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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 08/21/2023, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-9 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
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 1-9 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. In the instant case:
1)-. Claims 1, 5 and 9 recites the phrase "compact puzzle-based configuration": This phrase is highly subjective and descriptive, lacking a clear structural definition. For example:
"compact": this is a relative term that requires an objective standard for a POSITA to understand the claim's metes and bounds. For example, the disclosure lacks a clear, objective standard or metric for what constitutes a "compact" configuration (e.g., a specific density, a defined boundary, or a clear comparison to a known standard), hence the scope is unclear.
"puzzle-based configuration": This is a functional description (describing a result of arranging and re-arranging positions) that needs specific structural guidance. The disclosure vaguely mentions the use of an algorithm, or a specific structural arrangement as shown in figure 2, but this is considered unclear and vague to ascertain what defines and constitutes a "puzzle-based configuration". For example, what one person considers "puzzle-based" might be different for another person of ordinary skill in the art, creating ambiguity in the claim's scope. Furthermore, HOW the claimed "puzzle-based configuration" is actually formed ?. HOW an underlying algorithm (e.g., a flowchart or code description) actually works to reach the "puzzle-based configuration" ?. As such, since these features cannot be properly ascertained, the claims are considered vague and indefinite.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
2)-. Claims 1 and 5 recites the term "minimal floorspace": This is a subjective, relative term or "term of degree". Without an objective measure, formula, or clear definition in the specification (e.g., "minimal floorspace as defined in the specification as occupying less than X square feet per storage device"), a POSITA may not be able to determine the exact scope of the claimed invention. As such, the claimed term "minimal floorspace" is vague and indefinite because cannot be clearly ascertained.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A patentable subject matter is required to be directed to one of the following four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is directed to a computer program product that is executed on a control unit. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to a computer program product that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer program product that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Therefore, Applicant should amend the claim 9 to recite, for example, A computer program product, embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed on a central control unit controls movements of autonomously operating rolling devices ……”.
Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent, because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
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 (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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mountz (US 2004/0093116 – from IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Mountz discloses a computer program product that when executed on a central control unit (see figure 4A: Warehouse Management System (WMS) 130 and Materials Handling System ("MHS") 131 – see [0039] disclosing the control architecture ; see [002] disclosing the autonomous storage and retrieval system and method of the present invention may integrate with existing warehouse management software ("WMS") systems. ) controls movements of autonomously operating rolling devices (mobile drive units 304-306) connected to transportation bodies (movable inventory trays or pods 301-303), together making transportation assemblies (figs. 9A, 9C: movable inventory trays or pods 301-303 and mobile drive units 304, 305, and 306) of a storage system (see [0026] disclosing a material handling system and method using mobile autonomous inventory trays and peer-to-peer communications is disclosed. In the following description numerous specific details are set forth, such as the particular configuration of mobile inventory trays, the use of mobile inventory trays on a factory floor, and details regarding communication technologies…), the transportation assemblies (movable inventory trays or pods 301-303 and mobile drive units 304, 305, and 306) are arranged as a set of transportation assemblies in a two-dimensional compact puzzle-based configuration (see figure 6 and [0027]), and where movements of the autonomously operating rolling devices (mobile drive units 304-306) are controlled by the computer program according to position information stored in a database (database in [0055]) and input commands received from a control device (see [0027 and 0055]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz (US 2004/0093116 – from IDS) in view of Borroni et al (US 2015/0083509), “Borroni”.
Regarding 1 and 5, Mountz discloses a storage system / the associated method handling storage devices (fig. 9B: storage bins 323, 324) on a floor area while occupying minimal floorspace (e.g., via Material Handling System Using Autonomous Mobile Drive Units and Movable Inventory Trays – see [0026] disclosing a material handling system and method using mobile autonomous inventory trays and peer-to-peer communications is disclosed. In the following description numerous specific details are set forth, such as the particular configuration of mobile inventory trays, the use of mobile inventory trays on a factory floor, and details regarding communication technologies…), comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
254
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
418
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a set of transportation assemblies (figs. 9A, 9C: movable inventory trays or pods 301-303 and mobile drive units 304, 305, and 306), each adapted for conveying one or more storage devices (storage bins 323, 324), and arranged together in a two-dimensional compact puzzle-based configuration (see at least configurations as shown at figs. 5-8 – can be interpreted as “puzzle-based)),
PNG
media_image4.png
618
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein each transportation assembly (base trays 301-308) comprises a transportation body (movable inventory trays or pods 301-303), interface elements (e.g., “docking mechanism - see [0049]) mounted on the transportation bodies (movable inventory trays or pods 301-303),
each interface element is adapted for receiving and connecting (see [0049] disclosing the detachable mobile drive units and the docking mechanism – not shown in figures) an autonomous rolling device (mobile drive units 304-306),
each rolling device (mobile drive units 304-306) comprises driving means (drive motors 123 and 124 – see [0035-0036] disclosing motors 123 and 124 are coupled to the drives wheels (see FIG. 1) which propel the mobile inventory tray forward and backward in response to the signals provided by controller 122),
communication means (radio frequency ("RF") communication transceiver 128 – see [0035-0036, 0055-0056]), and
sensors (sensors 120 – see [0036] disclosing sensors 120 provide signals to microprocessor 121. Sensors may include infrared, optical, acoustic, contact, laser, sonar, magnetic, etc. common to mobile robotic vehicles for the purpose of identifying obstacles, avoiding collisions, finding edge limits etc.) for autonomous operation when controlled by a central controller unit (see figure 4A: Warehouse Management System (WMS) 130 and Materials Handling System ("MHS") 131 – see [0039]) comprised in the storage system,
PNG
media_image6.png
744
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where the central controller unit (WMS 130 and MHS 131) comprises a computer program product for arranging and re-arranging positions (see [0027, 0037, 0054-0055] disclosing the claimed control functionality) of each transportation assembly (base trays 301-308) in the set of transportation assemblies in the two-dimensional compact puzzle-based configuration (see at least figure 6 – see [0027]) according to position information of each transportation body (movable inventory trays or pods 301-303) stored in a database (database – see [0055] disclosing the MHS 400 may then, in turn, inform all of the mobile drive units 361 about these changes and/or position coordinates via the wireless network 410 and may store this location information in a central MHS database.) connected to the central control unit (WMS 130 and MHS 131) and control commands transmitted to the rolling devices (mobile drive units 304-306).
Mountz teaches the substantially the claimed invention, but does not teach sufficiently where at least four autonomous rolling devices are connected to the transportation body.
However, in the same field of endeavour or analogous art, Borroni teaches where at least four autonomous rolling devices are connected to the transportation body (see at least figures 5 and 6 depicting a modular electronic assembly or "eModule" 40, with eModules 40 being distributed about the vehicle 10, for instance at each corner of a conventional chassis, offset from the corners, or arranged around a circular chassis –
PNG
media_image7.png
445
352
media_image7.png
Greyscale
see [0018] and see Abstract disclosing a modular robotic vehicle includes a chassis, driver input devices, an energy storage system (ESS), a power electronics module (PEM), modular electronic assemblies (eModules) connected to the ESS via the PEM, one or more master controllers, and various embedded controllers. Each eModule includes a drive wheel containing a propulsion-braking module, and a housing containing propulsion and braking control assemblies with respective embedded propulsion and brake controllers, and a mounting bracket covering a steering control assembly with embedded steering controllers. The master controller, which is in communication with each eModule and with the driver input devices, communicates with and independently controls each eModule, by-wire, via the embedded controllers to establish a desired operating mode. Modes may include a two-wheel, four-wheel, diamond, and omni-directional steering modes as well as a park mode. A bumper may enable docking with another vehicle, with shared control over the eModules of the vehicles.).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mountz to include the idea of including the four eModule devices as taught by Borroni for the benefit of having functional capabilities that are provided by the individual eModules enable control of the vehicle in a variety of different operating modes, some of which are not possible with front wheel-steered vehicles having conventional powerplants.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Mountz in view of Borroni discloses as discussed in claims 1 and 5. Mounts further discloses where a storage device is one or more containers, shelf-systems, or a combination of these (see figure 9B where 323-324 are shelving configuration).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Mountz in view of Borroni discloses as discussed in claims 1 and 5. Mounts further discloses where the transportation body comprises connection means for securing the storage device to the transportation body (see figures 9A-9C and see [0049] disclosing the docking mechanism).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Mountz in view of Borroni discloses as discussed in claims 1 and 5. Mounts further discloses further comprising a control device connected to the central control unit (see [0052] disclosing The autonomous mobile drive units 304, 305, and 306, integrate with a MHS in the same way that the mobile inventory trays communicate with the MHS, ---- see [0050] disclosing the control units for the mobile drive units 304, 305, and 306 may be contained within a housing 320 secured to the mobile drive units 304, 305, and 306 by conventional means. The control unit may be implemented as a microcontroller-based device, or other electromechanical system and may contain the components described in FIG. 3.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656