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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Background
The Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s Amendment, filed on 05/26/26, have been entered.
According to the Amendments, claims 1-10 were pending. Claims 1, 2, and 5 have been amended. Claims 11 and 12 have been added. Thus, claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat. No. 11,124,401 to Jarvis et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. At the outset, it is noted that claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite. For example, claim 1 recites, in part, “when there are multiple conveyance objects, cause the drive section and the loading section to load or engage with the conveyance object of the multiple conveyance objects, which is to be loaded and unloaded later, onto a one of the loading sections.” As a result, the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. Secondly, claim 1 is further indefinite for lack of antecedent basis as it recites “to load or engage with the conveyance object of the multiple conveyance objects.” The term “the conveyance object” lacks an antecedent basis. Thirdly, the term “later” in the claim language “which is to be loaded and unloaded later” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “later ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite within the meaning of § 112(b) as well as claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, and 12 which depend therefrom.
Claim 5 is rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites, in part, “a loading section that is provided to the vehicle body section and that is configured to load a conveyance object or engage with a conveyance object to move the conveyance object; and a control section configured to control the drive section and the loading section, wherein two or more of the loading sections are provided to the vehicle body section.” As recited, it is unclear whether claimed invention comprises two or more loading sections or only one loading section as described earlier in the claim. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 10 is rejected under § 112(b) for the aforementioned reasons regarding claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites, in part, “wherein the control section is configured to, when there is only one conveyance object, cause the drive section and the loading sections to load or engage with the only one conveyance object onto a second one of the loading sections.” As stated, it is unclear how the control section is configured to cause the drive and loading sections to engage with the only one conveyance object onto a second one of the loading sections. Thus, claim 11 is indefinite.
Similarly, claim 12 is rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites, in part, “wherein the control section is configured to, when there are the multiple conveyance objects, cause the drive section and the loading section to load or engage with a next conveyance object of the multiple conveyance objects, before the conveyance object which is to be loaded and unloaded later, onto a second one of the loading sections.” As stated, it is unclear how the control section is configured to cause the drive and loading sections to engage with a next conveyance object onto a second one of the loading sections. Thus, claim 12 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over JPH06227663A to Yamamoto (Yamamoto) (as best understood by machine language translation filed by applicant on 2/26/2024), as applied to claim 1, in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0191272 to Andersen et al. (Andersen) and US Pat. No. 11,124,401 to Jarvis et al. (Jarvis).
In regards to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an automatic movement device (see Fig. 3 showing an automated pallet-moving robot) used in a delivery system configured to deliver an article, the automatic movement device comprising:
a vehicle body section (30) that includes traveling wheels and that is configured to travel (see Fig. 3 showing the robot frame with wheels on the bottom thereof);
a drive section (not labeled) configured to drive the traveling wheels (see ¶ [0027] describing a driving means for driving the robot);
a loading section (31,32) that is provided to the vehicle body section and that is configured to load a conveyance object or engage with a conveyance object to move the conveyance object (see ¶¶ [0027-0028] describing a pair of delivery means (pallet platforms) configured to move up and down during loading and unloading operations),
wherein two or more of the loading sections are provided to the vehicle body section (see ¶¶ [0027-0028]).
Although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a control section, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Andersen teaches an automated conveying vehicle (6A) comprising a control section (25) configured to control the drive section and the loading section. See ¶ [0028] (providing an onboard computer for controlling all operations of the vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the pallet-moving robot of Yamamoto with the onboard computer of Andersen in order to automate navigation and loading operations within the warehouse.
Furthermore, although Yamamoto in view of Andersen does not explicitly disclose controlling the drive and loading section of an automated mobile robot having two or more loading sections as recited, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Jarvis teaches a transport robot wherein when there are multiple conveyance objects, cause the drive section and the loading section to load or engage with the conveyance object of the multiple conveyance objects. which is to be loaded and unloaded later, onto a one of the loading sections. See Col. 1, ll. 50-65 (providing a computing system configured to assign a location on a mobile cart to an item, generate a task list including a first instruction to the first AGV to position the item on the mobile cart based on the assigned location, transport, by the first AGV, the item from an item loading area to a point proximate to the assigned location on the mobile cart; and place, by the first AGV, the item at the assigned location based on the task list).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Yamamoto in view of Andersen with the control feature of Jarvis in order to further automate navigation and loading operations within the warehouse.
In regards to claim 2, Yamamoto further discloses that the loading section includes an acting section (31, 32) and a lifting and lowering section (33, 34), the acting section being configured to load the conveyance object or engage with the conveyance object, and the lifting and lowering section being configured to lift and lower the acting section with respect to the vehicle body section. See ¶ [0028] (providing a pair of delivery means, each one configured to receive a pallet which are lifted and lowered by elevating members during loading operations).
In regards to claim 3, Yamamoto further discloses that each of the loading sections is configured to be independently lifted and lowered to load or engage with the conveyance object. See Fig. 3 (showing one of the pair of delivery means lifted while the other one is lowered).
In regards to claim 4, Yamamoto further discloses that the two or more of the loading sections are integrally lifted and lowered with each other to load or engage with the conveyance object. See Fig. 7 (showing the pair of delivery means lifted together).
In regards to claim 6, Andersen further discloses that the vehicle body section is provided with a detection section and a sensing section, the detection section being configured to detect surroundings of the automatic movement device, and the sensing section being configured to identify the conveyance object and/or sense the conveyance object. See ¶ [0032] (providing automated conveying vehicle with a label reader sensor and a load detection sensor).
In regards to claim 7, Andersen further discloses that the vehicle body section is provided with a sensing section configured to identify the conveyance object and/or sense the conveyance object, and the sensing section is provided for each of the loading sections. See ¶¶ [0032] & [0131] (providing a plurality of onboard sensors for detecting the presence and identity of loaded objects).
In regards to claim 8, Andersen further discloses that the device further comprises an operating section (10, 25) erected in the vehicle body section, wherein a first one of the loading sections is disposed adjacent to the operating section and a second one of the loading sections disposed adjacent to the first one of the loading sections. See Fig. 1; see also ¶ [0114] (describing operating means in the form of a data processing device (mobile computer) and a wireless data communications link disposed adjacent the lifting mechanism of the conveying vehicle).
In regards to claim 11, Jarvis further discloses that the control section is configured to, when there is only one conveyance object, cause the drive section and the loading sections to load or engage with the only one conveyance object onto a second one of the loading sections. See Col. 1, ll. 50-65 (providing a computing system configured to assign a location on a mobile cart to an item, generate a task list including a first instruction to the first AGV to position the item on the mobile cart based on the assigned location, transport, by the first AGV, the item from an item loading area to a point proximate to the assigned location on the mobile cart; and place, by the first AGV, the item at the assigned location based on the task list).
In regards to claim 12, Jarvis further discloses that the control section is configured to, when there are the multiple conveyance objects, cause the drive section and the loading section to load or engage with a next conveyance object of the multiple conveyance objects, before the conveyance object which is to be loaded and unloaded later, onto a second one of the loading sections.
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over Yamamoto in view of Andersen, supra, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2024/0385630 to Oda et al. (Oda). For claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Andersen discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for omni-wheels.
Although Yamamoto in view of Andersen does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Oda teaches a mobile robot wherein the traveling wheels are omni-wheels or mecanum wheels. See ¶ [0026] (providing a mobile robot with four mecanum wheels).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the pallet-moving robot of Yamamoto in view of Andersen with the mecanum wheels of Oda in order to provide greater mobility by moving in any direction without changing direction.
Claim 10 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over Yamamoto in view of Andersen and Jarvis, supra. For claim 10, Yamamoto in view of Andersen discloses a delivery system comprising:
the automatic movement device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 supra); and
a management device (105) configured to manage the automatic movement device (see Andersen at ¶ [0114] describing a system controller for controlling the automated conveying vehicles).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pat. No. 11,602,857 to Galluzzo et al. discloses a method and system for autonomous picking or put-away of items, totes, or cases within a logistics facility. The system includes a remote server and at least one manipulation robot. The system may further include at least one transport robot. The remote server is configured to communicate with the various robots to send and receive picking data, and the various robots are configured to autonomously navigate and position themselves within the logistics facility.
US Pat. No. 11,274,021 to Standard et al. discloses systems and methods for detecting a load on at least one fork of a material handling vehicle. The systems and methods can comprise a housing; at least one sensor positioned within the housing; a sensor arm pivotally coupled to the housing; at least one sensor flag integral with or coupled to the inside of the sensor arm; and wherein when the sensor arm pivots inward toward the housing the at least on sensor flag triggers the at least one sensor to identify at least a first load position and a second load position.
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 KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights