DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed 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 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 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program product. That can be software per se. See MPEP 2106.03
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: all acronyms and abbreviations should be spelled out at first use in the claims. 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 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 recites:
A puzzle-based storage system to be operated on a floor area, comprising …wherein
- …, and
- where charging means providing power to the rechargeable power supply is provided on the floor area where the puzzle-based storage system is operating, and
- where positions of each transportation assembly, within the floor area the puzzle-based storage system is operating, is controlled by a central controller unit comprising transmitting and receiving means and that is wirelessly connected to at least one of the replaceable autonomous rolling devices of each transportation assembly.
As written, it is not clear if the charging means and the central controller unit comprising transmitting and receiving means are included in the claimed puzzle-based storage system.
Claims 2-18 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
Claim 3 recites “a storage device” in line 2. As claim 1 previously introduced a storage device, it is not clear if these two instances are the same.
Claim 17 recites “where one or more cameras”. It is not cleared if the one or more cameras are included in the claimed puzzle-based storage system.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the ceiling". It is not clear what ceiling this is referring to. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "each transportation assembly” in line 4 and the limitation “each transportation assembly (20)” in line 9. It is not clear if these two instances are the same or not.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the computer program". It is not clear if this is referring to the previously introduced “A computer program product”. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims of this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mountz (US 20040093116 a reference in IDS 8/24/2023).
Regarding claim 20, Mountz teaches:
A computer program product that when executed on a central controller unit controls movements of autonomously operating rolling devices connected to transportation bodies, together making transportation assemblies of a puzzle-based storage system, the transportation assemblies are arranged as a set of transportation assemblies in a two-dimensional compact puzzle-based configuration, and where movements of the rolling devices are controlled by the computer program according to position information stored in a database and input commands received from a control device
(at least figs. 1-10 [0026]-[0065] discussed WMS 130/computer, MHS 131, mobile drive units 304-306, 361, inventory pods/stackable trays 301-303, discussed moving and positioning relative to each other, in particular fig. 6, [0027] [0055])
Double Patenting
Claim 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 9 of Application No. 18278069. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 9 of copending Application No. 18278069 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656