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 . 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority/Benefit
The instant application is a 371 national stage of PCT/EP2021/063190, with an effective filing date of 05/18/2021. As such, the effective filing date of 05/18/2021 is granted since no other claim for priority or benefit is present.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 04/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner notes that the amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously presented, however, the claim amendments have introduced new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues as seen below.
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:
“movement device” in at least claims 1-20
“product presentation device” in at least claims 1-20
“holding or attachment device” in at least claims 1-20
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. Additionally, the previous action detailed the portions in the specification that described these structures and is applicable here as well for those terms still requiring a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “… that extend obliquely upwards …”. The term “obliquely” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “obliquely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “obliquely” is indefinite because it does not sufficiently define how oblique or at what angle the structural elements are. For instance, it is not clear how slanted these structural elements actually are as the specification simply states that “… the product presentation device extending obliquely upwards, which are oriented so steeply that without the holding or attachment device the structural element would tip over”. This gives no reasonable bounds for the “obliqueness” of the structural elements and one skilled in the art would not be appraised of how slanted these elements should be.
Claims 2-20 ultimately depend from claim 1 and contain the same indefinite subject matter of claim 1. As such, those claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Kondo, JP 2009188970, herein referred to as Kondo.
Regarding claim 1,
Kondo discloses the following:
A vehicle comprising: at least one first sensor, which is provided for acquiring a condition of a product presentation device (Paragraph 0045)
Sensors may be used to determine a change in density of an object
A movement device which is configured to provide self-propelled movement of the vehicle within the product presentation device (Figs. 21, 29, Paragraph 0071)
Multiple mobile carriages may be attached to a shelf
A holding or attachment device which is configured to be implemented within the product presentation device for automatically holding or attaching the vehicle to the product presentation device at the respective location of movement (Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0056)
The mobile carriages may be held onto the shelf through a holding portion 339
Wherein the holding or attachment device is configured to directly hold or attach the vehicle to structural elements of the product presentation device that extend obliquely upwards while allowing the movement device to move the vehicle (Figs. 21-23, Paragraphs 0054-0057)
The mobile platforms may be attached to the shelf
The attachment may be through a carriage mechanism which holds the rod through members 339
This carriage may also be attached to the vertical members of the shelf (see Fig. 21) item 335
Regarding claim 2,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses the following:
Wherein the holding or attachment device is implemented by means of a magnetic holding or attachment device (Figs. 21-23, Paragraphs 0054-0057)
The mobile carriages may be attached to the shelf through holding portions 339, 335, etc.
Regarding claim 4,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses the following:
Wherein the movement device comprises at least one electric motor (Figs. 21-23, Paragraphs 0054-0057)
The vertical attachment portions 335 for the mobile carriage may include at least one motor, one for each side
Regarding claim 5,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses the following:
Wherein the movement device comprises at least one second sensor which is provided for capturing the environment of the vehicle or the position of the vehicle for the purposes of moving the vehicle (Paragraph 0058)
Multiple sensors may be used to determine positioning of the speakers, etc. that are attached to the mobile carriage
Regarding claim 7,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses the following:
A control unit configured to control the movement device such that the vehicle is maneuverable autonomously within the product presentation device (Paragraphs 0060-0061)
The mobile carriages with associated speakers, etc. may be moved based on positioning data obtained from several sensors
Because this movement occurs without any human intervention, the system if autonomous
Regarding claim 8,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Kondo further discloses the following:
wherein at least the at least one first sensor is configured to generate acquisition data, wherein the acquisition data represents the acquired condition of the product presentation device, and wherein the control unit is configured to pre-process the acquisition data (Paragraph 0045)
a density of an object may be determined based on sensed image data; determining density may be a pre-processing
density may be considered a condition
Regarding claim 9,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses the following:
The vehicle which comprises a first detection stage configured to detect a loss of autonomous holding or attachment of the vehicle on the product presentation device (Figs. 21, 29; Paragraphs 0066-0067)
An error detection may be used to determine positional errors
These positional errors can be considered as loss of holding or attachment since the devices are not attached where they should be
Regarding claim 11, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, Kondo discloses at least one preparation zone which is provided for self-propelled movement of the vehicle (Figs. 21-23, 29; the mobile carriage may self-propel to various portions of the shelf; the various portions may be considered preparation zones (upper/lower portions not in use)), wherein a surface composition and/or a material composition of the preparation zone is configured such that the vehicle is autonomously held or attached thereto by means of its holding or attachment device (Figs. 21-23, 29; Paragraphs 0054-0058, the mobile carriage and associated speakers, etc. may be autonomously held/attached to the shelf through holding element 339, 335, etc.; the mobile carriage may be autonomously held/attached to the shelf through an attachment portion; this attachment portion attaches to a rod/rail like member which can be considered to have a particular surface composition (rail shaping/configuration can be considered a surface composition)).
Regarding claim 12, Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Kondo further discloses a product presentation zone for presenting products which differs from the preparation zone (Figs. 21-23; the mobile carriage may ‘present’ the speakers and mobile carriage in various zones; the current zone can be considered as the product presentation zone whilst the unused portions can be considered as preparation zones (see claim 11 rationale, upper/lower portions of shelf)).
Regarding claim 14, Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Kondo further discloses wherein at least two differently oriented preparation zones are provided, which are connected to each other with a transition element, the transition element being configured such that a translation from the one preparation zone to the other preparation zone is enabled by means of the movement device of the vehicle (Figs. 21-23, 29; Paragraphs 0054-0058; the mobile carriage may move between given preparation zones (see claim 11 rationale); these zones can be considered as being in different orientation as they are arranged at different portions of the shelf; the rod/rail like members that distinguish each zone may be considered as transition elements and are traversed by utilizing the mobile carriage).
Regarding claim 17,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Kondo further discloses the following:
Wherein the movement device comprises two electric motors (Figs. 21-23, Paragraphs 0054-0057)
The mobile carriage may include at least two motors for traversing the shelf horizontally and/or vertically
Regarding claim 18,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Kondo further discloses the following:
Wherein the product presentation device is a shelf rack or table (Figs. 21-23)
The system may be a shelf where a mobile carriage moves speakers, etc. from one shelf zone to another (in addition, see previous claim rationale above)
Regarding claim 20,
Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses the following:
Wherein the holding or attachment device is configured to directly hold or attach the vehicle to an underside of the product presentation device freely suspended while allowing the movement device to move the vehicle (Fig. 19, Paragraph 0052)
The speakers may may suspended such that they are on the underside of a portion of the shelf
The suspended speakers may still move through the use of the mobile carriage device
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kondo and in view of Collins, US 20090265193 A1, herein referred to as Collins.
Regarding claim 3, Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses motors for moving a gear to move the mobile carriage and speakers (Fig. 21, Paragraphs 0054-0057), but fails to disclose wherein the movement device comprises at least one element from those listed below, namely: wheel, roller, chain, belt, ball. However, Collins, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the movement device comprises at least one element from those listed below, namely: wheel, roller, chain, belt, ball (Paragraph 0041; a robotic device can be propelled by wheels, belts, and chains). Therefore, from the teaching of Collins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Kondo to include wherein the movement device comprises at least one element from those listed below, namely: wheel, roller, chain, belt, ball, as taught/suggested by Collins. The motivation to do so would be to allow the vehicle to move freely.
Regarding claim 6, Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses a plurality of sensors (Paragraph 0058), but fails to disclose a first radio module configured to provide radio-based communication of data, wherein the data relates to the sensor or the movement device. However, Collins teaches a first radio module configured to provide radio-based communication of data, wherein the data relates to the sensor or the movement device (Paragraph 0073; a radio controller may be included to control the robot and/or cameras/sensors). Therefore, from the teaching of Collins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Kondo to include a first radio module configured to provide radio-based communication of data, wherein the data relates to the sensor or the movement device, as taught/suggested by Collins. The motivation to do so would be to increase the reliability and functionality of the system as radio-based communications can provide long distance communication and are fairly reliable.
Claims 10, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kondo and in view of Lim et al., US 20160121913 A1, herein referred to as Lim.
Regarding claim 10, Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses power being provided (Paragraph 0065), but fails to disclose the vehicle comprises an electric energy store and is configured to approach an energy supply zone within the product presentation device by means of its movement device when the state of charge of its electric energy store undershoots a predefined level. However, Lim, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle comprises an electric energy store and is configured to approach an energy supply zone within the product presentation device by means of its movement device when the state of charge of its electric energy store undershoots a predefined level (Paragraph 0061; the robot may approach a charging station to charge its battery when required; charging may be required when the battery is not fully charged; fully charged can be considered as a predefined level). Therefore, from the teaching of Lim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Kondo to include the vehicle comprises an electric energy store and is configured to approach an energy supply zone within the product presentation device by means of its movement device when the state of charge of its electric energy store undershoots a predefined level, as taught/suggested by Lim. The motivation to do so would be to keep the robot charged up for further usage.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 10 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 10 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, a portion of the claim are similar to those in claim 10 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 10. Additionally, Kondo discloses power being provided (see claim 10 rationale), but fails to disclose the vehicle being supplied with electrical energy by contactless energy transmission. However, Lim teaches the vehicle being supplied with electrical energy by contactless energy transmission (at least Figs. 7-8, item 500, Paragraphs 0061, 0074; the vehicle may charge by moving over to charging station 500; the charging station may charge the batteries without directly connecting to them). Therefore, from the teaching of Lim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Kondo and Lim to include the vehicle being supplied with electrical energy by contactless energy transmission, as taught/suggested by Lim. The motivation to do so would be to increase the ease of charging the vehicle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kondo and in view of Edward, WO 2013138193 A2, herein referred to as Edward.
Regarding claim 13, Kondo discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Kondo further discloses wherein the product presentation device comprises at least one shelf and a preparation zone (Figs. 21-23, 29; the mobile carriage may self-propel to various portions of the shelf; the various portions may be considered preparation zones (upper/lower portions not in use)), but fails to disclose wherein the preparation zone is at least partially formed from a side of a rear wall of the shelf facing toward the product presentation zone. However, Edward, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preparation zone is at least partially formed from a side of a rear wall of the shelf facing toward the product presentation zone (at least Fig. 10; multiple shelves may be present; each shelf level may be considered a product presentation zone; each shelf level may have side portions that define other shelf levels, including backing, sides, and bottoms/tops). Therefore, from the teaching of Edward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Kondo to include wherein the preparation zone is at least partially formed from a side of a rear wall of the shelf facing toward the product presentation zone, as taught/suggested by Edward. The motivation to do so would be to easily delineate and identify relevant objects on the shelving. This can make identification easier which can lead to faster traversal times for the robot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art of Kondo fails to disclose the newly amended limitations to the independent claims. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that Kondo fails to disclose a vehicle that is capable of holding or attaching to a flat vertical surface of a product presentation device while allowing a movement device of the vehicle to move the vehicle. However, as can be seen in claim 1, the mobile carriage which has the attached speakers, etc. may be attached to vertical members of the shelving, and can allow for vertical translation of the vehicle (see Figs. 21-23 specifically). Additionally, the claims do no support the argument of the structural components being flat and vertical as the claim recites the structure being “obliquely upwards” which is not the same as being flat and vertical. As such, the Applicant’s arguments regarding this aspect of the claims are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights