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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, and 4-20 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 12 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/11/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9, 12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasee (US 20070094535 A1) in view of Jensen et al (US 20190062053 A1) and Johnson et al (US 20240025058 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Prasee, Jensen, and Johnson respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Prasee teaches a mobile robot for automated server handling (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0005 and Figure 2a), the robot comprising:
a first portion including a server shelf configured to hold a plurality of server trays (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0025, 0049, 0051-0052, and Figure 2a, the side carriers are interpreted as a server shelf that holds a plurality of server trays/boards);
a second portion including a telescoping server loading tray configured to extend externally from the robot and retract internally (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0028 and Figure 2a, the extender supports that telescope out and retract are interpreted as the telescoping server loading trays)…
Prasee fails to disclose the telescoping server loading tray retracts internally…inside the server shelf, the telescoping server loading tray having an end with one or more unlocking and locking latches positioned on the end of the telescoping server loading tray;
wherein unlocking and locking latches are configured to engage a server tray.
However, Jensen teaches the server loading tray retracts internally…inside the server shelf (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144, the sled table, which is interpreted as the loading tray, retracts inside the sled receiving tray/server shelf), the server loading tray having an end with one or more unlocking and locking latches positioned on the end of the server loading tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0114-0115 and Figures 21-23, the sled table/loading tray includes fingers that move from a stowed position to a deployed position, which is interpreted as unlocking and locking latches);
wherein unlocking and locking latches are configured to engage a server tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0114-0115, 0143-0144, and Figures 21-23, the fingers/unlocking and locking latches engage the sled/server tray by latching onto the handles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Prasee with Jensen to have the telescoping server loading tray retract inside the server shelf and have unlocking/locking latches that engage the server trey. This modification, as taught by Jensen, would allow the telescoping server loading trey to engage the server tray/sled and place it inside the server shelf/sled receiving tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144), thus, improving the operability of the telescoping server loading tray.
Even though Prasee teaches a telescoping server loading tray, modified Prasee fails to disclose wherein the telescoping server loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping server loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction.
However, Johnson teaches the telescoping…loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping…loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0016, 0215, 0635-0637, 0699, 0702, 0726, 0729-0731, and Figures 5-6, and 132, the telescoping loading tray linearly translates along the vertical axis within the second portion of the mobile robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Johnson to have the telescoping server loading tray linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction. This modification, as taught by Johnson, would allow the robot to align the telescoping server loading tray with the same elevation of a shelf, thus, enabling the telescoping server loading tray to grasp or place objects on a shelf (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0215, 0699, and 0729-0731).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Prasee teaches a camera (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0029), and one or more processors (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0030 and Figure 3), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive data from…the camera (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figure 3);
Modified Prasee fails to disclose cause the telescoping server loading tray to align a position of the telescoping server loading tray relative to a server tray in a server rack in the Z direction.
However, Jensen teaches cause the server loading tray to align a position of the server loading tray relative to a server tray in a server rack in the Z direction (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0105, 0142, and Figures 19-20, the position of the sled table/loading tray is aligned to the server tray/desired sled in a vertical/Z direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Jensen to align a position of the telescoping server loading tray relative to a server tray in a server rack in a Z direction. This modification, as taught by Jensen, would allow the telescoping server loading trey to replace a faulty server tray/sled in the server rack with a different server tray/sled (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0097, 0101, 0138-0139, 0144, and 0152-0153), thus, improving the performance of the server rack.
Modified Prasee fails to disclose a distance sensor wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive data from the distance sensor.
However, Johnson teaches a distance sensor (See at least Johnson Paragraph 0287, the displacement transducers are interpreted as distance sensors) wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive data from the distance sensor (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0287-0290, the controller/processor receives data from the distance sensors/displacement transducers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Johnson to receive data from distance sensor. This modification, as taught by Johnson, would allow the robot to determine the distance to an object (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0287-0290), which would improve the awareness of the robot.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Prasee fails to disclose the telescoping server loading tray further comprises a rotatable conveyor belt and a motor configured to linearly translate the server tray.
However, Jensen teaches the server loading tray further comprises a rotatable conveyor belt (See at least Jensen Paragraph 0116 and Figure 23, the sled table/loading tray includes conveyor tracks/belts) and a motor configured to linearly translate the server tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0109, and 0144, the sled table/loading tray includes a motor to linearly translate the server tray/sled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Jensen to have the telescoping server loading tray comprise a rotatable conveyor belt and a motor configured to linearly translate the server tray. This modification, as taught by Jensen, would allow the telescoping server loading trey to extend and retract in the horizontal direction to remove or install the server tray/sled in the server shelf/sled receiving tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0105, 0116, 0141, 0144, and 0153), thus, improving the operability of the telescoping server loading tray.
Regarding Claim 6, Prasee teaches a system for automated server handling (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0005 and Figure 1) comprising:
a server rack housing a plurality of server trays (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0005, 0017, and Figure 1, the cabinet/server rack houses cell units/boards, which are interpreted as server trays);
a mobile robot comprising:
a first portion including a server shelf configured to house server trays (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0025, 0049, 0051-0052, and Figure 2a, the side carriers are interpreted as a server shelf that holds server trays/boards);
a second portion including a telescoping server loading tray adjacent to the server shelf (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0028 and Figure 2a, the extender supports are interpreted as the telescoping server loading trays, which are adjacent to the server shelves/side carriers),…and
one or more processors (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0030 and Figure 3);
wherein the mobile robot is configured to: receive, by the one or more processors, data indicating a location of the server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0016-0017, the coordinates of the failed system in the server/cabinet rack are received by the mobile robot);
navigate, by the mobile robot, to the location (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0050 and Figure 1);
Prasee fails to disclose the telescoping server loading tray having one or more locking and unlocking latches on an end of the telescoping server loading tray;
unload, using the telescoping server loading tray, a server tray of the plurality of server trays; and
load, using the telescoping server loading tray, the server tray into the server shelf.
However, Jensen teaches the server loading tray having one or more locking and unlocking latches on an end of the server loading tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0114-0115 and Figures 21-23, the sled table/loading tray includes fingers that move from a stowed position to a deployed position, which is interpreted as unlocking and locking latches);
unload, using the server loading tray, a server tray of the plurality of server trays (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144, the sled table/loading tray, unloads the sled/server tray); and
load, using the server loading tray, the server tray into the server shelf (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144, the sled table/loading tray, loads the sled/server tray into the sled receiving tray/server shelf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Prasee with Jensen to have the telescoping server loading tray load the server tray into the server shelf and have unlocking/locking latches that engage the server trey. This modification, as taught by Jensen, would allow the telescoping server loading trey to engage the server tray/sled and place it inside the server shelf/sled receiving tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144), thus, improving the operability of the telescoping server loading tray.
Even though Prasee teaches a telescoping server loading tray, modified Prasee fails to disclose wherein the telescoping server loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping server loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction.
However, Johnson teaches the telescoping…loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping…loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0016, 0215, 0635-0637, 0699, 0702, 0726, 0729-0731, and Figures 5-6, and 132, the telescoping loading tray linearly translates along the vertical axis within the second portion of the mobile robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Johnson to have the telescoping server loading tray linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction. This modification, as taught by Johnson, would allow the robot to align the telescoping server loading tray with the same elevation of a shelf, thus, enabling the telescoping server loading tray to grasp or place objects on a shelf (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0215, 0699, and 0729-0731).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Prasee teaches a position verification tool configured to determine coordinates of the server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0016-0017, and Figure 1, the DMS, which is interpreted as a position verification tool, determines the coordinates of the server/cabinet rack), wherein the mobile robot is further configured to receive the coordinates and navigate to the coordinates (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0050, and Figure 1, the coordinates of the failed system in the server/cabinet rack is received by the mobile robot, and the mobile robot navigates to the coordinates).
Regarding Claim 12, Prasee teaches a method for automated server handling (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0005 and Figure 2a) comprising:
loading, by a mobile robot, a first server tray onto a server shelf located within the mobile robot (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0018, 0048-0049, and Figure 2a, the mobile robot loads a replacement board/first server tray onto a server shelf/side carrier);
extracting, by the mobile robot, a second server tray from a server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0034 and 0050-0051, the robot extracts a second server tray/board from the server/cabinet rack)… and
inserting,… the first server tray into the server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0052, the first server tray/replacement unit/board is inserted into the server/cabinet rack),
wherein the mobile robot comprises:
a first portion including a server shelf configured to house server trays (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0025, 0049, 0051-0052, and Figure 2a, the side carriers are interpreted as a server shelf that holds server trays/boards);
a second portion including the telescoping server loading tray adjacent to the server shelf (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0028 and Figure 2a, the extender supports are interpreted as the telescoping server loading trays, which are adjacent to the server shelves/side carriers)
Even though Prasee teaches a telescoping server loading tray (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0028 and Figure 2a, the extender supports are interpreted as the telescoping server loading trays), Prasee fails to disclose using a telescoping server loading tray to support the second server tray;
retracting, by the telescoping server loading tray, the second server tray onto the server shelf of the robot; and
inserting, by the telescoping server loading tray, the first server tray into the server rack.
However, Jensen teaches using a server loading tray to support the second server tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144, the sled table/loading tray extracts the sled/server tray);
retracting, by the server loading tray, the second server tray onto the server shelf of the robot (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0116, 0141, and 0144, the sled table/loading tray, retracts the sled/server tray onto the sled receiving tray/server shelf); and
inserting, by the server loading tray, the first server tray into the server rack (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0097, 0101, and 0152-0153, the sled table/loading tray inserts a replacement tray/sled into the server rack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Prasee with Jensen to have the telescoping server loading tray load extract the second server tray and insert the first server tray into the rack. This modification, as taught by Jensen, would allow the telescoping server loading trey to replace a faulty server tray/sled with a different server tray/sled (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0097, 0101, 0138-0139, 0144, and 0152-0153), thus, improving the operability of the telescoping server loading tray.
Even though Prasee teaches a telescoping server loading tray, modified Prasee fails to disclose wherein the telescoping server loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping server loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction.
However, Johnson teaches the telescoping…loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping…loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0016, 0215, 0635-0637, 0699, 0702, 0726, 0729-0731, and Figures 5-6, and 132, the telescoping loading tray linearly translates along the vertical axis within the second portion of the mobile robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Johnson to have the telescoping server loading tray linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction. This modification, as taught by Johnson, would allow the robot to align the telescoping server loading tray with the same elevation of a shelf, thus, enabling the telescoping server loading tray to grasp or place objects on a shelf (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0215, 0699, and 0729-0731).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Prasee teaches navigating, by the mobile robot, to the server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0050 and Figure 1); and
aligning, by the mobile robot, the telescoping server loading tray of the mobile robot relative to the server rack using a sensor (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0028, 0033, 0050, and Figure 9, the camera/sensor is used to algin the telescoping server loading tray/extender support relative to the server/cabinet rack S4).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Prasee teaches the sensor comprises one or more of a distance sensor, a camera, or a laser (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0033, and 0050, the camera is the sensor).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Prasee teaches identifying a second server tray location before extraction from the server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0016-0017, the coordinates of the failed system/second server tray are received by the mobile robot before extraction).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Prasee fails to disclose the mobile robot is secured to at least one of the first server tray or the second server tray using an unlocking and locking latch located on an end of the telescoping server loading tray.
However, Jensen teaches the mobile robot is secured to at least one of the first server tray or the second server tray using an unlocking and locking latch located on an end of the server loading tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0114-0115, 0143-0144, 0153, and Figures 21-23, the fingers/unlocking and locking latches are used to secure the loading tray/sled table to the sled/server tray by latching onto the handles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Jensen to have unlocking/locking latches that engage the server trey. This modification, as taught by Jensen, would allow the telescoping server loading trey to engage the server tray/sled by latching onto the handles of the server tray/sled so that the sled/server tray can be removed or inserted by the telescoping server loading tray (See at least Jensen Paragraphs 0114-0115, 0143-0144, 0153, and Figures 21-23), thus, improving the operability of the telescoping server loading tray.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Prasee teaches identifying, by one or more processors, a server rack location before extraction (See at least Prasee Paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0031, the coordinates of the failed system in the server/cabinet rack are received by the processor in the mobile robot before extraction).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasee in view of Jensen and Johnson, and in further view of O’Brien et al (US 9908239 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as O’Brien)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Prasee teaches the mobile robot includes…a camera configured to determine a position for unloading the server tray relative to the server rack (See at least Prasee Paragraph 0029, the camera is used to determine a position for unloading/extracting a unit/server tray relative to the server/cabinet rack).
Modified Prasee fails to disclose sensors for determining a position for unloading the server tray relative to the server rack.
However, O’Brien teaches sensors for determining a position relative to the server rack (See at least O’Brien Column 10 lines 32-35, Column 11 lines 12-18 and Column 12 lines 16-28, the data from the proximity sensor is used to determine the distance to the server rack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with O’Brien to use sensors for determining a position for unloading the server tray relative to the server rack. This modification, as taught by O’Brien, would allow the robot to determine the distance to the rack (See at least O’Brien Column 11 lines 12-18 and Column 12 lines 16-28), which would improve the awareness of the robot.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasee in view of Jensen and Johnson, and in further view of Morrill et al (US 20160107312 A1) and Mukherjee et al (US 20200081439 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Morrill and Mukherjee respectively)
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, modified Prasee fails to disclose a cable handler, the cable handler having a first axis and a second axis,
wherein the cable handler includes a plate fixed to the first axis and the second axis having a gripper…
wherein the plate is configured to align to a position of a server tray in a server rack, the plate being moveable in the Z direction,
wherein the plate is configured to extend towards the server rack in a Y direction and retract inwards towards the mobile robot in the Y direction, and
wherein the mobile robot is configured to disconnect, using the cable handler, one or more connectors connected to a server.
However, Morrill teaches a cable handler (See at least Morrill Paragraph 0070 and Figure 5, the clamp type interface point is interpreted as a cable handler), the cable handler having a first axis and a second axis (See at least Morrill Paragraph 0070 and Figure 5),
wherein the cable handler includes a plate fixed to the first axis (See at least Morrill Paragraph 0070 and Figure 5, the flat plate is fixed to a first axis) and the second axis having a gripper (See at least Morrill Paragraph 0070 and Figure 5, the jaw portions, which are interpreted as the grippers, extend along the second axis)…
wherein the plate is configured to align to a position of a server tray in a server rack, the plate being moveable in the Z direction (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0057, 0067, 0070 and Figures 4-5, the robotic arm includes motors to align the plate with the position of the server in a server rack; the bottom joint/motor shown in Figures 4-5 allows the plate to be moved in the z-direction),
wherein the plate is configured to extend towards the server rack in a Y direction and retract inwards towards the mobile robot in the Y direction (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0057, 0067, 0070 and Figure 5, the plate extends towards the server rack in the Y direction and retracts inwards toward the mobile robot using the top joint/motor shown in Figures 4-5), and
wherein the mobile robot is configured to disconnect, using the cable handler, one or more connectors connected to a server (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0070 and Figure 5, the mobile robot disconnects the connectors to the server using the cable handler/ clamp type interface point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Morrill to use a cable handler to disconnect connectors connected to a server. This modification, as taught by Morrill, would allow the robot to replace a failed sled/server tray or upgrade a sled/server tray (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0038 and 0070), thus, improving the performance of the server rack.
Modified Prasee fails to explicitly disclose the gripper is …adjacent to an edge of the plate.
However, Mukherjee teaches the gripper is …adjacent to an edge of the plate (See at least Mukherjee Paragraph 0041 and Figure 4a, the pivot rod with the component handler, which is interpreted as the gripper, is adjacent to the edge of the gantry head/plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Mukherjee to have the gripper be adjacent to an edge of the plate since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in Re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the position of the gripper is adjusted to be closer to the edge of the plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the position of the gripper according to where the gripper needs to contact the cables relative to the plate.
Claim 10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasee in view of Jensen and Johnson, and in further view of Wickmann et al (US 4630379 A) and Lee (US 20160050852 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wickmann and Lee respectively)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Prasee fails to disclose the position verification tool comprises a first laser, a second laser.
However, Wickmann teaches the position verification tool comprises a first laser, a second laser (See at least Wickmann Column 6 lines 19-35, Column 10 lines 24-46, and Figures 1 and 4, the laser for determining the position in three dimensions comprises a vertical laser beam and a horizontal laser beam, which are interpreted as a first and second laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Wickmann to have the position verification tool comprise a first laser and a second laser. This modification, as taught by Wickmann, would allow the system to verify the position of an object in three dimensions (See at least Wickmann Column 6 lines 19-35, Column 10 lines 24-46, and Figures 1 and 4), thus, improving the accuracy of the system.
Modified Prasee fails to disclose the position verification tool comprises…a laser shield.
However, Lee teaches a laser shield (See at least Lee Paragraph 0041, the laser includes a shield plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Lee to have the position verification tool comprise a laser shield. This modification, as taught by Lee, would prevent the laser beam radiated from deviating from the scope of the work region (See at least Lee Paragraph 0041), which would improve the accuracy of the system.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasee in view of Jensen and Johnson, and in further view of Takahashi et al (US 20230364812 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Takahashi)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Prasee fails to disclose the coordinates are determined by the position verification tool using a plurality of reference points.
However, Takahashi teaches the coordinates are determined by the position verification tool using a plurality of reference points (See at least Takahashi Paragraphs 0002, 0030-0033, and Figures 4-5, the coordinates of the machine tool are determined by the visual sensor/position verification tool using the coordinates of the three reference points/target marks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Takahashi to determine the coordinates by using a plurality of reference points. Using reference points to determine the 3D position/coordinates of an object is well-known and routine, and allows the robot to determine the coordinates of an object by simply using a sensor to detect reference points/target marks (See at least Takahashi Paragraphs 0002, 0030-0033, and Figures 4-5), thus, improving the detection capability of the robot.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Prasee fails to disclose identifying the server rack location further comprises determining, by the one or more processors, coordinates relative to a first reference point, a second reference point, and a third reference point.
However, Takahashi teaches determining, by the one or more processors, coordinates relative to a first reference point, a second reference point, and a third reference point (See at least Takahashi Paragraphs 0002, 0031-0033, and Figure 5, the coordinates of the machine tool is determined using the coordinates of the three reference points/target marks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Takahashi to determine the coordinates relative to a first reference point, a second reference point, and a third reference point. Using reference points to determine the 3D position/coordinates of an object is well-known and routine, and allows the robot to determine the coordinates of an object by simply using a sensor to detect the coordinates of reference points/target marks (See at least Takahashi Paragraphs 0002, 0030-0033, and Figures 4-5), thus, improving the detection capability of the robot.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasee in view of Jensen and Johnson, and in further view of Morrill
Regarding Claims 13-14, modified Prasee fails to disclose removing, by the mobile robot, cables from the second server tray in the server rack using a gripper located on a cable handler of the mobile robot; and
inserting, by the mobile robot, the cables into the first server tray by the grippe,
wherein the cable handler translates linearly in an YZ direction using a first axis and a second axis.
However, Morrill teaches removing, by the mobile robot, cables from the second server tray in the server rack using a gripper located on a cable handler of the mobile robot (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0070 and Figure 5, the mobile robot disconnects the cables to the server using the jaws/grippers on the cable handler/ clamp type interface point); and
inserting, by the mobile robot, the cables into the first server tray by the gripper (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0038, 0070 and Figure 5, the mobile robot connects the cables to the server to replace the failed sled using the jaws/grippers on the cable handler/ clamp type interface point,
wherein the cable handler translates linearly in an YZ direction using a first axis and a second axis (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0057, 0067, 0070 and Figures 4-5, the robotic arm includes motors to articulate and position the cable handler/interface point; the bottom joint/motor shown in Figures 4-5 allows the cable handler/interface point to be translated in the z-direction and the top joint/motor shown in Figures 4-5 allows the cable handler/interface point to be translated in the y-direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Prasee with Morrill to use a cable handler to disconnect cables from the second server tray and insert cables into the first server tray. This modification, as taught by Morrill, would allow the robot to replace a failed sled/server tray or upgrade a sled/server tray (See at least Morrill Paragraphs 0038 and 0070), thus, improving the performance of the server rack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the independent claims to include the limitation “the telescoping server loading tray is fixed to a first axis and the telescoping server loading tray is configured to linearly translate along the first axis within the second portion of the mobile robot in a Z direction.”. This limitation is rejected in view of newly added reference Johnson, which teaches a mobile robot with a first portion that includes shelves, and a second portion that includes a telescoping loading tray. The telescoping loading tray is fixed to a vertical axis and linearly translates along the vertical axis within the second portion of the mobile robot. Therefore, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights