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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the transfer mechanism of claims 17 and 18 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Figs. 2 and 5 purport to show a transfer mechanism in at least “It can be seen from FIG. 2 that a transfer mechanism 10231 may be arranged on the goods taking or placing apparatus 1023, and a transfer mechanism 10241 is arranged on the first storage layer 1024. The transfer mechanism 10231 and the transfer mechanism 10241 are configured to convey the material 103 through rotation” and “In FIG. 5, the material 103 may be placed on the transfer mechanism 10132 to convey the material 103 through rotation of the transfer mechanism 10132. A rotation direction of the transfer mechanism 10132 can be changed;” however, the drawings themselves are top-views in which all features are represented as straight lines. It is impossible to see or infer “convey the material through rotation” from a single view of a 2-dimensional line without additional drawings indicating the movement (direction, span, angle) of this rotation from at least one additional view (such as a side view); current drawings are insufficient to fulfill the requirements for proper understanding of the features.
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
Claims 7, 9-12, 16 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “placed on one of the first storage layers”. If this was intended to refer to “the at least two first storage layers” introduced in claim 1, on which claim 7 depends, the Office recommends accurately referring to this feature in the limitation as “placed on one of the at least two first storage layers.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an unoccupied layer exists in the second storage layers”. If this was intended to refer to the “at least one second storage layer” introduced in claim 8, on which claim 9 depends, the Office recommends accurately referring to this feature in the limitation as “an unoccupied storage layer exists in the at least one second storage layer.”
Claim 10 recites both “first storage layers” and “second storage layer”. If these recitations were intended to refer to the previously introduced “at least two first storage layers” and “at least one second storage layer”, the claim language must accurately refer to these limitations, see claims 7 and 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “place the material on the unoccupied storage layer in the first storage layers.” If this was intended to refer to the “at least two first storage layers”, the claim language must accurately refer to these limitations, see claim 7.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the second storage layers”. If this recitations was intended to refer to the previously introduced “at least one second storage layers”, the claim language must accurately refer to these limitations, see claim 9.
Claim 16, line 5 appears to be missing the noun described “a second {end} opposite to the first end” where “end” has been left out; the Office recommends inclusion of this term for clarity and consistency within the claim.
Claim 18, line 1 repeats the word “wherein” twice. The Office recommends removing the duplicate wherein.
Claim 19, line 1 is missing antecedent basis for “connecting apparatus,” the Office recommends “wherein the connecting apparatus comprises.”
Claim 19, line 4 recites “obtain the material form the second end,” the Office recommends “obtain the material from the second end.”
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:
Claim 16 recites a “connecting apparatus,” using a generic placeholder (device) not preceded by a structural modifier and coupled with functional language “configured to convey the material from the second end of the to-be-placed goods conveying layer to the second end of the to-be-taken goods conveying layer” without reciting sufficient structure in the claim to perform the recited function. The specification discloses corresponding structure, elevator [“The connecting apparatus 1013 in FIG. 8 to FIG. 10 is an elevator.“].
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 § 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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, and the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claim.
Claims 17 and 18 each recite a “transfer mechanism” in the claim, using a generic placeholder (device) not preceded by a structural modifier purporting to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision. The specification provides no structural details to support the limitation, instead reciting functional language which only slightly modifies the limitation and introduces additional ambiguity into the limitation (see 112b rejection): “The transfer mechanism 10231 and the transfer mechanism 10241 are configured to convey the material 103 through rotation.” Therefore, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, and the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claim.
Claims 17 and 18 each recite a “rotary fixing apparatus” in the claim, using a generic placeholder (device) not preceded by a structural modifier purporting to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision. The specification provides no structural details to support the limitation, instead reciting functional language: “The rotary fixing apparatus 10133 may be configured to fix the first end of the third storage layer 10131 so that the first end cannot be moved, and the third storage layer 10131 may be rotated around the rotary fixing apparatus 10133 and perpendicular to a direction of the third storage layer 10131.” Therefore, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, and the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations “to-be-placed good conveying layer” and “to-be-taken goods conveying layer” but no definitions for either of these terms are outlined in the specification explaining from/to where said goods are to be place or taken or identifying any relationship which could differentiate the goods conveying layers. The implied reference point of the terminology is unclear, where is the material placed or taken from? The shelf? The conveyor (in this case, which level?)? The workbench? The robot which also has storage layers? Are the placing and taking actions performed from the same reference point or different reference points? e.g., are goods being placed onto the conveyor from the shelf or from the robot or both? Are goods being removed from the conveyor being placed onto the robot or the shelf or both?
The specification describes material that needs to be shipped from a warehouse, which is stored on shelves in the warehouse. It describes two situations: 1) an outgoing flow, where material is removed from the shelf and placed on the conveyor by the robot, this material is then conveyed to a workbench where it is picked from the conveyor for shipping (shipping material); and 2) a return flow, where remaining material (interpreted by Examiner as material that was on the conveyor but not picked for shipping at the workbench) is then routed back to the robot via the conveyor so the robot can return this material to the shelf. It is unclear which of these above situations, outgoing flow from shelf to workbench or return flow from workbench to shelf, is intended to correlate with the “to-be-placed” and “to-be-taken” layers of the conveyor. Is the “to-be-placed good conveying layer” the outgoing flow from the shelf to the workbench? Or the return flow from the workbench to the shelf? Or are the flows associated with the robot itself rather than the shelves? e.g., where “to-be-placed” is material that was originally stored on a storage layer of the robot and is placed onto the conveyor by the robot and “to-be-taken” is material that was originally on the conveyor and removed from the conveyor by the robot and placed on a storage layer of the robot? Without a clear correlation of the limitations to their corresponding flows/reference points for differentiation, multiple simultaneous scenarios with different interpretations exist so the scope of the claim is unclear, rendering it indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “controlling…the goods taking or placing apparatus to place the material on an unoccupied storage layer reached by the goods taking or placing apparatus for the first time during the movement.” It is unclear what the underlined limitation mean or what limitation this applies to the claim itself, specifically “reached for the first time” and “during the movement”. What movement is being referred to here? The movement of the robot to align next to the conveyor? The movement of the telescopic arm (goods taking or placing apparatus) to place/remove goods from one of the conveying layers? Or the movement of the telescopic arm (goods taking or placing apparatus) to place the material on the unoccupied storage layer of the robot? Interpretation of “the first time” varies greatly depending on which “movement” is being referred to as the robot performs multiple movements. The Detailed Description of the specification introduces additional questions as it recites “In this case, the goods taking or placing apparatus places the material on the unoccupied storage layer reached for the first time during the movement, which means that the goods taking or placing apparatus may try to place the material on the first storage layer that can be reached by the goods taking or placing apparatus after moving a small distance;” this description indicates that the “first time” is not a measure of time at all, but instead a distance, where the goods taking or placing apparatus is placing the material on the nearest unoccupied storage layer, with nearest being interpreted as the smallest physical distance between the location of the goods taking or placing apparatus and the unoccupied storage layer. The plain meaning of the claim language (measure of time) appears to contradict the explanation in the specification (measure of distance), making it unclear what this phrasing is intended to limit in the claim, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 1.
Claim 3 and 4 each recite “a target material layer reached for the first time during the movement” where, similar to the independent claims, the plain meaning of the claim language (measurement of time) appears to contradict the explanation in the specification (measurement of distance), making it unclear what this phrasing is intended to limit in the claim, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 3 and 4 each recite the limitation “the first storage layer” which does not delineate in any meaningful way from “the at least two first storage layers” recited in claim 1, on which claims 3 and 4 depend. It is unclear what this term is intended to mean, what features of a storage layer make it “the first storage layer” (occupied, unoccupied, nearest in distance measurement, etc.) making the scope of the claim unclear and rendering it indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the storage layer” but this limitation does not refer to any previously introduced limitation in claim 3 or claim 1 (previously introduced limitations included at least two first storage layers, a target material layer, and first storage layer) and does not delineate in any meaningful way from “the at least two first storage layers” recited in claim 1, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “the at least one second storage layer is configured for the material taken from the to-be-taken goods conveying layer to be placed.” The grammatical construction of this limitation appears to either be missing a portion at the end or to imply a contradiction between the features of where the material is coming from and going to, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Independent claim 14 recites the same limitations “to-be-placed good conveying layer” and “to-be-taken goods conveying layer” as independent claim 1. Without a clear correlation of the limitations to their corresponding flows/reference points for differentiation, multiple simultaneous scenarios with different interpretations exist so the scope of the claim is unclear, rendering it indefinite. See claim 1 for further details.
Independent claim 14 recites the same limitation “control…the goods taking or placing apparatus to place the material on an unoccupied storage layer reached by the goods taking or placing apparatus for the first time during the movement” as independent claim 1. The plain meaning of the claim language appears to contradict the explanation in the specification, making it unclear what this phrasing is intended to limit in the claim, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite. See claim 1 for further details.
Dependent claims 15-19 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first storage layer” which does not delineate in any meaningful way from “the at least two first storage layers” recited in claim 14, on which claim 15 depends. It is unclear what this term is intended to mean, what features of a storage layer make it “the first storage layer” (occupied, unoccupied, nearest in distance measurement, etc.) making the scope of the claim unclear and rendering it indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “the first storage layer reached for the first time during the movement” where, similar to the independent claims, the plain meaning of the claim language (measurement of time) appears to contradict the explanation in the specification (measurement of distance), making it unclear what this phrasing is intended to limit in the claim, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 17 and 18 recite “a transfer mechanism”. As discussed in the 112(a) rejection above, the specification does not provide any structural features for this element, instead describing it with functional language “The transfer mechanism 10231 and the transfer mechanism 10241 are configured to convey the material 103 through rotation.” The description of “convey the material through rotation” itself introduces additional ambiguity into the meaning of the limitation as it is unclear if the material is to be rotated or some surface on which the material sits/travels is intended to rotate, making the scope of the claim unclear and rendering it indefinite.
Claims 17 and 18 recite “a rotary fixing apparatus.” These terms are inherently contradictory and introduce ambiguity in whether the apparatus is provided rotation about a fixed reference, fixed (limited) limitations for a rotational movement, or something else, making the scope of the claim unclear and rendering it indefinite. In addition, the specification does not provide any structural features or description/examples beyond a single 2-dimensional drawing of what appears to be a joint in Fig. 6, but which could encompass simple or complex joints, and point, line, and area contact, and/or any combination of these; the limitation recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function.
Independent claim 20 applies improper antecedent basis to the first limitation of the claim, using “the” for goods taking or placing apparatus, to-be-placed and to-be-taken goods conveying layers. As these are the first introductions of these features in the independent claim, the Office recommends “a” for proper antecedent basis.
Independent claim 20 recites components of a feature while lacking recitation of the feature itself and the relationships necessary to define the feature and its components. In independent claims 1 and 14, a conveyor is recited comprising (as components) a to-be-placed goods conveying layer and to-be-taken goods conveying layer. Without the recitation of the broader conveyor feature, it is unclear what conveying layers mean or are in reference to, whether these are all components of the same apparatus or separate or how the features relate to each other, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Independent claim 20 recites components of a feature while lacking recitation of the feature itself and the relationships necessary to define the feature and its components. In independent claims 1 and 14, a robot is recited comprising (as components) a goods taking or placing apparatus and at least two first storage layers. Without the recitation of the broader robot feature, it is unclear what the components of the goods taking or placing apparatus and at least two first storage layers mean or are in reference to, whether these are components of the same apparatus as the conveying layer or separate, and how any of the features of the claim relate to one another, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Independent claim 20 recites the limitation “the first storage layer” which does not delineate in any meaningful way from “the at least two first storage layers”. It is unclear what this term is intended to mean, what features of a storage layer make it “the first storage layer” (occupied, unoccupied, nearest in distance measurement, etc.) making the scope of the claim unclear and rendering it indefinite.
Independent claim 20 recites the same limitations “to-be-placed good conveying layer” and “to-be-taken goods conveying layer” as independent claim 1. Without a clear correlation of the limitations to their corresponding flows/reference points for differentiation, multiple simultaneous scenarios with different interpretations exist so the scope of the claim is unclear, rendering it indefinite. See claim 1 for further details.
Independent claim 20 recites the same limitation “control…the goods taking or placing apparatus to place the material on an unoccupied storage layer reached by the goods taking or placing apparatus for the first time during the movement” as independent claim 1. The plain meaning of the claim language appears to contradict the explanation in the specification, making it unclear what this phrasing is intended to limit in the claim, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite. See claim 1 for further details.
Independent claim 20 also recites the limitation “the first storage layer reached for the first time during the movement”. Similar to the application of this limitation to the unoccupied storage layer above, the plain meaning of the claim language appears to contradict the explanation in the specification, making it unclear what this phrasing is intended to limit in the claim, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite. If this limitation is intended to refer to a limitation associated with distance (as described in the specification) rather than the plain meaning of “time”, the claim must accurately reflect this language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim of “a computer-readable storage medium” is directed to a signal per se, with scope encompassing both statutory and non-statutory embodiments [See MPEP 2106.03(II)]. The Office recommends amending the preamble to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in order to more clearly claim a patent eligible category of subject matter.
Claim Rejections – Prior Art
The Office agrees with and adopts the reasoned statements and associated support presented in office actions from other intellectual property offices regarding the same claims (to the extent the inventive concepts were clear) as presented in the instant application, including at least the PCT ISR rejection regarding PCT/CN2022/081006, dated March 15, 2022; CNIPA rejection regarding CN 2021/10352761, dated August 1, 2022; EPO rejection regarding EP 22778558, dated July 4, 2024; and JPO rejection regarding JP 2023560747, dated December 3, 2024.
As the claims were replete with indefinite terminology lacking clear boundaries to define the scope of the claim, and the lack of clear boundaries presented claims of extremely broad scope encompassing multiple interpretations which can be read on by a large range of prior art, line by line mapping would only repeat the assertions of previously filed office actions from other intellectual property offices and address a single interpretation of many, where the intended features have not yet been established due to indefiniteness of the claims. To the extent the claims were clear, no basis for novelty or non-obviousness has been presented, as the inventive concepts presented by the current claims are taught by multiple prior art references, including at least: CN 111977244, CN 109760987, CN 108382880, CN 212355263, US 2020/209865, CN 210213640, WO 2022/206263, and JP H03-013405.
Examiner's Note
Claim Interpretation: Examiner has interpreted independent claims 1 and 14 to recite the following:
A method (claim 1) or system (claim 14) comprising:
a robot comprising a robotic tray and at least two storage layers;
a conveyor comprising a to-be-placed goods conveying layer and a to-be-taken goods conveying layer arranged in parallel in a vertical direction (from up to down);
a controller configured to:
control the robotic tray to move in a direction perpendicular to the conveyor (perpendicular to the conveying layers);
wherein, after the robotic tray has retrieved material from the to-be-taken goods conveying layer, (material exists on goods taking or placing apparatus),
the controller is configured to control the robotic tray to place the retrieved material on an unoccupied storage layer of the robot
The final limitation of each claim, “reached by the goods taking or placing apparatus for the first time during the movement” has NOT been included above as it is unclear what this limitation was intended to convey, as noted in the 112(b) rejections.
The term “robotic tray” has been substituted above for “goods taking or placing apparatus” for the sole purpose of brevity and clarity; the features of the goods taking or placing apparatus outlined in the specification (tray 10232, telescopic arm 10233, fixed push rod 10234 and movable push rod 10235) are taken into account.
Examiner has interpreted independent claim 20 to recite the following:
A {non-transitory} computer-readable storage medium…causing a computing device to implement the method of…
controlling {a} robotic tray {of a robot} to move in a direction parallel to {a conveyor comprising} {a} to-be-placed goods conveying layer and {a} to-be-taken conveying layer;
{wherein the robot further comprises at least two first storage layers}
wherein, after the robotic tray has retrieved material from the to-be-taken goods conveying layer, (material exists on goods taking or placing apparatus),
controlling the robotic tray to place the retrieved material on an unoccupied storage layer of the robot;
wherein, when the robotic tray is empty (no material exists on goods taking or placing apparatus), there is an unoccupied storage layer of the at least two first storage layers, and there is material on the to-be-taken goods conveying layer,
controlling the robotic tray to take a material from the to-be-taken goods conveying layer; and
wherein, when the robotic tray is empty (no material exists on goods taking or placing apparatus) and there are no unoccupied storage layers of the at least two first storage layers,
controlling the robotic tray to take a material from {a first/nearest occupied storage layer}
Note: { } indicate features or language currently missing in the claim as filed and which require resolution as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 112b and 101 rejections above. Applicant may choose alternative phrasing/approaches, the wording above is only for illustrative purposes.
The final limitation of each claim, “reached by the goods taking or placing apparatus for the first time during the movement” has NOT been included above as it is unclear what this limitation was intended to convey, as noted in the 112(b) rejections.
The term “robotic tray” has been substituted above for “goods taking or placing apparatus” for the sole purpose of brevity and clarity; the features of the goods taking or placing apparatus outlined in the specification (tray 10232, telescopic arm 10233, fixed push rod 10234 and movable push rod 10235) are taken into account.
Examiner has outlined an interpretation of the independent claims following BRI and applying the “plain meaning” of the language in order to find common ground to understand Applicant’s intended meaning of the claim limitations; the claims as currently written do not clearly indicate their meaning and appear to contradict the specification at times, introducing ambiguity and indefiniteness.
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