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 .
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-14 as originally filed on December 1, 2023, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/7/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “method of claim 7” is spelled incorrectly, Examiner suggests it should be – method of claim 8 --. For remainder of the action the word will be reviewed as “method of claim 8”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180346243 - hereinafter Lindbo) in view of Razumov et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150098775 - hereinafter Razumov) in view of Pollido et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200189122 - hereinafter Pollido).
Re. claim 1, Lindbo teaches:
A mobile robot, comprising:
a body; [Lindbo; Fig. 10z and ¶28].
a wheel assembly coupled to the body, the wheel assembly including a plurality of wheels and an actuator to move the body along a first set of a rails extending in a first direction and a second set of rails extending in second direction orthogonal to the first direction; [Lindbo; Fig. 8b and ¶50-¶51].
an interface configured to wirelessly send processor readable data to a remote processor and wirelessly receive processor executable instructions from the remote processor; an imaging device to capture images of the inventory items; [Lindbo; pg. 4 ¶65].
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Razumov teaches:
a picking manipulator coupled to the body, the picking manipulator having at least three degrees of freedom; [Razumov; ¶70].
a first container retrieval device coupled to the body, the first container retrieval device including a first hoist plate extendable in a vertical direction relative to the body to engage and secure a first container; and [Razumov; ¶16 and Fig. 5].
a second container retrieval device coupled to the body, the second container retrieval device including a second hoist plate extendable in the vertical direction relative to the body arranged to engage a second container housed in a stack underneath a third container and to lift the second and third containers in a single lift. [Razumov; ¶16 and Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Razumov in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Pollido teaches:
a first pneumatic gripping tool coupleable to the picking manipulator, the first pneumatic gripping tool being moveable by the picking manipulator in a three-dimensional workspace to access and the grasp inventory items; [Pollido; ¶16 and Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Pollido in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Pollido teaches mobile robot of claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Razumov teaches:
wherein the first container retrieval device is arranged on a first side of the body and the second container retrieval device is arranged on a second side of the body opposite of the first side of the body. [Razumov; ¶16 and Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Razumov in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 3, Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Pollido teaches mobile robot of claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Razumov teaches:
wherein the first and second container retrieval devices are arranged on a first side of the body to secure the first and second containers in a side-by-side fashion. [Razumov; ¶16 and Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Razumov in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Pollido in view of Petersen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220371292 - hereinafter Petersen).
Re. claim 4, Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Pollido teaches mobile robot of claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Petersen teaches:
further comprising a tool holder coupled to the body and configured to receive the first pneumatic gripping tool when the first pneumatic gripping tool is not coupled to the picking manipulator. [Petersen; ¶41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Petersen in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Bastian et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190322451 - hereinafter Bastian).
Re. claim 5, Lindbo teaches:
A storage system, comprising:
a first set of parallel rails and a second set of parallel rails extending substantially perpendicular to the first set of parallel rails in a horizontal plane such that the first and second set of parallel rails collectively form a grid and define a plurality of grid spaces; [Lindbo; Fig 3,4 and Paragraphs 0048-0049].
a plurality of containers stacked upon one another to form a plurality of vertical stacks, each vertical stack being arranged within a footprint of a respective grid space; [Lindbo; Fig 1,2 and Paragraph [0046]].
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Razumov teaches:
a first item disposed within a first one of the plurality of containers, the first one of the plurality of containers being located within a first one of the plurality of vertical stacks; and [Razumov; Fig 4 and Paragraph [0057]].
a second item disposed within a second one of the plurality of containers, the second one of the plurality of containers being located within a second one of the plurality of vertical stacks different than the first one of the plurality of stacks, [Razumov; Fig 4 and Paragraph [0057]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Razumov in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Bastian teaches:
wherein the first item and the second item are of a first SKU. [Bastian; ¶129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bastian in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 6, Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Bastian teaches storage system of claim 5.
Lindbo teaches:
wherein the first one of the plurality of containers includes a partition defining a plurality of compartments. [Lindbo; ¶156].
Re. claim 7, Lindbo in view of Razumov in view of Bastian teaches storage system of claim 5.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Bastian teaches:
wherein the first SKU is disposed within one of the plurality of compartments of the first container and a second SKU is disposed within another one of the plurality of compartments of the first container. [Bastian; ¶129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bastian in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian in view of Dugat et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210380341 - hereinafter Dugat).
Re. claim 8, Bastian teaches:
A method of arranging inventory within a storage system, comprising:
picking an SKU from a first container located underneath a grid of a grid-based storage system; [Bastian; ¶129]
placing the picked SKU into a dumping tray; [Bastian; ¶129]
depositing the picked SKU into the second container. [Bastian; ¶129]
Bastian doesn’t teach, Dugat teaches:
transporting the dumping tray to a position located above a second container different than the first container, the second container being located underneath the grid; and [Dugat; ¶8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dugat in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Bastian in view of Dugat teaches method of claim 8.
Bastian doesn’t teach, Dugat teaches:
wherein the picking step is performed by a robotic arm supported by a gantry above the grid. [Dugat; ¶8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dugat in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 10, Bastian in view of Dugat teaches method of claim 8.
Bastian doesn’t teach, Dugat teaches:
wherein the picking step, the transporting step and the depositing step are performed by a mobile piece picking robot having a picking arm and a wheel assembly configured to traverse along a first set of parallel rails and a second set of parallel rails extending substantially perpendicular to the first set of parallel rails in a horizontal plane, the first and second set of parallel rails collectively forming the grid. [Dugat; ¶8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dugat in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 11, Bastian in view of Dugat teaches method of claim 8.
Bastian doesn’t teach, Dugat teaches:
wherein the transporting and depositing steps are performed by a transporting robot comprising the dumping tray. [Dugat; ¶8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dugat in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 14, Bastian in view of Dugat teaches method of claim 8.
Bastian doesn’t teach, Dugat teaches:
further comprising: moving the second container, after the depositing step, to a different stack located underneath the grid. [Dugat; Fig. 1A and ¶79-¶80 shows containers moved in various compartments as there are many compartments presented in the example].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dugat in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian in view of Dugat in view of Appel et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200262076 - hereinafter Appel).
Re. claim 12, Bastian in view of Dugat teaches method of claim 8.
Bastian doesn’t teach, Appel teaches:
wherein the depositing step comprises pivoting the dumping tray. [Appel; ¶50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Appel in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian in view of Dugat in view of Zollinger et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210162101 - hereinafter Zollinger).
Re. claim 13, Bastian in view of Dugat teaches method of claim 11.
Bastian doesn’t teach, Zollinger teaches:
wherein the dumping tray is triangular. [Zollinger; ¶119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Zollinger in the system of Bastian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628