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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Specification
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims should being with “A” or ”An” and the claims depending therefrom should begin with “The”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 33-40 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 33 recites the limitation "a framework structure". There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as this element has been previously defined in claim 21.
Further, claim 21 defines a camera unit “configured to be mounted to a grid-based storage system” and then claim 33 defines “a camera unit in combination with a storage system”, thus it is unclear if the storage system is an actual structural element of the camera unit or the camera unit merely needs to be capable of mounting to a storage system as discussed in the specification.
Examiner requests clarification 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 34-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Here, claim 33 describes a camera unit in combination with a storage system, but dependent claims 34-40 are limited to a storage system, thus claims 34-40 cannot be seen as including all the limitations of claim 33 and are of improper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 21-23, 25-34, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (“Austrheim”)(US 2022/0073279) in view of D’Amelio (US 12,576,532) and Trond (US 2021/0221618).
Austrheim teaches a camera unit configured to be mounted to a grid-based storage system, the camera unit comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 21) a mount for mounting the camera unit to the storage system, such that the camera unit is received within a grid cell of the storage system (fig. 4B showing automated vehicle 30 for traversing top rails of storage grid as shown fig. 5 and 6b, wherein said vehicle includes mount near 42c for a camera unit 48, said mount configured such that camera unit is received within a grid cell as shown in fig. 6a); and
a camera array including one or more cameras (48).
Further, Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04 (stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure), 2114 (stating that manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art). Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of –
(re: certain elements of claim 21) said mount for mounting the camera unit to a framework structure of the storage system;
(re: claim 30) wherein the mount is configured to be connected to one or more vertical framework members of the storage system and/or one or more horizontal framework members of the storage system;
(re: claim 32) wherein the mount is configured to be connected to a floor of the storage system (fig. 4b showing top end of mount including attaching elements such that mount can be regarded as mounting—directly or indirectly- to a vertical or horizontal framework or a floor).
Austrheim further teaches
(re: claim 22) wherein the camera unit comprises:
a computing device including one or more processors and one or more data storage units, the computing device being configured to, in use, process images captured by the camera array (para. 110-112 teaching control elements configured to position loading/unloading elements of automated vehicle based on camera data, wherein processor and data storage for image and storage functions are inherent);
(re: claim 23) wherein the camera unit is communicably connected to a remote computing device, the remote computing device comprising:
one or more processors and one or more data storage units, and being configured to, in use, process images captured by the camera array (Id. and fig. 1A near 20 and para. 25, 73, 74, 101, 105 teaching that automated vehicle is remotely operated via a control system);
(re: claim 27) wherein the camera unit is configured to be retracted below a surface of the grid (6a);
(re: claim 28) wherein the mount is configured to be connected to one or more framework members of the storage system (fig. 6a showing mount indirectly connected to framework members; see also fig. 7, 8);
(re: claim 29) wherein the mount is configured to be received below a top surface of the storage system (Id.);
(re: claim 33) in combination with a storage system, the storage system comprising:
a first set of tracks extending in a first direction (fig. 1a, 2b, 6a, 6b, 7 and 8 and para. 100 teaching that rail system can be single or double tracks with a transverse configuration placed on a framework structure configured to store a stack of containers);
a second set of tracks extending in a second direction transverse to the first direction, to form a grid comprising a plurality of grid cells (Id.);
a framework structure on which the first set of tracks and the second set of tracks are received, and configured to store a stack of containers below each of the plurality of grid cells; and one or more of the camera units (Id.).
(re: claim 34) a plurality of load-handling devices configured for lifting and moving containers stacked in stacks within the storage system, each of the load-handling devices being configured to move on the tracks above the stacks of containers (para. 97-101);
(re: claim 36) wherein each of one or more of the camera units is configured to be lowered beneath the grid surface (fig. 6a, 7 and 8);
(re: claim 37) wherein the storage system comprises: one or more robotic picking stations received on the surface of the grid (fig. 1a and para. 97-101);
(re: claim 38) wherein a camera unit is configured to view one or more of plurality of robotic picking stations (fig. 6a).
Austrheim as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 21) a camera array support, a first end of which is coupled to the mount and a second end of which is coupled to the camera array;
the camera array support being configured to support the camera array above a surface of the grid;
(re: claim 25) wherein one or more of the cameras are configured to be rotated or moved within the camera array;
(re: claim 26) wherein the camera array is configured to rotate or move relative to the camera array support;
(re: claim 31) wherein the camera unit comprises: one or more mounts configured to be connected to one or more framework members of the storage system below a top surface of the storage system;
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the prior art may not be regarded as having a (re: claims 21, 30, 32) said mount configured to mount the camera unit to a framework structure or floor of the storage system.
D’Amelio, however, teaches that it is well-known in the material handling arts
(re: claims 21, 25, 26, 30-32)
- to mount a plurality of camera elements to any framework structure, such as a gripper, bridge or gantry, wherein the coupling can be configured with “a moveable and/or rotational and/or swivel connection that allows the camera to move and/or rotate as the camera captures images” (fig. 2E showing vertical near 70b, horizontal elements near 72B, gripping element 30 or base/floor near 70a to which camera array can be coupled; col. 69, ln. 59-col. 71, ln. 24 teaching that “a multiplicity of cameras may capture a plurality of images of the parcels, from a number of different angles and orientations…cameras, may be positioned, e.g., mounted, on any of the components of the system, such as gripper instrument 30, positioning element 22, gantry 70, automated base member 70a, conveyor belt 62, bridging apparatus 80, or other stationary or moveable mounting device. In particular implementations, the coupling mechanism … may include a moveable and/or rotational and/or swivel connection that allows the camera to move and/or rotate as the camera captures images”).
Trond further teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage arts
to mount the robotic arm loading/camera unit taught by Austrheim to a variety of structural elements—e.g., roof/grid or floor mounted--in an automated storage system to allow said robot arm to pick and transfer items at different levels/locations throughout said system (fig. 6A-6C showing arm mounted to gantry structure and para. 189-193 teaching gantry and robot arm configuration can be either floor mounted or roof mounted; fig. 9A, 10F showing robot arm mounted to structural framework on top of grid system; para. 223-224, 227 teaching that robotic arm and attached camera allows arm to arrange and correctly handle items in a storage container).
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 and 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 (i.e., camera array and mount 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 Austrheim for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 24, 35 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Austrheim in and D’Amelio and Frond as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (“Wagner”)(US 2018/0265298) and legal precedent.
Austrheim et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 24) wherein the camera array comprises: one or more lighting elements;
(re: claim 35) wherein the storage system comprises: one or more regions in which the stacks beneath the grid have a reduced height and where one or more camera units are located above one of the regions;
(re: claim 39) wherein: a robotic picking station is received within a single grid cell of the storage system;
each of the grid cells surrounding the grid cell including the robotic picking station being designated as a picking location; and
a camera unit is configured to view each of the picking locations.
(re: claim 40) wherein the camera unit comprises: a plurality of cameras such that there is one camera for each picking location.
Wagner, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage and retrieval arts to integrate a camera unit with lighting elements as part of the camera array as said lights remove shadows and facilitate the identification of the edges of objects (fig. 3 showing support structure 22 with perception elements 50, 52 mounted thereon; para. 47-48 teaching lighting configuration can be in accordance with a desired sequence to assist in object identification as “system uses this imagery and a variety of algorithms to generate a set of candidate grasp locations for the objects in the bin”).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the configuration of the camera units, including which picking locations a camera is set to view or is assigned and the configuration of the storage system, including a height and location of a specific camera, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the imaging arts as discussed above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
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 and in legal precedent as described above. 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 Austrheim et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, Frond undermines Applicant’s argument related to mounting a unit above a grid cell by expressly teaching mounting a robotic loading arm/camera element to a variety of structural framework elements—including above a grid or to a floor. Applicant’s further argument relating to D’Amelio is also unpersuasive as D’Amelio is simply relied on to show that it is well-known to mount a camera element in a variety of different configuration in the material handling arts, thus it is unclear why these teachings would not be applicable to the storage and retrieval arts that also relies on cameras to identify item locations and arrangements. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus 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
------
October 8, 2026
