DETAILED ACTION 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the collaborative robot (cobot) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As best understood (see discuss regarding 112 below) the cobot is an alternative to the robot arm but the figures all show the robot arm. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses (see 104 in line 2 of claim 13). Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 includes “ a robotic arm, and a collaborative robot .” The description however only discusses the two as alternatives and fails to disclose an embodiment including both a robot arm and a collaborative robot as set forth in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the claim has been interpreted as requiring one or the other of the two (but not necessarily both) which is consistent with the specification and the dependent claims. Claims 1- 17 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. Claim 1 includes “ An autonomous mobile robot scissor lift and robot arm ” which renders the claim indefinite as the body of the claim fails to recite a scissor lift or any other elevating means. It is not clear if a scissor lift is required by claim 1. Additionally, it is noted that later claims introduce the lift but the scope of claim 1 is unclear. Claim 9 includes a similar recitation at lines 1-2 . Claim 4 recites the limitation "the shelf" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are numerous antecedent basis issues in the claims. Examiner has attempted to identify them all as they occur, but Applicant is reminded that consistent language should be used throughout the claims and elements already introduced in earlier claims should be preceded by “the” or “said” when discussed in subsequent claims. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tort" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what the term “tort” refers to as it is not defined and this usage does not seem consistent with its generally accepted meaning. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the appropriate shelf" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites “transmit a signal” but no structure (transmitter etc.) is included to perform such a function. Claim 5 includes “a robot arm” but claim 1 already includes this element. It is unclear if this refers to the same robot arm or another different robot arm. Claim 7 and 8 refer to capabilities of the system and their impacts on existing systems (“reduce headcount”). It is unclear, how if at all, these claims limit the structure of the device or what is required by the claims. This language has been interpreted as functional consistent with MPEP 2114 for examination. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tort" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites both structure of an apparatus as well as method steps for its use. This is indefinite as it is not clear if claim 9 is drawn to an apparatus or a process. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Claim 4 also includes a combination of apparatus and method language. Claim 10 is drawn to an autonomous mobile robot but also recites an automatic cabinet, drawers and a product, all of which are structures separate from the robot itself. Clarification is necessary. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lifting frame cover" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the rotating tray base" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tray" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Given the unclear nature of what’s the tray, prior art has not been applied at this time. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the goods tray" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 includes language that appears to cover process steps and is generally confusing as to what actions are to be carried out by the device. Clarification is necessary. Given the unclear nature of claim 15 prior art has not been applied at this time. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the gripper" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the automatic cabinets" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Given the unclear nature of claim 17 prior art has not been applied at this time. Prior art is applied below as the claims are best understood, but has not been applied to claims 13, 15 and 17 as it is not possible to determine what is required by these claims at this time. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,120,622 to Elazary . Regarding claim 1 Elazary discloses an autonomous mobile robot scissor lift and robot arm, comprising: a robotic arm (710), and a collaborative robot. See figure 7. Regarding claim 2 Elazary discloses the robot arm is enabled to function by incorporating a robotic arm (710) or collaborative robot (cobot) onto an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) or automated guided vehicle (AGV) (base 230) via the use of a scissor lift mechanism (see figure 7 and 230). Regarding claim 3 Elazary discloses the scissor lift mechanism facilitates height adjustment, enabling the robot arm or cobot robot to effectively retrieve packages from various levels or heights (figure 2 and col. 3 lines 12-16). Regarding claim 4 Elazary discloses the instead of having a human open the shelf, pick out the item, and place it on the AMR, the AMR/AGV robot comes to the shelf, transmit a signal to open the appropriate shelf, and then the robot arm can pick out the item, places it on the tort, and close the appropriate shelf (see col. 2 lines 55-65 discussing order pulling by the robots). The disclosed robot is capable of such operations and thus reads on the claim. See MPEP 2114. It is noted that no controller or other processor etc. has been recited that would enable the claimed robot to carry out the claimed functions. Regarding claim 5 Elazary discloses the scissor lift is designed to raise and lower a platform onto which a robot arm is mounted that is able to allow for adjustable shelf heights from which things may be selected and dropped and transport the goods to the shipping location and drop it off (see figure 2 and setting height to reach desired shelf). Regarding claim 6 Elazary discloses the scissor lift mechanism facilitates height adjustment, enabling the robot arm or cobot robot to effectively retrieve packages from various levels or heights (figure 2 and col. 3 lines 10-15). Regarding claim 7 Elazary discloses the robot is able to reduce headcount as the robot arm and can pick the package and places it in the tort wherein the humans can pick the package and place it on AMR/AGV ( col. 1 lines 50-57 and col. 2 lines 55-63). Regarding claim 8 Elazary discloses the robot is able to pick the product that needs to be shipped and will not bring the whole product where in you pick it at outbound and the AMR/ AGV have to go back to place the product back into shelf or storage once the individual product is picked (col. 2 lines 55-63) . Regarding claim 9 Elazary discloses an autonomous mobile robot scissor lift and robot arm (see above and figures 2, 7) , comprising a robotic arm (710) and a collaborative robot by incorporating a robotic arm (710) or collaborative robot (cobot) onto an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (220) crafted in such a way that: the AGV/AMR is able to get to the shelf where the product needs to be picked up (setting height) , the data is transmitted to the correct shelf that needs to be opened (830) ; the scissor lift adjusts the height accordingly to the level where the robot arm or cobot (height adjust to access shelf) ; the robot is able to pick operation (870) , in which they remove goods from shelves and load them onto the tray or torts (870) ; once the task is achieved the shelf is closed automatically (880) , and the AGV/AMR is able to head out to the outbound delivery station (895) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (s) 10-11, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazary in view of US 2015/0050111 to Townsend . Regarding claim 10 Elazary discloses a n autonomous mobile robot scissor lift, comprising: a robot arm (710) and robot arm joints axis (see figure 7) ; AGV lifting frame (230) ; AGV lifting table (240) ; product tray (760) ; robot legs (figure 7 connection of 710 to platform) ; automatic cabinet (see figure 6) ; vacuum suction cup (720) ; drawers (bins 120 function as drawers) , and a product (730, items in bins/drawers) . Elazary does not disclose two pairs of AGV mecanum as Elazary uses a combination of two drive wheels and two casters. Townsend teaches a mobile robot including two pairs of AGV mecanum (25) to facilitate movement about complicated or congested areas (para 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Elazary to include two pairs of AGV mecanum, as taught by Townsend, to facilitate movement about complicated or congested areas. Additionally, doing so merely entails substituting one known drive system for another to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 11 the combination teaches the two pairs of AGV mecanum are designed to serve as a multi-directional wheel fixed at the base to support the AGV lifting frame (see Townsend 25) within the lifting frame cover that shields and protects the lift frame (see Elazary figure 6 showing mechanisms enclosed in a protective shroud). Regarding claim 14 the combination teaches the two pairs of AGV mecanum acts as pair of a multi-directional wheels (see Townsend 25) designed to support the lifting frame which in turn supports the lifting table top of the table crafted to support the goods tray product tray on the robot (see e.g., Elazary figure 2). Regarding claim 16 the combination teaches the vacuum suction cup is attached at the apex of the frame as part of the gripper assembly (see Elazary at figure 7 and col. 6 lines 63-67). Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazary and Townsend in view of US 10,793,353 to Nakano . Regarding claim Elazary and Townsend teach the lift frame is m ade to support AGV lifting table top which is used for placing robots and product tray on the robot (see discussion above and Elazary figures 2 and 7). Elazary and Townsend do not disclose a rotating tray base for the product of goods. Nakano teaches a transportation system including a rotating tray base (271) for the product of goods in order to allow the storage to be rotated and facilitate extra capacity and sequenced removal (col. 14 lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Elazary and Townsend to include a rotating tray base for the product of goods, as taught by Nakano, to allow the storage to be rotated and facilitate extra capacity and sequenced removal. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other AGV with adjustable heights and robot arms. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5547 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Saul Rodriguez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7097 . 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. /MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652