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 .
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.
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”, “product presentation device,” “acquisition unit”, and “holding or attachment device” in at least claims 1 - 16.
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. The applicant’s specification notes that: “movement device” is a wheel, drum or roller, chain, belt, and/or ball and/or an electric motor, a linear motor, or a linear actuator, “product presentation device” is a shelf or a table, “acquisition unit” is a miniature vehicle, “holding or attachment device” is a sticky elastomer, a suction cup or a magnet.
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, 4, 6-10, and 14-16 (and Claims 2-3, 5, and 11-13 due to dependency) 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. The reasons are as follows:
The term “preferably” in claims 4 and 16 is a relative term which renders these claims indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claims, 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 “formed with regard” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “formed with regard” 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 way the claim is currently written, the surface composition/material composition do not matter.
The term “in such a way” in claims 7, 11, and 14 is a relative term which renders these claims indefinite. The term “in such a way” is not defined by the claims, 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 “which is designed” in claims 1, 6 – 10, and 15 is a relative term which renders these claims indefinite. The term “which is designed” is not defined by the claims, 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being obvious by Kondo (JP 2009188970 A, hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kondo discloses:
Acquisition unit (1), comprising: - at least one first sensor (5), which is provided for acquiring a condition of a product presentation device (15), and. Paragraph [0045] describes detecting the density of an object imaged by the camera 31.
- a movement device (2), which is designed for self-propelled movement of the acquisition unit (1) within the product presentation device (15), and. Paragraph [0071] and figure 29 shows a plurality of mobile platforms 711, 721, 731 and 741 on a shelf.
- a holding or attachment device (10), which is implemented within the product presentation device (15) for automatically holding or attaching the acquisition unit (1) to the product presentation device (15) at the respective location of movement. Paragraph [0056] and figures 21 – 23 describe that the moving mechanism has a holding portion 339 that is fitted on the table and is able to hold objects, such as a speaker 338.
Regarding Claim 2:
Kondo discloses:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, wherein the holding or attachment device (10) is implemented by means of a magnetic holding or attachment device. Paragraph [0056] and figures 21 – 23 describe that the moving mechanism has a holding portion 339 that is fitted on the table and is able to hold objects, such as a speaker 338.
Regarding Claim 4:
Kondo discloses:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, wherein the movement device (2) comprises at least one electric motor (31a), but preferably two electric motors (31a, 31b). Paragraph [0055] describes speakers 338 that can be moved by the motor 337 along the moving table 336 in the horizontal direction. This speaker is placed on the moving mechanism.
Regarding Claim 5:
Kondo discloses:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, wherein the movement device (2) comprises at least one second sensor (7) which is provided for capturing the environment of the acquisition unit (1) or the position of the acquisition unit (1) for the purposes of moving the acquisition unit (1). Paragraph [0058] describes sensors that determine position information when data is obtained by each sensor.
Regarding Claim 9:
Kondo discloses:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, which comprises a first detection stage designed to detect a loss of the autonomous holding or attachment of the acquisition unit (1) on the product presentation device (15). Figure 29 shows the movable holding device empty with no object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8 and 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Collins (US Pub No: 2009/0265193 A1, hereinafter Collins).
Regarding Claim 3:
Kondo discloses the above limitations in claim 1. Kondo does not disclose the movement device being propelled via wheels, chains and belts.
Collins, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, wherein the movement device (2) comprises at least one element from those listed below, namely: - wheel (4a - 4b), - roller, - chain, - belt, - ball. Paragraph [0041] describes that the robotic vehicle 202 can be propelled by wheels, belts and chains.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Collins to show the movement device being propelled via wheels, chains and belts. One would have been motivated to do so to allow the vehicle to move freely.
Regarding Claim 6:
Kondo discloses the above limitations in claim 1. Kondo does not disclose a radio module designed for radio-based communication of data related to the sensor or movement device.
Collins, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, which comprises a first radio module (7f) which is designed for radio-based communication of data (D), wherein the data (D) relates to the sensor (5, 7) or the movement device (2). Paragraph [0073] describes features of an inspection control system 608 that has a separate radio controller 613 used to control the robot 602 and/or video camera/sensors.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Collins to show a radio module designed for radio-based communication of data related to the sensor or movement device. One would have been motivated to do so because radios provide long distance communication and are reliable.
Regarding Claim 8:
Kondo discloses:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 6, wherein at least the at least one first sensor (5) is designed to generate acquisition data (D), wherein the acquisition data (D) represents the acquired condition of the product presentation device (15), and wherein the control unit (30) is designed to pre-process the acquisition data (D). Paragraph [0045] describes detecting the density of an object imaged by the camera 31.
Regarding Claim 11:
Collins teaches:
Product presentation device (15), in particular shelf rack or table, which comprises: - at least one acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, - at least one preparation zone (16a - 16h) which is provided for self-propelled movement of the acquisition unit (1), wherein the preparation zone (16a - 16h) is formed with regard to its surface composition and/or its material composition in such a way that the acquisition unit (1) is autonomously held or attached thereto by means of its holding or attachment device (10). Paragraph [0128] describes a robot that can climb the wall of a house, as shown in figure 2A.
The reason to combine Collins with Kondo is for the same reason as in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12:
Kondo discloses:
Product presentation device (15) according to Claim 11, which, in addition to the at least one preparation zone (16a - 16h) provided for moving the acquisition unit (1), comprises a product presentation zone (25a - 25b) for presenting products (26a - 26d), which differs from the preparation zone (16a - 16h). Paragraph [0071] and figure 29 shows a plurality of mobile platforms 711, 721, 731 and 741 on a shelf.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Jarvis et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0096299 A1, hereinafter Jarvis).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kondo discloses the above limitations in claim 1. Kondo does not disclose a vehicle moving autonomously.
Jarvis, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, which comprises a control unit (30) which is designed to control the movement device (2) in such a way that the acquisition unit (1) is maneuverable autonomously within the product presentation device (15). Paragraph [0101] describes a AGV 502 that is configured to autonomously transport pick-to-cart items.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Jarvis to show a vehicle moving autonomously. One would have been motivated to do so that the entire process is automated without human intervention.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Collins and further in view of Edward (WO 2013138193A2, hereinafter Edward).
Regarding Claim 13:
Kondo and Collins teach the limitations in claim 12. Kondo and Collins do not teach the product presentation device (15) comprises at least one shelf (20a, 20b) and wherein the preparation zone (16a - 16h) is at least partially formed from a side of a rear wall of the shelf (20a, 20b) facing toward the product presentation zone (25a - 25b) and/or a ceiling of the shelf (20a, 20b).
Edward, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
Product presentation device (15) according to Claim 12, wherein the product presentation device (15) comprises at least one shelf (20a, 20b) and wherein the preparation zone (16a - 16h) is at least partially formed from a side of a rear wall of the shelf (20a, 20b) facing toward the product presentation zone (25a - 25b) and/or a ceiling of the shelf (20a, 20b). Figure 10 shows a preparation zone between 2 shelves that could be against a wall.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Edward to show product presentation device (15) comprises at least one shelf (20a, 20b) and wherein the preparation zone (16a - 16h) is at least partially formed from a side of a rear wall of the shelf (20a, 20b) facing toward the product presentation zone (25a - 25b) and/or a ceiling of the shelf (20a, 20b). One would have been motivated to do so to identify and locate inventory items (Abstract of Edward).
Regarding Claim 14:
Edward teaches:
Product presentation device (15) according to Claim 11, wherein at least two differently oriented preparation zones (16a - 16h) are provided, which are connected to each other with a transition element, the transition element being designed in such a way that a translation from the one preparation zone (16a - 16h) to the other preparation zone (16a - 16h) is enabled by means of the movement device (2) of the acquisition unit (1). Figure 8 shows two preparation zones between shelf 55a and 500b.
The reason to combine Edward with Kondo is for the same reason as in claim 13.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Lim et al. (US Pub No: 2016/0121913 A1, hereinafter Lim).
Regarding Claim 10:
Kondo discloses the above limitations in claim 1. Kondo does not disclose an electric energy store (29) and is designed to approach an energy supply zone (19) within the product presentation device (15) by means of its movement device (2) when the state of charge of its electric energy store (29) undershoots a predefined level.
Lim, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
Acquisition unit (1) according to Claim 1, which comprises an electric energy store (29) and is designed to approach an energy supply zone (19) within the product presentation device (15) by means of its movement device (2) when the state of charge of its electric energy store (29) undershoots a predefined level. Paragraph [0070] describes a vehicle 300 located in the charging station.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Lim to show an electric energy store (29) and is designed to approach an energy supply zone (19) within the product presentation device (15) by means of its movement device (2) when the state of charge of its electric energy store (29) undershoots a predefined level. One would have been motivated to do so to keep the mobile robot charged up when not in use ([0061] of Lim).
Claim(s) 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Collins and further in view of Lim.
Regarding Claim 15:
Lim teaches:
Product presentation device (15) according to Claim 11, which comprises an energy supply zone (19), wherein the product presentation device (15) is designed such that the energy supply zone (19) can be approached by the acquisition unit (1) by means of the latter's movement device (2). Paragraph [0070] describes a vehicle 300 located in the charging station.
The reason to combine Lim with Kondo is for the same reason as in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16:
Lim teaches:
Product presentation device (15) according to Claim 15, wherein the energy supply zone (19) comprises a charging station (18), by means of which, preferably by means of contactless energy transmission, the acquisition unit (1) can be supplied with electrical energy. Paragraph [0070] describes a vehicle 300 located in the charging station.
Examiner’s Note: the examiner suggests applicant amend the claims to narrow them closer to the subject matter shown in Fig. 7 of the drawings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jarvis (US Pub No: 2018/0127212 A1): A hybrid modular storage fetching system is described. In an example implementation, an automated guided vehicle of the hybrid modular storage fetching system includes a drive unit that provides motive force to propel the automated guided vehicle within an operating environment. The automated guided vehicle may also include a container handling mechanism including an extender and a carrying surface, the container handling mechanism having three or more degrees of freedom to move the carrying surface along three or more axes. The container handling mechanism may retrieve an item from a first target shelving unit using the carrying surface and the three or more degrees of freedom and place the item on a second target shelving unit. The automated guided vehicle may also include a power source coupled to provide power to the drive unit and the container handling mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658