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 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 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; or
(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 1, 2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Diankov et al. (“Diankov”)(US 2020/0223066 A1).
Diankov (fig. 1-10) teaches a system and method comprising:
(re: claims 1, 13) a robot configured to grip articles (fig. 3, 5A near robot 306; para. 54);
a delivering mechanism configured to deliver a warehouse pallet loaded with the articles (fig. 5A showing pallet being delivered to “Source Location”; para. 55-57, 78-79 teaching that conveyor or AGV can transport pallet/articles from storage to depalletizing location);
an automated guided vehicle configured to transport a roll pallet on which the articles are loaded for each sorting destination (para. 76-86 teaching that controller may instruct AGV, such as 422, to bring pallet to specific destinations for loading via robot 306); and
an information processing device comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a host device configured to manage articles and sorting destinations of the articles, the robot, the delivering mechanism, and the automated guided vehicle (fig. 2, 4 and para. 39-43, 68-76 teaching that the various processing elements, i.e., management system, master controller and storage access system, include various processor 202, storage 204 and communication elements 206, to manage article sorting, wherein management system 402 can be regarded as “host” device and the various communication element 206 found in each processing element can be regarded as forming a “communication unit”); and
a processor configured to:
acquire, via the communication unit, the articles and information on the sorting destinations of the articles from the host device (fig. 4, 5B and para. 76-86 teaching master controller 408 and management system 402 that “communicate motion plans and/or corresponding commands/setting” to robot 306);
perform control to transmit a control signal to the automated guided vehicle to transport the roll pallet set for each sorting destination to a predetermined region via the communication unit (para. 84-86, 96 teaching that master controller via storage access system instructs AGV to a specific designed destination location 504);
perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the delivering mechanism to deliver the warehouse pallet (fig. 4 and para. 55-57 teaching that storage access system 404 instructs AGVs to deliver specific pallet); and
perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to take the articles off of the warehouse pallet and load the taken-off articles onto the roll pallet (para. 83-84, 98-99 teaching sorting of articles to specific destination location/pallet based on grouping criteria);
(re: claim 2) wherein the communication unit is configured to communicate with a robot configured to grip the articles and a delivering mechanism configured to deliver a warehouse pallet loaded with the articles, and the processor is configured to:
perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the delivering mechanism to deliver the warehouse pallet; and
perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to take the articles off of the warehouse pallet and load the taken-off articles onto the roll pallet (para. 55-57, 84-86 AND 98-99 teaching that processing elements instruct AGVs to deliver warehouse pallet to source location 502 and then instruct robot to take and load said articles onto the respective roll pallets in the destination locations);
(re: certain elements of claim 5) wherein the processor is configured to perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to return the warehouse pallet by using the delivering mechanism after loading an article onto the warehouse pallet by using the robot (para. 123).
(re: claims 11 and 12) The claimed method steps and related processor functions are performed in the normal operation of the system cited above.
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 of this title, 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 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (“Diankov”)(US 2020/0223066 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0332502) and Eckman et al. (“Eckman”)(US 11,767,168).
Diankov as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 3) wherein the processor is configured to perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to take an obstructing article obstructing taking of the articles off of the warehouse pallet and load the taken-off obstructing article onto a first buffer mechanism;
(re: claim 4) wherein the processor is configured to perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to load the obstructing article of the first buffer mechanism onto the warehouse pallet by using the robot after loading the articles onto the roll pallet;
(re: certain elements of claim 5) wherein the control signal to return is sent after loading the obstructing article of the first buffer mechanism;
(re: claim 6) wherein the first buffer mechanism comprises a pallet;
(re: claim 7) wherein the first buffer mechanism comprises a belt;
(re: claim 8) wherein the processor is configured to:
perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to take the articles off of the warehouse pallet and load the taken-off articles onto a second buffer mechanism; and
perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the robot to load the articles of the second buffer mechanism onto the roll pallet;
(re: claim 9) wherein the communication unit is configured to communicate with a rearrangement mechanism, and the processor is configured to perform control to transmit, via the communication unit, a control signal to the rearrangement mechanism to rearrange the articles in the second buffer mechanism;
(re: claim 10) wherein the second buffer mechanism comprises a belt.
Liu, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated material handling/sorting arts to move items blocking a targeted item into a buffer area as this configuration allows for items to be more densely packed during handling/sorting (fig. 6, 7; para. 97-119).
Eckman further teaches that it is well-known to integrate multiple buffer areas/mechanisms in a pallet assembling area to optimize the pallet building process (Cf. fig. 4b and 4c showing buffer elements near 444a-c comprising pallets on conveyor element that surround central pallet assembly robot 436 and other source pallets; col. 12, ln. 55-col. 15, ln. 25 teaching that buffer area can be used to store overflow items until ready to be picked or to queue pallets and helps optimize the picking tasks, wherein adding and removing of pallets/items is regarded as rearranging).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., buffer mechanisms) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Diankov for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
November 12, 2025