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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group C, claims 1, 2, 4 and 20-24 in the reply filed on 4/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the newly added feature to claims 1 and 27 is a special technical feature that provides unity of invention. This is not found persuasive for reasons detailed below, i.e., the added feature is an obvious modification and thus cannot be regarded as a “special” technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensor, the first sensor and the second sensor must be shown or the features canceled from claims 1, 22 and 24. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 22 and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the first sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Here, Examiner notes that Applicant has already defined a sensor in claim 1 and it is unclear whether the same sensor element or an additional sensor element is being described, even in light of the specification. That is, the specification defines a positioning system configured as a vision scanning module to obtain container positional information (fig. 2 near 6 and para. 134-136) and also defines a first and second sensor as vision or depth sensors that appear distinct from the positioning system (para. 57-61, 131-134 describing first and second sensors, detection device including a pressure sensor and also a positioning system 6), but does not illustrate said sensors in the drawings.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the second sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner requests clarification (e.g., what is the difference, if any, between the first and second sensor and positioning/detecting system, and where are said first and second sensor located in container loading and unloading device) and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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; or
(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.
Claims 1, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anegawa et al. (“Anegawa”)(JP 2011057334 A)(with text citations to English translation attached hereto).
Anegawa teaches a container loading and unloading device, comprising
(re: base claim 1) a support assembly, the support assembly extending in a vertical Y-axis direction (fig. 1 showing assembly 10 including vertical and horizontal support/guide elements); and
at least one container taking and conveying assembly (11), the at least one container taking and conveying assembly being controlled by a driving assembly to move along the support assembly in the Y-axis direction (p. 3 teaching loading/unloading device 11 configured to move up/down and along the front surface of the storage shelf 1 by carriage elements),
wherein the at least one container taking and conveying assembly comprises a taking and placing assembly and a bearing assembly, the taking and placing assembly being configured to move in a Z-axis direction to take out a container from a carrier and load the same onto the bearing assembly, or unload the container from the bearing assembly and place the same on the carrier (Cf. fig. 3 and fig. 6(1) thru fig. 6. (6) showing taking element 6 configured to move in a Z-axis and load container 5 on bearing assembly in loading/unloading device);
the carrier is provided with at least two rows and at least two columns of container storage units on a plane where an X-axis and a Y-axis are located, each container storage unit comprises at least one storage position in the Z-axis direction, and each storage position is configured to accommodate at least one container (fig. 1);
a sensor configured to determine a pose deviation between the container taking and conveying assembly and the container on the carrier (fig. 2 and 3 showing detectors 7, 8; fig. fig. 6(1) thru fig. 6. (6) and p. 7-8 teaching sensor configured to determine positional deviation of container and, if necessary, take corrective action);
(re: certain elements of claim 4) wherein the container taking and conveying assembly takes and places the container by at least one of sucking, pushing, clamping, grabbing, hooking, holding, and lifting (fig. 6(3) and 6(4) showing hooking means);
(re: claim 22)
determining whether the container is present at the storage position of the carrier when the container taking and conveying assembly is to take out the container from the carrier (fig. 7 and p. 4, 7 teaching sensor configured to determine presence/absence of container for loading/unloading process); and
determining whether the storage position of the carrier is empty when the container taking and conveying assembly is to place the container to the storage position of the carrier (Id.);
(re: claim 24) wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to adjust a pose thereof based on the pose deviation between the container loading and unloading device and the corresponding container as determined by the .
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 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.
Claims 4 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anegawa et al. (“Anegawa”)(JP 2011057334 A) in view of Yoshe et al. (“Yoshe”)(JP 2566530 B2)(with text citations to English translation attached hereto).
Anegawa as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 4) wherein the support assembly comprises a stand column, the stand column is provided with a sliding track, the container taking and conveying assembly is slidably fitted with the stand column by means of the sliding track;
wherein the container loading and unloading device further comprises a gantry assembly, one end of the support assembly is connected to a top of the gantry assembly, and the other end of the support assembly is connected to at least one of a bottom of the gantry assembly or other supporting surfaces; and
(re: claim 20) a rotating mechanism, the rotating mechanism being configured to drive the taking and placing assembly and the bearing assembly to rotate around the Y-axis;
(re: claim 21) wherein the rotating mechanism comprises a second base, and a revolving support portion rotatably connected to the second base, and the bearing assembly and the taking and placing assembly are relatively connected to the revolving support portion.
Here, it is noted that Anegawa expressly teaches that the elements of Yoshe can be integrated into Anegawa’s container loading and unloading device (p. 4).
Yoshe further teaches that it is well-known in the automated container handling/sorting arts to:
(re: certain elements of claim 4)
-integrate a sliding track and a gantry assembly to allow movement of the container taking and assembly to specific unloading and loading shelf positions (fig. 1, 5 showing support assembly including standing guide rails 9 configured with a sliding track for movement of taking and placing assembly via mast 13 and connected to gantry elements near 10; p. 4 teaching running and guide rails 9, 10 at top and bottom of shelf passages to allow container carrier carriage to travel via “sliding member”); and
(re: claims 20 and 21)
-integrate a rotating element as claimed to allow transfer of containers to and from adjacent shelves (fig. 3-5 showing base near 15 and a rotating support portion 18 configured to drive taking assembly and bearing elements near 24 to rotate around a Y-axis; p. 4 teaching base with a sprocket wheel connected to a swivel drive motor 20 to turn rotating support 18).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., gantry, track and rotating elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Anegawa for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anegawa and Yoshe (“Anegawa et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view Tsujimoto et al. (“Tsujimoto”)(US 2006/0285948 A1).
Anegawa et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2), wherein at least two loading and unloading units are provided and arranged in a horizontal X-axis direction in a spaced manner;
wherein the at least two loading and unloading units are configured to load and unload the container on a same carrier;
wherein the at least two loading and unloading units are independently controlled; and
wherein the at least two loading and unloading units are configured in at least one of the following manners:
the at least two loading and unloading units are configured to move in the X-axis direction, and the same loading and unloading unit corresponds to different columns of the same carrier.
Tsujimoto, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated container handling arts to integrate multiple loading and unloading units that are independently controlled to perform independent or simultaneous storage operations (fig. 1-2 showing carrier configured with multiple vertical columns of storage units and loading/unloading units near 4a and 4b corresponding to different columns; para. 51-52 teaching that loading/unloading units are configured to move along X-axis via upper and lower guide rails 8, 7, fig. 3 and para. 66-78 teaching that respective loading units each have a control element for independent control, wherein control elements function to perform individual and/or simultaneous storage operations).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the separating arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Anegawa et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
May 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights