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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are currently being examined. By Applicant’s amendment of December 19, 2023, claims 1-6 are pending following:
Claim 3 has been amended
New claim 6 has been added
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 4 and 5 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 4 recites the limitation “moving the conveying device to the predetermined position corresponding to a second shelf position”. It is unclear if there is only a single predetermined position, which is only associated with the second shelf position, or whether a predetermined position associated with the first shelf position (from which the conveying device is moving from the first shelf to the second shelf) also exists. It is also unclear if the use of “the predetermined position” was intended to explicitly link a position of the conveying device with the distance from an object in a predetermined direction or if these are intended to be two separate and distinct features, each of which utilizes a predetermined position. This ambiguity makes the scope of the claim unclear, rendering it indefinite. The Office recommends “a predetermined position corresponding to a second shelf position,” which defines a specific feature associated with the second shelf position (without causing confusion in regard to the first shelf position) and resolves any ambiguity or unintended link regarding the distance from an object recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “satisfies a specific condition,” however the condition itself is unclear and undefined, rending the claim indefinite. While support for a comparison to a condition is provided in the specification [See at least Par. 0138, 0149], the claim lacks any language linking the condition to the shelf itself, as described in the specification (In this case, since the value obtained by adding the height data "225 or "186" of the bill storage container BL, BS to this state data "225" is still less than the depth dimension data "784" of the movable shelf 800, the control device 700 determines that the bill storage container BL, BS can still be conveyed in the shelf position of the first stage and the first column.) Without this language providing metes and bounds for the “specific condition,” the scope of the claim is unclear, rendering it indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toccassi (US 2022/0204267) in view of Takashi et al. (JP H08258664).
Regarding independent claim 1, Toccassi discloses:
An article conveying system [See at least Par. 0099, 0104] comprising:
a conveying device capable of conveying an article; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 70 (robotic handling device) with 72 (gripping means); Par. 0104]
While Toccassi discloses a conveying device, Toccassi does not disclose a distance measuring device or managing occupancy state based on measured distance. With respect to these limitations, Takashi et al., directed to solving the same problem, detecting an occupancy state based on measured distances, teaches:
a distance measuring device for measuring a distance from a predetermined position to an object in a predetermined direction; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 15 (distance sensor); Par. 0027] and
a management unit for managing presence or absence of the article based on information about the distance to the object measured by the distance measuring device located at the predetermined position. [See at Fig. 5; least Par. 0009, 0032]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toccassi to incorporate the teachings of Takashi et al. and combine the distance measuring device and managing occupancy state based on measured distance with the conveying device of Toccassi. The distance measuring device and managing occupancy state based on measured distance of Takashi et al. allows reliable, non-contact detection of occupancy not susceptible to variations in weight or ambient light, enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the distance measuring device and managing occupancy state based on measured distance of Takashi et al. with the conveying device of Toccassi and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the conveying device of Toccassi and the features of the distance measuring device and managing occupancy state based on measured distance of Takashi et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Takashi et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, detecting an occupancy state based on measured distances, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Takashi et al. teaches what Toccassi lacks:
The article conveying system according to Claim 1, wherein the management unit includes a storage unit and causes the storage unit to store information showing that there is no article when the distance exceeds a threshold value. [See at least Par. 0032, 0033]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toccassi to incorporate the teachings of Takashi et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Toccassi discloses:
The article conveying system according to Claim 3, wherein the article conveying system is an article conveying system for conveying in the article to a shelf including at least one of at least one column and at least one stage, [See at least Abstract, Par. 0071]
the storage unit stores information about dimensions of the article, and numerical value information based on the dimensions of the article is associated with information showing a first shelf position of the shelf and is stored in the storage unit in the management unit, [See at least Abstract, Par. 0029, 0032, 0051, 0082, 0083]
further comprising: a control unit for moving the conveying device to the predetermined position corresponding to a second shelf position different from the first shelf position when the numerical value information stored in the storage unit satisfies a specific condition. [See at least Par. 0109, 0110, 0122]
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toccassi (US 2022/0204267) in view of Takashi et al. (JP H08258664) and further in view of KR 101987824 (Ui Seong Jung).
Regarding claim 2, Toccassi discloses:
The article conveying system according to Claim 1, wherein the conveying device is a grasping device capable of grasping the article, [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 70 (robotic handling device) with 72 (gripping means); Par. 0104] and
While Toccassi discloses a conveying device and Takashi et al. teaches a distance measuring device and managing occupancy state based on measured distance, they do not teach the configuration of the distance measuring device attached to the conveying device. With respect to these limitations, Jung, directed to solving the same problem, monitoring and manipulation of objects, teaches:
the distance measuring device is attached to the conveying device. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 300 (distance sensor) attached to 110 (robot arm); Par. 0022]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toccassi and Takashi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Jung and combine the configuration of the distance measuring device attached to the conveying device into the conveying device and distance measuring device of Toccassi and Takashi et al. The configuration of the distance measuring device attached to the conveying device of Jung allows real-time monitoring of occupancy state during operation of the conveying device, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the configuration of the distance measuring device attached to the conveying device of Jung into the conveying device and distance measuring device of Toccassi and Takashi et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the conveying device and distance measuring device of Toccassi and Takashi et al. and the features of the configuration of the distance measuring device attached to the conveying device of Jung would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jung because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, monitoring and manipulation of objects, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Takashi et al. teaches:
The article conveying system according to Claim 2, wherein the management unit includes a storage unit and causes the storage unit to store information showing that there is no article when the distance exceeds a threshold value. [See at least Par. 0032, 0033]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toccassi to incorporate the teachings of Takashi et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Toccassi (US 2022/0204267) in view of Takashi et al. (JP H08258664) and further in view of Yoshinaga et al. (JP 2001/072207).
While Toccassi and Takashi et al. teach the article conveying system of claims 1 and 3, they do not explicitly teach a conveying-out system or moving to second shelf position when there is no article on the first shelf; regarding claim 4, Yoshinaga et al., directed to the same technology, article sorting and storing, teaches:
The article conveying system according to Claim 3, wherein the article conveying system is an article conveying-out system for conveying out the article placed on a shelf including at least one of at least one column and at least one stage, [See at least Par. 0014] further comprising:
a control unit for moving the conveying device to the predetermined position corresponding to a second shelf position different from a first shelf position when information showing that there is no article is associated with information showing the first shelf position of the shelf unit and is stored in the storage unit in the management unit. [See at least Par. 0026]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toccassi and Takashi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Yoshinaga et al. and combine the conveying-out steps into the article conveying system of Toccassi and Takashi et al. The conveying-out steps of Yoshinaga et al. allows systematic unloading of shelves, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the conveying-out steps of Yoshinaga et al. into the article conveying system of Toccassi and Takashi et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the article conveying system of Toccassi and Takashi et al. and the features of the conveying-out steps of Yoshinaga et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yoshinaga et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article sorting and storing), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655