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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Pushing component in claims 8, 15 and 17; supply apparatus in claim 17; image capturing device in claim 18. Each of these terms are explained in the specification and drawings and have been interpreted to include structures consistent with the specification and drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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.
Claims 8-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2024/0367900).
Regarding independent claim 8, Li et al. discloses:
A picking vehicle, configured to move on a supporting surface [See at least Fig. 1, transporter robot 100; Abstract, Par. 0038] and comprising:
A movable base, configured to move on the supporting surface; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 3 (chassis); Par. 0039]
a mounting platform, movably disposed on the movable base and having a mounting surface facing away from the supporting surface; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 4 (gantry) and 6 (lifting assembly); Par. 0039]
at least one fork, movably disposed on the mounting surface of the mounting platform; [See at least Figs. 26, 27, Ref. Numeral 30 (fork); Par. 0103-0106] and
a pushing component, movably disposed on the mounting surface of the mounting platform, wherein the at least one fork is located between the pushing component and the mounting surface. [See at least Figs. 26, 27, Ref. Numerals 302, 303A (front and rear fingers); Par. 0107-0110]
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. discloses:
The picking vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the mounting platform is located between the at least one fork and the movable base. [See at least Fig. 26, Ref. Numeral 30 (fork device), 100 (robot), 4 (gantry), 6 (lifting assembly); Par. 0103-0106]
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. discloses:
The picking vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the movable base has a top surface, a first side surface and a second side surface, the first side surface and the second side surface face away from each other and are connected to the top surface, the top surface is configured to face away from the supporting surface, and the first side surface is located between the mounting platform and the second side surface. [See at least Fig. 1, top, first and second side surfaces of base of robot 100]
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. discloses:
The picking vehicle according to claim 8, further comprising a lifting assembly, wherein the lifting assembly comprises a slide rail, a drive unit and a slider, the slide rail stands on a side of the movable base that is located farthest away from the supporting surface, the drive unit is disposed on the slide rail, the slider is slidably disposed on the slide rail, the drive unit is connected to the slider to drive the slider to slide on the slide rail, and the mounting platform is fixed to the slider. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 6 (lifting assembly), Figs. 4-6 lifting assembly details; Par. 0043-0045]
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. discloses:
The picking vehicle according to claim 8, further comprising a drive assembly for the at least one fork, wherein the drive assembly for the at least one fork comprises a drive unit, a connecting rod, a slide rail and a slider, the drive unit is disposed on the mounting surface, the connecting rod connects the drive unit and the slide rail, the slide rail is disposed on the mounting surface, the slider is slidably disposed on the slide rail, the drive unit is configured to drive the slider to slide on the slide rail via the connecting rod, and the at least one fork is fixed to the slider. [See at least Par. 0048, 0055-0058, 0106]
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. discloses:
The picking vehicle according to claim 8, further comprising a drive assembly for the pushing component, wherein the drive assembly for the pushing component comprises a drive unit, a connecting rod, two gears, two belts, two sliders and two guiding rods, the drive unit is disposed on the mounting surface, the connecting rod is connected to the drive unit, the two gears are sleeved and fixed on the connecting rod, the two belts are engaged with the two gears, respectively, the two sliders are fixed to the two 4 belts, respectively, the two sliders are slidably disposed on the mounting surface via the two guiding rods, respectively, the drive unit is configured to drive the two sliders to slide on the two guiding rods via the connecting rod, the two gears and the two belts, and the pushing component is fixed to the two sliders. [See at least Par. 0107-0114]
Regarding claim 16, Li et al. discloses:
The picking vehicle according to claim 14, further comprising a controlling unit disposed on the mounting surface and electrically connected to the drive unit. [See at least Par. 0039]
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (WO 2018/155062) in view of Kim (KR 2023/0026243).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hashimoto et al. discloses:
A picking method, comprising:
obtaining a current volume data and a current weight data of a good; [See at least Par. 0036, 0038]
generating a current placing position data of the good based on the current volume data, the current weight data; [See at least Par. 0069, 0071, 0144] and
moving the good to a target placing position via a picking vehicle based on the current placing position data. [See at least Par. 0016, 0017, 0075]
While Hashimoto et al. discloses generating and moving goods to a target placing position based on current placing position data including current volume and weight, Hashimoto et al. does not disclose a placing position model of an artificial intelligence model comprising groups of predetermined volume, weight and placing data. With respect to these limitations, Kim, directed to the same technology — automated storage and article management — teaches:
and a placing position model of an artificial intelligence model [See at least Par. 0014, 0020], wherein the placing position model comprises a plurality of placing data, and each of the plurality of placing data comprises a plurality of groups of a predetermined volume data, a predetermined weight data and a predetermined placing position data that are corresponding to one another [See at least Par. 0020, 0024, 0107, 0113-0114]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hashimoto et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kim and combine the placing position model of an artificial intelligence model comprising groups of predetermined volume, weight and placing data with the generating and moving goods to a target placing position based on current placing position data including current volume and weight of Hashimoto et al. The placing position model of an artificial intelligence model comprising groups of predetermined volume, weight and placing data of Kim allows optimized storage and retrieval based on learning from real-world data, enabling the storage system to adapt to changes with increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the placing position model of an artificial intelligence model comprising groups of predetermined volume, weight and placing data of Kim with the generating and moving goods to a target placing position based on current placing position data including current volume and weight of Hashimoto et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the generating and moving goods to a target placing position based on current placing position data including current volume and weight of Hashimoto et al. and the features of the placing position model of an artificial intelligence model comprising groups of predetermined volume, weight and placing data of Kim would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated storage and article management), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses what Hashimoto et al. lacks:
The picking method according to claim 1, wherein the current placing position data comprises a target rack data and a target stacking position data, the predetermined placing position data comprises a predetermined rack data and a predetermined stacking position data, and the picking vehicle moves the good to the target placing position located at one of a plurality of racks. [See at least Par. 0017, 0020, 0022, 0068, 0098]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hashimoto et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kim as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto et al. discloses:
The picking method according to claim 1, wherein before obtaining the current volume data and the current weight data of the good, the picking method further comprises providing a good to a sensing region of a supply apparatus. [See at least Par. 0034-0039, items are supplied to item information acquisition unit 110 to acquire information about the item]
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto et al. discloses:
The picking method according to claim 1, wherein after obtaining the current volume data and the current weight data of the good, the picking method further comprises comparing the current volume data and the current weight data with a reference volume data and a reference weight data, respectively, if the current volume data and the current weight data match the reference volume data and the reference weight data, respectively, the current placing position data of the good is generated based on the current volume data, the current weight data and the placing position model of the artificial intelligence model. [See at least Par. 0007, 0023, 0036, 0038, 0097, 0110, 0136; comparing item identification information to the item information indicating the item]
For examination purposes, Hashimoto et al.’s comparison of item identification information to the item information indicating the item has been construed as equivalent to the current data vs. reference data comparison and verification step as both require a known reference value, a measured current value, and a comparison between the two, where when a match is identified, the next storage step (moving) can be performed. All of the structure and data necessary to perform the matching step is in place for the retrieval step and could be equally applied to a storage step without requiring any additional structure or data. In addition, Suigiri (JP 2000/086196) also explicitly teaches comparing the current data with reference data for matches prior to placement [See at least Par. 0004, 0034-0040]; the comparison and verification step of claim 4 is well-known in the art and does not provide a distinguishing feature.
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto et al. discloses:
The picking method according to claim 3, wherein before moving the good to the target placing position via the picking vehicle based on the current placing position data, the picking method further comprises moving the good from the sensing region to a pick-up area on the supply apparatus and determining whether the good is located at the pick-up area or not by a sensor, if the good is located at the pick-up area, the good is moved to the target placing position via the picking vehicle based on the current placing position data. [See at least Par. 0039, 0040, 0043, 0132]
For examination purposes, Hashimoto et al.’s configuration of moving the good to the item exchange area 21x and sensing whether an item is present in the item exchange area 21x prior to moving to the storage unit 210 has been construed as equivalent to moving the good to a pick-up area prior to the target placing position via the picking vehicle. The item information acquisition unit includes inputs from multiple sensors in multiple locations, where a separate item sensor for the weight and volume information is installed near the item exchange area 21x or near the transport path from the item exchange area to the storage unit [See at least Par. 0040], separate from the item sensors in the item exchange area 21x which detect presence or absence of items to be picked up to put into storage.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (WO 2018/155062) in view of Kim (KR 2023/0026243) and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN 113721605).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches:
The picking method according to claim 1, wherein after moving the good to the target placing position via the picking vehicle based on the current placing position data, the picking method further comprises determining whether the rack is abnormal or not [See at least Par. 0070, 0100]
While Kim teaches using a sensor to determine whether the rack is abnormal or not, Kim uses a vibration sensor and does not disclose using a visual sensor (image capturing device) for this task. With respect to these limitations, Jiang et al., directed to the same technology — automated warehouse storage and control — teaches:
via an image capturing device [See at least Par. 0005, 0008, 0039, 0048]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Jiang et al. and substitute the visual sensor for the vibration sensor of Kim. The visual sensor of Jiang et al. allows visual confirmation of sensed data, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness and verification by human operators.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to substitute the visual sensor of Jiang et al. for the vibration sensor of Kim and would have recognized that the substitution would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a substitution, the features of the vibration sensor of Kim and the features of the visual sensor of Jiang et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the substituted context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jiang et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated warehouse storage and control), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang et al. teaches what Kim lacks:
The picking method according to claim 1, wherein after moving the good to the target placing position via the picking vehicle based on the current placing position data, the picking method further comprises determining whether the rack is full or not via an image capturing device. [See at least Par. 0029, 0056]
For examination purposes, Jiang et al.’s monitoring of empty spaces in the storage racks using a visual sensor has been construed as equivalent to determining whether the rack is full, as no empty spaces in the rack would indicate the rack is full and the presence and number of empty spaces would indicate the rack is not full.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Jiang et al. as discussed above, see claim 6.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0367900) in view of Yang et al. (CN 214358253).
Regarding independent claim 17, Li et al. discloses:
A picking system, configured to pick one or more goods [See at least Fig. 1, Abstract] and comprising:
a controller; [See at least Par. 0039]
at least one rack, [See at least Fig. 18, Ref. Numeral 40 (rack); Par. 0096] located on a side of the supply apparatus; and
at least one picking vehicle [See at least Fig. 1, transporter robot 100; Abstract, Par. 0038], comprising:
a movable base [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 3 (chassis); Par. 0039], configured to move between the supply apparatus and the at least one rack on a supporting surface and electrically connected to the controller;
a mounting platform, movably disposed on the movable base and having a mounting surface facing away from the supporting surface; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 4 (gantry) and 6 (lifting assembly); Par. 0039]
at least one fork, movably disposed on the mounting surface of the mounting platform and configured to support the one or more good; [See at least Figs. 26,27, Ref. Numeral 30 (fork); Par. 0103-0106] and
a pushing component, movably disposed on the mounting surface of the mounting platform, wherein the at least one fork is located between the pushing component and the mounting surface, and the pushing component is configured to push the one or more goods supported by the at least one fork into the at least one rack. [See at least Figs. 26, 27, Ref. Numerals 302, 303A (front and rear fingers); Par. 0107-0110]
While Li et al. discloses the picking vehicle, controller and rack, Li et al. does not explicitly disclose a supply apparatus combined with these components for the system. With respect to these limitations, Yang et al., directed to the same technology — conveying robots — teaches:
a supply apparatus, electrically connected to the controller and configured to transport the one or more good; [See at least Fig. 6, Ref. Numeral 2 (flow goods shelf); Par. 0084]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. to incorporate the teachings of Yang et al. and combine the supply apparatus with the picking vehicle, controller and rack of Li et al. The supply apparatus of Yang et al. allows an integrated system of supply and storage, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the supply apparatus of Yang et al. with the picking vehicle, controller and rack of Li et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the supply apparatus of Yang et al. and the features of the picking vehicle, controller and rack of Li et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the substituted context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yang et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (conveying robots), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 18-20, the use of an image capturing devices (including claim rejections above for Jiang et al. (CN 113721605)); sensors (including claim rejections above for Hashimoto et al. (WO 2018/155062); and barcode readers to identify items are all well-known constructions in the art, and cannot provide distinguishing features. Examiner encourages Applicant to focus on the potentially distinguishing features of the picking vehicle identified in the objected claims and Examiner’s note.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note
Potentially Distinguishing Features: Examiner notes there are potentially distinguishing features present in the specification and drawings which are not currently included in the claims. These features include:
Claim 11: rotating assembly. Designs in the prior art tend toward traditional forklift designs, where the entire vehicle must turn in order for the forks to be turned in another direction. The rotating assembly which allows independent rotation of the forks about the vertical (z) axis independent of the movement of the base could provide a potentially distinguishing feature over the prior art.
The features above are not currently included in the claims in a manner to distinguish over the prior art. Inclusion of the distinctive combination of features of this invention would provide additional limitations which could distinguish over the prior art of reference.
The potentially distinguishing features above are the most prominent examples which the Examiner has noted and Applicant is encouraged to review the prior art made of record [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited], as each of these prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. If Applicant chooses to amend the claims, Applicant is encouraged to review the noted features above in light of the prior art references and MPEP sections governing 35 U.S.C. 102 [See MPEP 2120, MPEP 2131, and MPEP 2114] and U.S.C. 103 [See MPEP 2120 and MPEP 2141].
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the 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 Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 EST.
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 at (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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights