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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to the applicant to change the language “wherein during the transfer” to read “wherein during the transferring and loading step” in order to maintain consistency with claim terminology.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to the applicant to change the language “wherein during the transfer” to read “wherein during the transferring and loading step” in order to maintain consistency with claim terminology.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim language will be interpreted as such:
Claim 1, starting on line 6, “transfer means” will be interpreted to be the same as the automated loading means, which is described in paragraph 092 as “a multi-axial robotized arm, mounted on the structure of the interface 5, of the station 2, or through a suitable gantry.”
Claim 1, starting on line 9, “automated loading means” will be interpreted as “a multi-axial robotized arm, mounted on the structure of the interface 5, of the station 2, or through a suitable gantry” as described in paragraph 092.
Claim 5, starting on line 3, “means for taking hold of a media” and “means for extraction of the consumable” will be interpreted as “a multi-axial robotized arm, mounted on the structure of the interface 5, of the station 2, or through a suitable gantry” as described in paragraph 092.
Claim 6, starting on line 8, “mobile means” will be interpreted as “[an] AGV ("Automated Guided Vehicle")” or “[an] AMR ("Autonomous Mobile Robot")” as described in paragraph 074.
Claim 7, starting on line 13, “loading means” will be interpreted as “a multi-axial robotized arm, mounted on the structure of the interface 5, of the station 2, or through a suitable gantry” as described in paragraph 092.
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.
Claim 7-11 is 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 7 recites the limitation "A method…a production line as claimed in claim 7". The claim is considered indefinite because the claim is dependent on itself; it is unclear which, if any, of the claims it is intended to depend from. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as independent.
Claim 8-11 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 7.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “means for controlling the access to the entry” and “means for recognition and communication” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claims and specification do not provide any structure or material that makes it possible to ascertain how recognition/communication are performed and therefore how control of entry access is performed. As the claim stands, there are numerous, different things that can perform recognition and/or communication as described. Including, but not limited to: a scale, a camera, a microphone, an ultrasonic sensor, LIDAR, or even a person seeing an approaching AMR and, in response, pressing a switch to open a door. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Tarrio (ES 2982843 T3).
Regarding Claim 1, Tarrio teaches an interface for supplying materials comprising:
an entry (entry to nest 1 shown in Figure 1) accessible to an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (supply vehicle 15 with automatic guided system) transporting a material corresponding to a particular product processing station (nest 1);
and a transfer means (assembly robot 20) for automatic transfer of said material from said robot (AMR) to a reception space for said material, said reception space being integrated with the particular processing station (first area of nest 1 described in 5th paragraph after “Background of the Invention”, starting with “These nests, in most cases, tend to have two entry areas facing each other…”),
wherein the transfer means comprise an automated loading means dedicated
i) to said material to be transferred, and
ii) to each reception space of the particular processing stations to be supplied with said corresponding material (described in 2nd paragraph after “Background of the Invention”, starting with “In this type of production line, assembly robots..”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tarrio further teaches an unloading zone (parts collection area 1b) provided with said transfer means.
Regarding Claim 3, Tarrio further teaches an enclosure (created by fence 1a and doors 8) integrating said entry communicating with said unloading zone, which is then located inside the enclosure (shown in Figure 1), said entry being accessible by said robot (AMR) upon verification (access zone/area 1c described in 2nd through 4th paragraph after “Description of a preferred embodiment”, starting with “Figure 1 shows a first embodiment of the system of the present invention…”).
Regarding Claim 4, Tarrio further teaches means for controlling the access to the entry of said enclosure, said control means comprising means for recognition of and communication with said robot (described in 2nd through 4th paragraph after “Description of the invention”, starting with “- access request means, configured to send an access request signal…” wherein the access request signal, occupancy signal and/or incident signals control entry to the enclosure for the autonomous vehicles 15).
Regarding Claim 6, Tarrio teaches a line for the production of products comprising:
successively along said line, a plurality of stations for processing said products, certain of said processing stations using materials, each of said materials corresponding to the processing of said products by one of said certain processing stations (described in 2nd paragraph after “Technical Field”, starting with “More specifically, the present invention relates to a system and a method for controlling…”);
mobile means for transport of said materials from said storage zone to said certain processing stations (autonomous supply vehicle 15);
wherein each of said certain processing stations is equipped with the materials supply interface according to claim 1 (shown in Figure 1)
Tarrio does not explicitly teach a zone for storage of said materials. However, the intent of the autonomous vehicles used is to supply the nests with materials (described in 2nd paragraph after “Description of the Invention”, starting with “access request means, configured to send an access request signal…”). This means that there is an intended area where the vehicles are supposed to continuously receive materials, which would have to be a form of a storage zone. Therefore, Tarrio implicitly teaches a zone for storage of said materials.
Regarding Claim 7, Tarrio teaches a method for managing a supply of materials to certain processing stations of a production line
Instructing transport of a material from a storage zone to one of the certain processing stations (implicitly taught as described above for Claim 6, described in 2nd paragraph after “Description of the Invention”, starting with “access request means, configured to send an access request signal…”);
transporting, using a mobile autonomous robot (supply vehicle 15), said material from the storage zone to said one of the certain processing stations (described in 2nd paragraph after “Description of the Invention”, starting with “access request means, configured to send an access request signal…”);
transferring and loading said material from said mobile robot to said reception space of said one of the certain processing stations (described in 2nd paragraph after “Background of the Invention”, starting with “In this type of production line, assembly robots..”);
wherein during the transfer, said robot positions itself with respect to the supply interface with which said one of the certain processing stations is equipped, and said material is automatically transferred from said robot to said reception space via the loading means of said materials supply interface, and said robot departs (described in 2nd paragraph after “Description of a preferred embodiment, starting with “Figure 1 shows a first embodiment of the system…”).
Regarding Claim 8, Tarrio further teaches wherein during the transfer, said robot positions itself by entering inside an unloading zone which is accessible via a secured entry, and the access of said robot through said entry is controlled (described in 2nd through 7th paragraph after “Description of a preferred embodiment”).
Regarding Claim 9, Tarrio further teaches wherein the access of said robot through said entry is controlled by recognition and communication from said interface (described in 6th paragraph after “Description of a preferred embodiment”).
Regarding Claim 12, while Tarrio does not explicitly teach a software system, they do teach an access control system controlling the elements of the production line (described in the 1st paragraph after “Description of the invention”, starting with “In order to solve the problems and disadvantages described in relation…”). Such a control system would have to use software in order to operate the production line as Tarrio discloses. Therefore, Tarrio implicitly teaches a software system comprising:
at least one software module for assigning tasks to at least one robot (supply vehicle 15), said tasks comprising at least the transport of materials from said storage zone to said certain processing stations, one of said materials in particular corresponding to one of said certain processing stations in question (described in 1st and 2nd paragraphs after “Description of the invention”)
at least one module for receiving a signal instructing the supply of said corresponding material, said signal being transmitted by said processing station in question, wherein said assignation module communicates with said module on reception of said signal in order to initiate one of said tasks (described in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs after “Description of the invention”, wherein the signal received is the access request signal and the reception of it is communicated via an occupancy signal).
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.
Claim 5, 10 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrio (ES 2982843 T3) in view of Fillol Vidal (US 20110260479 A1) hereto referred to as Fillol.
Tarrio teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above. They do not teach a transport media that carries the material.
Fillol teaches a transport media that can hold material (Figure 1)
Regarding Claim 5, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the transport media of Fillol to the interface of Tarrio and further modify the interface of Tarrio such that the vehicle moves material in the transport media and the assembly robot of Tarrio takes hold and extracts material from the transport media of Fillol. This would improve the capabilities of the interface of Tarrio by singulating the varying shapes, sizes and types of material being processed to a single-type container. Thereby making it easier for the vehicle and assembly robot of Tarrio to move, pick and place the material. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the transport media of Fillol to the interface of Tarrio without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the transport media of Fillol to the interface of Tarrio would produce the predictable results of transporting materials from storage to a station within a production line.
Tarrio teaches the claim limitations of Claim 8 as above, they do not teach the robot departs with at least one transport media emptied of the material.
Fillol teaches a transport media that can hold material (Figure 1)
Regarding Claim 10, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the transport media of Fillol to the method of Tarrio and further modify the interface of Tarrio such that the vehicle moves material in the transport media and the assembly robot of Tarrio extracts material from the transport media, allowing the vehicle to depart with the now empty transport media. This would improve the capabilities of the interface of Tarrio by singulating the varying shapes, sizes and types of material being processed to a single-type container. Thereby making it easier for the vehicle and assembly robot of Tarrio to move, pick and place the material. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the transport media of Fillol to the method of Tarrio without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the transport media of Fillol to the method of Tarrio would produce the predictable results of transporting materials from storage to a station within a production line.
Tarrio teaches the claim limitations of Claim 12 as above. They do not teach wherein said tasks comprise the transport by said at least one robot of at least one transport media, emptied of its consumable, from one of the certain processing stations.
Fillol teaches a transport media that can hold material (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the transport media of Fillol to the method of Tarrio and further modify the interface of Tarrio such that the vehicle moves material in the transport media and the assembly robot of Tarrio extracts material from the transport media, allowing the software system to send a task to the vehicle to depart with the now empty transport media from the assigned processing station. This would improve the capabilities of the interface of Tarrio by singulating the varying shapes, sizes and types of material being processed to a single-type container. Thereby making it easier for the vehicle and assembly robot of Tarrio to move, pick and place the material. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the transport media of Fillol to the method of Tarrio without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the transport media of Fillol to the method of Tarrio would produce the predictable results of transporting materials from storage to a station within a production line.
Claims 11, 13 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrio (ES 2982843 T3) in view of Nemati (US 20180321660 A1).
Tarrio teaches the claim limitations of Claim 8 as above. They do not teach the transport of said consumable is instructed automatically via a signal transmitted by a sensor of the level of consumption of the consumable used inside said reception space of the processing station in question.
Nemati teaches a method of automated inventory management comprising:
a signal transmitted by a sensor of the level of consumption of the consumable used inside said reception space of the processing station in question (described in paragraph 0032, wherein the reception space is an empty shelf).
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the sensor that transmits the level of consumption taught by Nemati to the method of Tarrio. The result would enable the method of Tarrio to automate replenishment of material to its reception space by sensing and transmitting when more material is needed in the reception space. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the sensor taught by Nemati to the method of Tarrio without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the sensor of Nemati to the method of Tarrio would produce the predictable results of tracking the movement of material to multiple processing stations within a production line.
Tarrio does not teach software with a reception module makes it possible to receive an end of supply notification at the end of said one of said tasks.
Nemati teaches software with multiple modules (described in paragraph 0064) that can receive an end of supply notification (described in paragraph 0032 and 0041).
Regarding Claim 13, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply generation of supply notification taught by Nemati to the method of Tarrio. The result would enable the method of Tarrio to automate replenishment of material within the reception space of a processing station by sending notification that supply of material is needed. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the notification generation taught by Nemati to the method of Tarrio without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the notification generation of Nemati to the method of Tarrio would produce the predictable results of tracking the movement of material to multiple processing stations within a production line.
Tarrio does not teach a module for communication with a separate manager of the movements of said at least one robot, said communication module and said assignation module cooperating for planning of said tasks.
Nemati teaches communication with a separate manager of the movement of at least one robot (described in paragraphs 0041 and 0042, wherein the movement of the robot is provided as information with the generated alert).
Regarding Claim 14, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply communication of movements of robots taught by Nemati to the method of Tarrio. The result would enable the method of Tarrio to track the resupplying of material and movement of robots from a separate client device and provide a consolidated tracker for all systems within the method of Tarrio. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the communication taught by Nemati to the method of Tarrio without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the communication of Nemati to the method of Tarrio would produce the predictable results of tracking the movement of material to multiple processing stations within a production line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, 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 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655