DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
With respect to Claim 12, the claim contains a limitation at S4 with the phrase “close to the unloading region” that is a subjective limitation. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “close to the unloading region”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
With respect to Claim 12, the claim contains a limitation at S4 with the phrase “need to be unloaded” that is a subjective limitation. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of when the sorting robots “need to be unloaded”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
With respect to Claim 13, the limitation with the phrase “the movable shelf finishes unloading of the cargoes” is unclear because the movable shelf cannot itself “finish unloading” the cargoes. As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 13, the claim contains a limitation with the phrase “ready to be loaded with cargoes again” that is a subjective limitation. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of when the movable shelf is “ready to be loaded with cargoes again”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
With respect to Claim 13, the claim contains a limitation with the phrase “the unloading region and the unloading robot need to be replaced” that is a subjective limitation. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of when unloading region and the unloading robot “need to be replaced”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
With respect to Claim 14, the claim contains a limitation with the phrase “when one of the unloading robots needs to be interrupted” that is a subjective limitation. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of when one of the unloading robots “needs to be interrupted”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are Allowed. The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. Independent Claim 1 recites limitations that include a robot cargo sorting system capable of identifying shelf transfer, comprising:
a plurality of movable shelves,
wherein each of the movable shelves is provided with a plurality of cargo boxes that are configured for allowing cargoes to be unloaded thereinto, and
the each of the movable shelves is fixed with at least one identification device and is configured for moving to any unoccupied unloading region;
a plurality of sorting robots, configured for traveling on a sorting platform, wherein each of the sorting robots is configured for transporting received cargoes to a designated unloading region for unloading the received cargoes;
a sorting robot locating device, configured for locating the plurality of the sorting robots;
at least one importing device, which is provided at a cargo entrance of the sorting platform, and configured for identifying and importing the cargoes;
unloading robots, configured for receiving cargoes unloaded by the sorting robots, and
unloading the cargoes in predetermined unoccupied cargo boxes of the movable shelves;
detection devices, each of which is fixed on a ground of a corresponding unloading region, or on an unmovable fixed element in a corresponding unloading robot,
where the detection devices are configured for collecting information of the identification devices; and
a server, which is in a wireless connection with controllers of the sorting robots,
and is in a wired or wireless connection with controllers of the unloading robots, the detection devices, and the at least one importing device. These limitations, alone and in combination with the other limitations in the independent and dependent claims, were neither found, nor taught or fairly suggested, in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because those prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Randazzo whose telephone number is 313-446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and between 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 January 6, 2026