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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. NL2028263 filed on 05/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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: “guide system for guiding” in claim 6.
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.
In the instant case, the guide system is interpreted as disclosed in ¶0019 of the instant specification (PGPUB) 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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, the “providing” as recited in claims 9 and 11 does not further limit the system of claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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) 1-5, 7-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skaaksrud et al. (US 2019/0287047).
Regarding claim 1:
Skaaksrud teaches A vehicle system for processing and transporting a product (modular autonomous bot apparatus, see at least Fig. 43c, 48), wherein the system comprises:
a first autonomous unmanned vehicle (modular mobility base, see at least ¶0463-0486, Fig. 17) provided with an automatic drive comprising wheels and a navigation device (Fig. 18c), the first autonomous unmanned vehicle being further provided with a power supply (power source 1850, see at least Fig. 18c) a storage configured to store the product (cargo storage system CSS, see at least ¶0531+, Fig. 21, 43c) and a first coupler (latch element 1855, see at least ¶Fig. 18c, ¶0482);
a processing device provided with a processor configured to process the product, wherein the processor comprises a robot for performing processing operations, the processing device being further provided with a second coupler (the Examiner notes that Skaaksrud teaches multiple embodiments which meet the claim limitations. For example, the “processing device” may be met by one of several modules as shown in Figs. 20a-e, Fig. 27, Fig. 43, etc. Additionally, the claim limitations may be met by coupling a plurality of modular mobility bases together, each having modules providing the product processing components as in Fig. 19 and ¶0487-500); and
a controller (mobility controller 1825),
wherein, in a first state, the first and second couplers are uncoupled and detached from each other and at least the first autonomous unmanned vehicle moves separately, and wherein, in a second state, the first and second coupling means couplers are coupled and engage with each other, and the first autonomous unmanned vehicle and the processing device together form an autonomous unmanned vehicle unit and as such move together (see at least Fig. 19 and ¶0487-500, Figs. 20a-e, Fig. 27, Fig. 43, ¶0753-0754, ¶0482).
Regarding claim 2:
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the processing device is stationary in the first state, and wherein the first autonomous unmanned vehicle moves the processing device in the second state (at least modules as in Figs. 20 lacks mobility means absent a mobility base. Alternately, a second modular base including manipulating modules may be stationary.).
Regarding claim 3:
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the processing device comprises a second autonomous unmanned vehicle and, in the first state, the first and the second autonomous unmanned vehicles move separately from each other (see at least Fig. 19, ¶0487-500).
Regarding claim 4:
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the processing device comprises a second autonomous unmanned vehicle and, in the first state, the first and the second autonomous unmanned vehicles move separately from each other (see at least Fig. 19, ¶0487-500).
Regarding claim 5:
Skaaksrud teaches comprising an automatic energy-charging device for the first unmanned autonomous vehicle (see at least ¶0694).
Regarding claim 7:
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the robot comprises a gripping arm for grabbing the product (see at least Fig. 20e, ¶0526).
Regarding claim 8:
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the product is a consumer item (see at least Fig. 20e, ¶0526, ¶0885+).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, providing the vehicle in a particular location does not further the limit the system as detailed above. Therefore, the prior art of record meets the claim limitations. Additionally, see ¶0957.
Regarding claim 10:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein the robot comprises a picking robot for picking a fruit, wherein the product is a fruit (The robot arm as taught by Skaaksrud is disclosed as a picking robot, and may be configured to pick any object, including fruit. Additionally, Skaaksrud further teaches a product including fruit, see at least ¶0940).
Regarding claim 12:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein the first autonomous unmanned vehicle comprises a lift and the second state is achieved by raising the processing device with the lift, thereby forming the autonomous unmanned vehicle unit, wherein the first autonomous unmanned vehicle moves the autonomous unmanned vehicle unit in the second state (see at least Figs. 39-40, ¶0468,¶0623-0625).
Regarding claim 13:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein the first comprise coupler comprises a first engagement surface provided on at least a part of a top side of the first autonomous unmanned vehicle, and the second coupler comprises a second engagement surface provided on at least a part of an opposite side of the processing device, and wherein, in the second state, the first autonomous unmanned vehicle and the processing device engage with each other across the entire first and second engagement surface (see at least Fig. 18c, Fig. 19 and ¶0482-500).
Regarding claim 14:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein the first coupler comprises a first engagement on a side of the first autonomous unmanned vehicle and the second coupler comprises a second engagement on an opposite side of the processing device, wherein the first and second engagement engage with each other in the second state (see at least Fig. 18c, Fig. 19 and ¶0482-500).
Regarding claim 15:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein, in the second state, the power supply of the first autonomous unmanned vehicle provides power to the processing device and/or the storage means to pick up the product after the product has been processed by the processing device (see at least ¶0463-0467).
Regarding claim 18:
Skaaksrud further teaches one or more of the processing device and one or more of the first autonomous unmanned vehicle, wherein the number of the first autonomous unmanned vehicles is greater than or equal to the number of processing devices (see at least Fig. 48, wherein there is one each).
Regarding claims 19-20:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein the processing device is provided with a storage device for temporarily storing the product during the first state (see at least Fig. 48c, ¶0847).
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 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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaaksrud as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sherman (US 5,404,087)
Regarding claim 6:
Skaaksrud teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above. Skaaksrud further teaches a guide system for guiding the first autonomous unmanned vehicle and/or the processing device along a predetermined route while moving in the first and/or the second state (see at least ¶0009-0011, ¶0673).
However, Skaaksrud does not teach a guide system as defined by the 112(f) interpretation detailed above.
Sherman teaches a system and method of navigating an article handling robot including a guide system for guiding the first autonomous unmanned vehicle and/or the processing device along a predetermined route while moving in the first and/or the second state (see at least column 1, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the modular robot system and method as taught by Skaaksrud with the wire guidance system as taught by Sherman in order to provide for a well-known, simple, and reliable navigation means for repeatedly following predetermined routes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaaksrud as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein in the second state, transport device is provided between the storage of the first autonomous unmanned vehicle and the storage device of a second modular robot, which may be considered a processing device, wherein the transport device is configured to transport the product from the storage device to the storage means (see at least Fig. 68).
Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach a singular embodiment wherein the transport device transports the product from an autonomous unmanned vehicle to a processing device, wherein the processing device and autonomous robot move together when coupled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the plurality of unmanned vehicles as taught by Skaaksrud to be controlled to move as a single unit when transferring a product between them as taught by Skaaksrud in a separate embodiment in order to allow for more efficient transportation of products, not requiring stopping, to transfer a product to a more desirable storage compartment, such as temperature controlled, as taught by Skaaksrud (¶0539).
Regarding claim 17”
Skaaksrud further teaches wherein the controller is configured to send a signal to the first autonomous unmanned vehicle, with the first autonomous unmanned vehicle moving towards the processing device after the first autonomous unmanned vehicle has received the signal (see at least dispatch command, dispatch server, Figs. 64-70).
Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach a singular embodiment wherein the controller commands the autonomous unmanned vehicle move to a processing device, wherein the processing device and autonomous robot move together when coupled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the plurality of unmanned vehicles as taught by Skaaksrud to be controlled to move as a single unit when transferring a product between them as taught by Skaaksrud in a separate embodiment in order to allow for more efficient transportation of products, not requiring stopping, to transfer a product to a more desirable storage compartment, such as temperature controlled, as taught by Skaaksrud (¶0539).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619