Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/705,965

ROBOTIC CONTAINER HANDLER, AN ACCESS AND DISTRIBUTION STATION, A STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM AND A METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Apr 29, 2024
Priority
Oct 29, 2021 — NO 20211300 +1 more
Examiner
CRAWFORD, GENE O
Art Unit
3651
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
AutoStore Technology A/S
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
52%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allowance Rate
17 granted / 36 resolved
-4.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
40
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 36 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1, 9 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues JP2002338006 does not disclose its two transfer robots 25 coupled to a single (the same) displacement mechanism. Applicant further argues JP2002338006 discloses multiple separate transfer robots, with separate moving means teaching away from the claimed two manipulators coupled to the same displacement mechanism. However, as outlined in the office action and in the annotated figure 7 below, the displacement mechanism of JP2002338006 comprises both the two transfer robots 25 and the components coupled to the robots 25, all of which are considered to be a part of the displacement mechanism. In other words all of the components of both first and second manipulators (robots 25) are considered to be coupled to, be a part of and make up one displacement mechanism for the robotic container handler disclosed by JP2002338006. Hence first and second manipulators (robots 25) are not separate and distinct as they are a part of one robotic container handler that service the automatic storage and retrieval system disclosed by JP2002338006. PNG media_image1.png 283 407 media_image1.png Greyscale The broad recitation of the displacement mechanism do not prevent the interpretation outlined in the rejection of the claims. Applicant might be able to get past such a broad interpretation of the claim language if the displacement mechanism and the coupling of the first and second manipulators was explained with further detail to better distinguish applicant’s device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 4. Claim(s) 1-12, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2002338006. JP 2002338006 discloses a method and apparatus including (claims 1, 2, 9, 14-20) a robotic container handler (25, figures 7 and 9) comprising a displacement mechanism (29-33, figure 9) having a vertical centre plane (the vertical plane between the two manipulators 25, figure 7), a first manipulator (25, on the right, figure 7) including a first inner end (29, figure 9) movably coupled to the displacement mechanism (28) at a first side of the vertical center plane and a first outer end (33, figure 9) fixed to a first coupler (34+35, figure 9) allowing releasable connection to a container (1, figure 9) and a second manipulator (25, on the left, figure 7) comprising a second inner end (29, figure 9) coupled to the displacement mechanism (28) at a second side of the vertical center plane opposite of the first side and a second outer end (33, figure 9) fixed to a second coupler (34+35, figure 9) allowing releasable connection to the container (1, figure 9), wherein the displacement mechanism (29-33) is configured to move the first and second couplers (34+35) parallel to the vertical center plane (for instance using the rails 30 or 32, figure 9); (claim 3) the displacement mechanism has a stand 28, a displacement part 31 horizontally displaced along the rail 30, and at least one of the first inner end and second inner end of the manipulator 25 are coupled is coupled to displacement part 29; (claim 4) displacement mechanism 29-33 includes a vertical displacement mechanism including a vertically guiding part 32 and a vertical displacement motor 33 to move manipulator 25 (see paragraph 0024); (claim 5) a coupler frame 35 (figure 10b), a gripper 34, an actuator system 37; (claims 6,8) the actuator system including a motor 37 and a linkage system 38, 39, 41-43 interconnecting the motor 37 and gripper 34 (paragraph 0025); (claim 7) grippers 34 including paddles having protrusions 45 for insertion into a corresponding aperture within an inner volume of container 1; (claim 9) a conveyor system 23, 24, figure 5 including an inner conveyor transporting containers 5 are delivered from the framework structure 20 and into a first container handling area within reach of the first coupler 34,35 of the robotic container handler 25; (claim 10) the inner conveyor 24 transports containers 5 through the first container handling area into a pickup area 24a and stored within framework 20; (claims 11, 12) an outer conveyor 23, external locations 21, 22. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. 6. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/075937 in view of JP 2002338006. WO 2014/075937 includes a framework structure 10 comprising a plurality of vertical upright members 50 defining a plurality of storage columns for storing stacks of storage containers 30 and at least one drop-off port column 56 for transporting a storage container to a drop-off area 66 of an access and distribution station wherein at least one of the storage containers 30 within the framework structure 10 has a delivery container stored therein, a rail system 20, 22, 24 arranged on the framework structure 10, the rail system comprising perpendicular rails, the intersections of which form a grid made up of grid cells (figure 2), the rails defining grid openings for a plurality of storage columns, a remotely operated vehicle 40, 42 comprising drive means configured to travel along the rail system 20, 22, 24 and a storage container lifting device for storing and retrieving storage containers 30 through the grid openings. WO 2014/075937 does not disclose a robotic container handler as claimed. However, JP 2002338006 discloses a robotic container handler having the claimed features as outlined above in the 102 section for servicing a storage and retrieval system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the robotic handler of JP 2002338006 in the storage system of WO 2014/075937 to facilitate loading and unloading of containers to and from the framework structure of the storage and retrieval system. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE O CRAWFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6911. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 6a-5p; Fri 6a-2p. 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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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. /GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 29, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Jul 07, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12688269
CONTROLLING AN AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE USING BIOMETRIC INFORMATION
3y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686574
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AUTOMATIC LOADING OR UNLOADING MACHINE, CONTROL DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12666913
SEMICONDUCTOR LINE LOGISTICS PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12654327
PICKING SYSTEM, CONTROL DEVICE, PICKING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12602679
Multi-functional shopping cart, system, and method for shopping
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
52%
With Interview (+4.4%)
3y 1m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 36 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month