DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 5 and 12 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 5 recites the limitation “in the plane of the rail”. It is unclear which plane is defined since the “rail” is in infinite planes. For examination purposes “in the plane of the rail” is being interpreted as in a plane.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “only the first one or more of the foot arrangements”. It is not clear if this could be all of the foot arrangements or not, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes “only the first one or more of the foot arrangements” is being interpreted as only the first one or more or all of the foot arrangements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “101a”, “101b”, “101c” and “101d”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen et al. 2021/0009350, provided by Applicant.
In Re Claim 1, Cohen et al. teach a storage library system (logistics center, Paragraph 111) comprising: a plurality of slots (202) for storing items; a plurality of rails (R1, R2, R3, C1, C2, C3, C4, Fig. 4a-4c); and a robot (300) for interacting with said items, the robot comprising: an end-effector (113) for interacting with the items in the slots; at least two foot arrangements (P1s and P2s, Fig. 2C) each having a respective gripping mechanism (teeth, Fig. 2C) for releasably engaging the foot arrangement with one of the rails; a drive mechanism (155) for moving the robot along the rails; and a transfer mechanism (143) constructed and arranged to move the robot, while a first one or more of the foot arrangements remains engaged with a first (C2, Fig. 4a) of the rails, from a first position (4a) in which one or more of the foot arrangements is in abutment with a second (C3, Fig. 4a) of the rails to a second position (Fig. 4C) in which one or more of the foot arrangements is in abutment with a third (R2, Fig. 4C) of the rails.
In Re Claim 2, Cohen et al. teach at least one localization feature for allowing the robot to determine its location in the storage library system. (Sensing means, Paragraph 92)
In Re Claim 3, Cohen et al. teach wherein the at least one localization feature comprises one or more of: an RFID tag located on at least one of the rails and readable by a sensing system of the robot; an optical marking located on at least one of the rails and readable by a sensing system (photodetector, Paragraph of the robot. (Paragraph 92)
In Re Claim 4, Cohen et al. teach wherein the transfer mechanism is constructed and arranged to move the robot from the first position to the second position by rotating the robot, about the first one or more foot arrangements, out of the plane of the rails. (Fig. 4a-4c)
In Re Claim 5, as best understood, Cohen et al. teach wherein the transfer mechanism is constructed and arranged to move the robot from the first position to the second position by rotating the robot, about the first one or more foot arrangements, in the plane of the rail. (Fig. 4a-4c, Plane defined by Rail R and Rail C)
In Re Claim 6, Cohen et al. teach wherein the transfer mechanism is constructed and arranged to move the robot from the first position to the second position by translating the robot in the plane of the rails. (Fig. 4b-4c)
In Re Claim 7, Cohen et al. teach wherein each foot arrangement of the robot is located on the end of a respective leg arrangement (301) of the robot, and wherein the transfer mechanism is constructed and arranged to move the robot from the first position to the second position by moving at least one leg arrangement. (Fig. 4b-4c)
In Re Claim 11, Cohen et al. teach comprising two or more robots.(adding robots, Paragraph 59)
In Re Claim 12, as best understood, Cohen et al. teach wherein the drive mechanism is activatable while only the first one or more of the foot arrangements is engaged with a rail. (Fig. 4a-4c)
In Re Claim 13, Cohen et al. teach wherein the slots are arranged in at least two different planes (vertical and horizontal, Fig. 2a), and wherein the third rail to which the transfer mechanism moves the first foot arrangement is not located in the same plane as the first and second rail. (Fig. 4c)
In Re Claim 14, Cohen et al. teach comprising a control module (180) configured to control the robot to perform a transfer action by: controlling the gripping mechanism of one or more of the foot arrangements to disengage the one or more foot arrangements from the second rail; controlling the transfer mechanism to move the robot, while the first one or more of the foot arrangements remains engaged with the first of the rails, from the first position to the second position; and controlling the gripping mechanism of one or more of the foot arrangements to engage one or more of the foot arrangements with the third rail.(Paragraph 107 and 108)
In Re Claim 15, Cohen et al. teach computer program for controlling a robot of a storage library system comprising a plurality of slots for storing items, a plurality of rails, the robot comprising: an end-effector (113) for interacting with the items in the slots (202); at least two foot arrangements (P1s and P2s, Fig. 2C) and a drive mechanism (155) for moving the robot (300) along the rails (R1, R2, R3, C1, C2, C3, C4, Fig. 4a-4c); wherein the computer program comprises instruction (Paragraph 18, 119) configured so as when executed by one or more processing units to cause the robot to perform a transfer action by: controlling a gripping mechanism (teeth, Fig. 2C) to disengage a first one or more of the foot arrangements from a first rail (C3); (Fig. 4a-4c) controlling a transfer mechanism to move the robot, while a second one or more of the foot arrangements remains engaged with a second of the rails (C2), from a first position (Fig. 4b) in which the first one or more of the foot arrangements is in abutment with the first of the rails to a second position (4c) in which one or more of the foot arrangements is in abutment with a third (R2) of the rails; and controlling a gripping mechanism to engage the one or more of the foot arrangements with the third rail. (Fig. 4c)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. and in view of Joos 6,016291.
In Re Claims 8-10, Cohen et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Cohen et al. do not teach wherein at least some of the items stored in the storage library system are physical storage media, and the storage library system comprises at least one drive for reading and/or writing the physical storage media.
However, Joos teaches wherein at least some of the items stored in the storage library system are physical storage media, and the storage library system comprises at least one drive for reading and/or writing the physical storage media; (abstract) and wherein the end-effector (50) is arranged to interact with items on either side of the robot; (Column 9, Line 50 – Column 10, Line 8) and wherein the end-effector comprises at least one of a grabber (30); a reader; a writer; a camera; a maintenance apparatus; and a cleaning apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to store physical storage media in the system of Cohen et al. as taught by Joos with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide an archiving system for data carriers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hasegawa, Hirose and Zaczec et al. teach storage libraries with slots and rails and robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652