrangement in its figs. 2-3. Following the pattern of applicant’s robot 108 in applicant’s fig. 1B, we interpret “travels underneath columns or rows of grow trays” to only require the robot base to travel beneath the rows or columns of trays in the sense of the robot vehicle being lower than any of the trays. Like applicant’s robot 108, however, the attachment or lift may extend above the trays. Also like applicant’s robot 108, Miyahara’s robot travels both below the trays in one sense, and to the side of them in another.
12. Regarding claim 4,
Miyahara in view of McGee teaches the limitations of claim 1, and also:
wherein each grow tray is spaced apart from another grow tray with a maximum distance D, wherein D is less than the width of any particular grow tray in the one or more grow trays.Miyahara discloses in [0050] its pads (“grow trays”) P are 1,200 mm wide, and that the path between the pads (distance D) is 800 mm wide.
13. Regarding claim 7,
Miyahara in view McGee teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the mobile robot is configured to include an attachment (123-126: figs. 2-3), the attachment being configured to perform tasks above the one or more grow trays.
14. Regarding claim 8,
Miyahara discloses:
A system (10: fig. 1) comprising: a grow space (11: fig. 1) including: a plurality of grow trays (P: figs. 2-3),
wherein each grow tray is spaced apart from another grow tray with a maximum distance D, wherein D is less than the width of any particular grow tray in the plurality of grow trays;Miyahara discloses in [0050] its pads (“grow trays”) P are 1,200 mm wide, and that the path between the pads (distance D) is 800 mm wide.
and one or more grow tray supports (unnumbered shelves of racks 13, 14: figs. 2-3),
wherein the one or more grow tray supports are configured such that a mobile robot (12: figs. 2-3) can navigate below the plurality of grow trays while also performing tasks above the plurality of grow traysAs seen in figs. 2-3, Miyahara discloses the lowest tray support of racks 13-14 provides substantial room for a wheeled robotic vehicle to pass below the trays. Miyahara’s robot, considered as the vehicle sans attachment consisting of mast and lift, is plainly lower than all trays, and as it moves in the aisle beside the trays, also moves below them. With its lifting mast, it is seen to be capable of tasks above the trays as well. Miyahara’s robot 12 plainly has many features in common with applicant’s robot 108 depicted in fig. 1B of the instant application. Applicant’s robot base is below all trays like Miyahara’s, it moves in the same sense below and to the side of the trays as does Miyahara’s, and like Miyahara’s its attachment or lift may be above the grow trays.
a mobile robot (12: figs. 2-3) configured to perform transport or task automation within the grow space, the mobile robot including:
a mobility mechanism (121,122: figs. 2-3);
and an attachment (123-126: figs. 2-3), wherein the attachment is configured to allow the mobile robot to lift a grow tray off of a grow tray support.
However, Miyahara does not explicitly disclose:
[the mobile robot including] one or more sensors; a processor; memory; Although they are commonplace in virtually all robots, Miyahara does not disclose these features of its robot.
McGee, an invention in the field of robotics, teaches:
[the mobile robot including] one or more sensors; a processor; memory;McGee teaches in [0004] that conventional robots have these features.
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 Miyahara, wherein its robot comprises one or more sensors; a processor; memory, as taught by McGee, because virtually all robots possess these features. Robots are almost all computer-controlled, thus requiring processors and memory, and robots almost all are designed to perform mechanical tasks such as picking and placing objects that require sensors to effect their control.
15. Regarding claim 11,
Miyahara in view McGee teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein the grow space is configured such that mobile robots can travel underneath columns or rows of grow trays at a transport height that is different from a stationary height of grow trays or grow tray supports.Miyahara discloses this capability in figs. 2-3 similar to that of applicant’s robot 108 in its fig. 1B.
16. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara in view of McGee and further in view of Glass, et al., US 2021/0090001 (hereinafter Glass).
17. Regarding claim 6,
Miyahara in view of McGee teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
wherein the grow space is configured such that two mobile robots can travel side-by-side in the grow space underneath grow trays, one mobile robot traveling directly underneath the grow trays in a column/row and the other mobile robot traveling in an aisle next to the column/row.Miyahara only discloses one robot moving at a time. While it could be argued that Miyahara’s arrangement of its grow space is configured such that two robots could travel side by side as claimed, Miyahara’s robot could not do so because its lifting mast would collide with grow trays.
Glass, an invention in the field of industrial robotics, teaches the missing aspects of:
wherein the grow space is configured such that two mobile robots can travel side-by-side in the grow space underneath grow trays, one mobile robot traveling directly underneath the grow trays in a column/row and the other mobile robot traveling in an aisle next to the column/row.Glass teaches in its fig. 6 a common type of AGV (ref. char. 90) which consists of a low mobile base and a lift that allows it to raise objects it moves below. In combination with Miyahara, Miyahara’s robot would move in the aisle as depicted in Miyahara’s figs. 2-3, where Glass’s robot would move beside it directly underneath the lowest layer of grow trays.
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 Miyahara and McGee, wherein the grow space is configured such that two mobile robots can travel side-by-side in the grow space underneath grow trays, one mobile robot traveling directly underneath the grow trays in a column/row and the other mobile robot traveling in an aisle next to the column/row, because where Miyahara’s robot is capable of accessing and transferring individual grow trays, Glass’s robot, a common type well known in the art, can lift and transfer a rack containing multiple grow trays. The two types of robots can offer different article-handling capabilities in the grow space, and since they move side by side in different aisles, would not interfere with one another when performing either discrete or coordinated tasks.
18. Regarding claim 13,
Miyahara in view of McGee teaches the limitations of claim 8, but not all aspects of:
wherein the grow space is configured such that two mobile robots can travel side-by-side in the grow space underneath grow trays, one mobile robot traveling directly underneath the grow trays in a column/row and the other mobile robot traveling in a micro-aisle next to the column/row, the micro-aisle having a width that is less than or equal to D.While Miyahara discloses the general structure of the claim including the capability for robots to travel side by side and the micro-aisle with width less than that of the grow trays (as demonstrated in the rejection of claim 8 above), Miyahara only teaches one robot moving at a time. While it could be argued that Miyahara’s arrangement of its grow space is configured such that two robots could travel side by side as claimed, Miyahara’s robot could not do so because its lifting mast would collide with grow trays.
Glass, an invention in the field of industrial robotics, teaches the missing aspects of:
wherein the grow space is configured such that two mobile robots can travel side-by-side in the grow space underneath grow trays, one mobile robot traveling directly underneath the grow trays in a column/row and the other mobile robot traveling in a micro-aisle next to the column/row, the micro-aisle having a width that is less than or equal to D.Glass teaches in its fig. 6 a common type of AGV (ref. char. 90) which consists of a low mobile base and a lift that allows it to raise objects it moves below. In combination with Miyahara, Miyahara’s robot would move in the micro-aisle as depicted in Miyahara’s figs. 2-3, where Glass’s robot would move beside it directly underneath the lowest layer of grow trays.
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 Miyahara and McGee, wherein the grow space is configured such that two mobile robots can travel side-by-side in the grow space underneath grow trays, one mobile robot traveling directly underneath the grow trays in a column/row and the other mobile robot traveling in a micro-aisle next to the column/row, the micro-aisle having a width that is less than or equal to D, because where Miyahara’s robot is capable of accessing and transferring individual grow trays, Glass’s robot can lift and transfer a rack containing multiple grow trays. The two types of robots can offer different article-handling capabilities in the grow space, and since they move side by side in different aisles, would not interfere with one another when performing either discrete or coordinated tasks.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 15-20 are allowed.
20. Claims 5, 12, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
21. Regarding dependent claims 5 and 12, while angled grow tray supports are known to the art, it would not be obvious to combine primary reference Miyahara’s rack and grow-tray structure with angled supports as taught (for example) in the previous office action by reference Mantovani because in order to accommodate Mantovani’s grow-tray supports a substantial amount of additional redesign would be required not taught by either reference, thus rendering the combination unobvious. Primary reference Miyahara’s grow-tray supports are not angled, and no simple teaching of angled supports is compatible with Miyahara’s basic structure, which would have to be completely replaced; and yet no suitable complete replacement was found in the art that would remain compatible with other limitations claimed for the structure in the parent claim. A similar argument applies to dependent claim 12 with respect to its parent claim 8. In effect, these angled supports in the context of the other limitations of the independent claims were neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding dependent claim 14, while hanging grow trays are known in the art, again such art (including for example reference Mantovani cited in the first office action) are structurally incompatible with the system of the primary reference Miyahara. The redesign required to accommodate such supports would not be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. Thus the combined limitations of parent claim 8 and claim 14 were neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding independent claim 15, amendments specifying a centralized zone lock server administering zone locks over a plurality of robots overcame rejections in the first action. While a variety of warehouse automation and robotics art teaches exclusion zones in which robots may be locked out or blocked from traveling, the claimed combination of a grow space and trays with a central server managing zone lock requests from individual robots and administering the various claimed aspects of zone locking on behalf of those robots was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claims 16-20 inherit the allowability of claim 15.
Conclusion
22. 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