DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 20, 2026. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended and claims 21 – 22 added. No claims have been canceled. Thus, claims 1 – 2, 5 – 13 and 16 – 22 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 2, 5 – 13 and 16 – 22 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Messmann et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0094879 A1 to Pari et al. (herein after “Pari” or “Pari et al. publication”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 5,836,068 A to Bullen et al. (herein after “Bullen” or “Bullen et al. patent”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 12,
the Messmann et al. publication discloses an automation system (see FIGS. 1 – 3 and ¶38), comprising:
a controller (5), generating a control signal, so as to perform a moving process (see FIG. 1 and ¶38);
an AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle)(1), receiving the control signal (see FIGS. 1 – 3; see also Abstract, ¶5 et seq. and ¶38 et seq.); and
a carrier component (6)(see FIGS. 2 – 3 and ¶38 et seq.);
wherein the AGV moves the carrier component from a first location to a second location according to the control signal (see ¶38).
The Messmann et al. publication, however, fails to specifically disclose a display device, coupled to the controller, wherein the controller shows a UI (User Interface) on the display device, so as to indicate an operating state of the AGV;
wherein the UI indicates whether the AGV operates in an idle mode or a work mode according to the control signal; and
wherein the moving process comprises a PCB (Printed Circuit Board) online process, a jig online process, a resource recycling process, and/or an MB (Mother Board) warehousing process.
Employing an interface or display to indicate an operating state/mode of an AGV is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Pari et al. publication who discloses “an exemplary control screen 860 displayed by the external computing device 800. The control screen 860 may display the current mode of in which the robot is operating, as illustrated by reference numeral 863. For example, the control screen 860 may illuminate an icon such as "FOLLOW" to indicate that the robot 100 is in an autonomous mode of operation, while illumination of an icon such as "DRIVE" may indicate that the robot 100 is in a manual mode of operation.” (See ¶86.) Such disclosure suggests a display device, coupled to the controller, wherein the controller shows a UI (User Interface) on the display device, so as to indicate an operating state of the AGV, wherein the UI indicates whether the AGV operates in an idle mode or a work mode according to the control signal.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and provide the Messmann et al. publication with a display device, coupled to the controller, wherein the controller shows a UI (User Interface) on the display device, so as to indicate an operating state of the AGV, wherein the UI indicates whether the AGV operates in an idle mode or a work mode according to the control signal, as suggested by the Pari et al. publication, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
The modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the moving process comprising a PCB (Printed Circuit Board) online process, a jig online process, a resource recycling process, a product storage process, and/or an MB (Mother Board) warehousing process.
Specialized, precision-engineered work-holding jigs for a moving process are notoriously old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Bullen et al. patent who discloses “a mobile tool positioning system including a support assembly, a mobile multi-axis, numerically controlled robotic tool, and a multi-movement control device coupled to the mobile multi-axis tool. The support assembly is located adjacent a workpiece and has a plurality of engagers.” (See FIG. 2A and Abstract.) According to Bullen, “[t]he mobile positioning system 200 . . . includes a mobile robotic device 202, a support assembly 204, such as a jig, and a workpiece 206 located within the support assembly 204. The mobile tool 202 is transportable from one support assembly to another.” (See FIG. 2A and Col. 3, lns 26 – 32.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests a moving process comprising a jig online process.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the moving process comprises at least a jig online process, as suggested by the Bullen et al. patent, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
As to claims 2 and 13,
the Messmann et al. publication discloses that the control signal is a wireless signal, and is propagated through a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) or a mobile network. (See ¶12.)
Claims 5, 7 – 11 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Messmann et al. publication in view of the Pari et al. publication and the Bullen et al. patent, and further in view of the Bhaskaran et al. publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 5,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the AGV comprising:
a wireless communication system, receiving the control signal;
a wheel module; and
a control module, coupled to the wireless communication system and the wheel module, wherein the control module drives the wheel module according to the control signal.
The Bhaskaran et al. publication, however, discloses an AGV comprising:
a wireless communication system (1202), receiving the control signal (see
FIG. 12);
a wheel module (see FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 2, lns 6 – 13); and
a control module, coupled to the wireless communication system and the wheel module, wherein the control module drives the wheel module according to the control signal (see FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 2, lns 6 – 13).
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify and provide the Messmann et al. publication with a wireless communication system, receiving the control signal, a wheel module, and a control module, coupled to the wireless communication system and the wheel module, wherein the control module drives the wheel module according to the control signal, as suggested by the Bhaskaran et al. publication, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
As to claim 7,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the carrier component being a trolley or a shelf.
The Bhaskaran et al. publication, however, discloses a carrier component being a trolley or a shelf. (See FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 5, ln 26 et seq.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the carrier component is a trolley or a shelf, as suggested by the Bhaskaran et al. publication, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
As to claims 8 and 17,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the carrier component being configured to accommodate an object.
The Bhaskaran et al. publication, however, discloses that the carrier component is configured to accommodate an object. (See FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 5, ln 26 et seq.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the carrier component is configured to accommodate an object, as suggested by the Bhaskaran et al. publication, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
As to claims 9 and 18,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the carrier component being initially empty, and then the object is put into the carrier component.
The Bhaskaran et al. publication implicitly discloses that the carrier component is initially empty, and then the object is put into the carrier component. (See FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 5, ln 26 et seq.; see also Col. 10, lns 28 – 38, where “the smart cart 102 may include cameras or scanners (e.g., as described above) that may scan items as they are added to the basket (or otherwise scanned, for example, by a barcode scanner coupled with the user interface device 112). For instance, the smart cart 102 may include cameras or scanners integrated with the user interface device 112 and/or the rim of the item holder 104 may include sensors 302 (e.g., optical or radio sensors, as described above). For instance, when a user adds an item to the basket, it may be scanned, and information pertaining to the item may be displayed on the display.”)(Emphasis added.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the carrier component is initially empty, and then the object is put into the carrier component, as suggested by the Bhaskaran et al. publication, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
As to claims 10 and 19,
the Messmann et al. publication discloses that the object is previously put in the carrier component. (See FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 5, ln 26 et seq.; see also Col. 10, lns 28 – 38.)
As to claims 11 and 20,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the object comprising an SMT material, a PCB, a jig, a waste, a product, and/or an MB.
The Bhaskaran et al. publication discloses the object comprising an SMT material, a PCB, a jig, a waste, a product, and/or an MB. (See FIGS. 1A – 1H and Col. 5, ln 26 et seq.; see also Col. 10, lns 28 – 38.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the object comprises an SMT material, a PCB, a jig, a waste, a product, and/or an MB, as suggested by the Bhaskaran et al. publication, in order to facilitate the automated operating process.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Messmann et al. publication in view of the Pari et al. publication and the Bullen et al. patent, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,555 B1 to Spruill (herein after "Spruill publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 6 and 16,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the carrier component is capable of being unloaded from the AGV.
The Spruill publication, however, discloses an automated robotic shopping cart with a controller and locomotion subsystem. According to the Spruill publication, “the basket 210 may be detachable so that the frame 205 and the tray 250 may be used as a flat-bed cart.” (See FIG. 3 and Col. 5, ln 50 – 52.) Such disclosure suggests the carrier component is capable of being unloaded from the AGV.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the carrier component is capable of being unloaded from the AGV, as suggested by the Spruill publication, so that the frame of the AGV may be used as a flat-bed cart.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Messmann et al. publication in view of the Pari et al. publication, the Bullen et al. patent and the Bhaskaran et al. publication, and further in view U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0317217 A1 to Nishimura et al. (herein after "Nishimura et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 21 and 22,
the modified Messmann et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
at intervals of a periodical time, the controller controlling the AGV to go to an empty car meeting point and obtain the empty carrier component.
The Nishimura et al. publication discloses “[a] conveyance facility system for transporting an appropriate amount of work at a time at an appropriate time to the consumption side area by automatically controlling through a computer control system an automated guided vehicle for allowing a truck that has mounted the work in the supply side area to travel accompanying the vehicle from the supply side area to the consumption side area along the guidance course of the automated guided vehicle, and allowing the empty truck that has unloaded the work in the consumption side area to return to the supply side area. ” (See Abstract.) In particular, Nishimura discloses “an automated transport vehicle 3 and an empty workpiece carrier 21 caused to travel with it move along the consumption-side line 6 and first enter the homeward line section 7B through the entry 7b-1. They move forward on the homeward line section 7B up to a fixed position 12, and then the automated transport vehicle 3 leaves the empty carrier 2' in that position 12 and moves backward on the homeward line section 7B by itself. Then the automated transport vehicle 3 performs a series of actions consisting of entering the outward line section 7A through the exit 7a-2, connecting with a workpiece-loaded workpiece carrier 2 first encountered on the outward line section 7A, and causing the workpiece-loaded workpiece carrier 2 to travel with it back onto the consumption-side line 6.” (See 45.) Such disclosure suggests the controller controlling the AGV to go to an empty car meeting point and obtain the empty carrier component, at intervals of a periodical time.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Messmann et al. publication so that the controller controls the AGV to go to an empty car meeting point and obtain the empty carrier component, at intervals of a periodical time, as suggested by the Nishimura et al. publication, in order to transport objects (parts of mechanical devices, half-finished products, etc.) to a consumption-side (use-side) area at appropriate times in appropriate amounts.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights