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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 10-13 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 11 recites the limitation:
"the vertical carriers"
in
Line 8.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, recites the phrase:
"in particular"
This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6, recites the phrase:
"in particular"
This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7, recites the phrase:
"in particular"
This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11, recites the phrase:
"in particular"
This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 10-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete as while the preamble claims a method however only structural elements could be discerned from the claim and no steps could be discerned from the body of the claim and therefore the scope of the claim is unascertainable See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
by connecting vertical supports, in particular vertical supports consisting of several pillars
it is unclear if the vertical supports recited above are the same vertical supports as outlined in Claim 1 above from which Claim 11 depends or different vertical supports. For the sake of furthering prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the vertical supports of Claim 11 to the be same supports as outlined in Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisatsune (CN 111942790 A) in view of Martelli et al. (WO 2007007354 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
152
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Hisatsune teaches:
A modular storage system (1) having:
at least two horizontal robot levels (1a1 & 1a2), wherein the robot levels are each formed by at least three baseplates (113 & 113c),
at least eight vertical supports (111 & 112C), which are perpendicular to the robot levels and support the robot levels (Fig. 1 & Fig. 13A & Fig. 14B),
at least one robot (3) on each robot level (Fig. 13B), which can move on the robot level (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 13C & Fig. 13D & Fig. 13E & Fig. 13F) [0100],
at least two container carriers (12) per robot level ,
wherein the height of container carriers is greater than the height of the robots (Fig. 6A & Fig. 14A) [0102],
wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers and the container carriers are shaped such that the robots can rotate under the container carriers (Fig. 13F & Fig. 14A) [0102],
wherein the robots have a lifting device (32), with which the robots can lift a container and displace it by moving the robots in the robot level [0077 & 0079 & 0100 & 0102].
Hisatsune does not teach:
the container carriers can be moved by the at least one robot,
the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the baseplates, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots,
Martelli teaches:
A storage system (I) having:
at least two horizontal robot levels (Fig. 2 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 6), wherein the robot levels are each formed by at least one baseplate (R),
vertical supports, which are perpendicular to the robot levels and support the robot levels (Fig. 6),
at least one robot (30 & 130) on each robot level (Fig. 11), which can move on the robot level [Page 9 Lines 18-34 & Page 10 Lines 1-34 & Page 11 Lines 1-22],
at least two container carriers (22 & 128) per robot level (Fig. 11), which can be moved by the at least one robot on each robot level [Page 9 Lines 18-34 & Page 10 Lines 1-34 & Page 11 Lines 1-22],
wherein the container carriers have feet (22a) (Fig. 11 & Fig. 21 & Fig. 22) for placing the container carriers on the baseplates [Page 8 Lines 25-34 & Page 11 Lines 5-22], the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots (Fig. 11 & Fig. 21 & Fig. 22),
wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers and can rotate under the container carriers (Fig. 20 & Fig. 21 & Fig. 22) [Page 11 Lines 5-34 & Page 12 Lines 1-5],
wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier and displace it by moving the robots in the robot level [Page 9 Lines 18-34 & Page 10 Lines 1-34 & Page 11 Lines 1-22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modular storage system having robotic vehicles traveling under containers for engaging and moving the containers taught by Hisatsune with the storage system having robotic vehicles traveling under containers for engaging and moving the containers where the containers are supported by container carriers and the container carriers can be lifted and moved by the at least one robot, the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the baseplates, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots, wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers and can rotate under the container carriers, and wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier taught by Martelli in order to provide a storage means which utilizes modular container supports in order to increase the versatility of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Hisatsune teaches:
the storage system can be extended in the horizontal direction by adding further baseplates and further vertical supports [0087 & 0088 & 0105 & 0210].
Regarding Claim 3, Hisatsune teaches:
the vertical supports comprise a plurality of pillars connected to one another in a direction perpendicular to the robot levels and the height of the pillars corresponds to the distance between the robot levels, wherein the storage system can be extended in height by adding further pillars and inserting one or more further robot levels with baseplates (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132].
Regarding Claim 4, Hisatsune teaches:
in each case two pillars of a vertical support are each screwed together from all four sides with a respective angle profile [0090] and
four vertical supports are connected by a baseplate on each robot level, wherein the baseplates are fastened to angle profiles one the four vertical supports [0090].
Hisatsune does not teach:
wherein the baseplates are screwed to angle profiles which are screwed to the four vertical supports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide angle profiles for connecting the baseplates to the vertical supports in order to maintain the appropriate angle between the baseplate and the vertical supports in order to prevent misalignment in the system since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that angled profiles for maintaining a specific angle between parts were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide screwed connections between parts in order to provide a secure but removable connection between parts in order to more easily facilitate disassembly and maintenance since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that screwed connections between parts of a system or structure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Hisatsune teaches:
the baseplates comprise lines (1131), in particular along central axes of the baseplates (Fig. 1) [0074], for guiding the robots through the storage system and/or markings (160) for positioning, in particular for centering, the robots on the baseplates (Fig. 1) [0117].
Regarding Claim 6, Hisatsune teaches:
the robots have optical sensors, in particular IR line arrays, for recognizing the lines and/or markings, in particular wherein each robot has at least two optical sensors, in particular IR line arrays [0076].
Regarding Claim 7, Hisatsune teaches:
the baseplates comprise sensor tags (160) for determining the absolute position and orientation of the robots in the storage system, in particular wherein four sensor tags are mounted on a circle around the center of the baseplates, each offset by 90° (Fig. 1) [0117].
Hisatsune does not teach:
the sensor tags are RFID tags.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide RFID tags for sensor interaction in order to provide location tags capable of providing specific information about a position without requiring a specific optical pattern on a tag in order to provide specific information in a form which resists wear due to friction since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that RFID tags for sensor interaction were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Hisatsune in view of Martelli teaches:
A method for constructing a modular storage system as claimed in claim 1 [see the rejection of Claim 1 above]
Regarding Claim 11, Hisatsune teaches:
by connecting vertical supports (111 & 112C), in particular vertical supports consisting of several pillars (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132], to the baseplates (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132], an inherently stable structure is created which can support robots, container carriers, containers and goods and which can take up the loads caused by accelerations of the robots and movement of the container carriers, containers and goods without using cross struts between the vertical carriers (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132].
Hisatsune does not teach:
screwing angle profiles to the vertical supports and the baseplates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide angle profiles for connecting the baseplates to the vertical supports in order to maintain the appropriate angle between the baseplate and the vertical supports in order to prevent misalignment in the system since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that angled profiles for maintaining a specific angle between parts were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide screwed connections between parts in order to provide a secure but removable connection between parts in order to more easily facilitate disassembly and maintenance since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that screwed connections between parts of a system or structure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Hisatsune in view of Martelli teaches:
A method for operating a modular storage system as claimed in claim 1 [see the rejection of Claim 1 above]
Regarding Claim 13, Hisatsune teaches:
one or more robots move along the lines in the storage system and displace container carriers in the storage system (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 13C & Fig. 13D & Fig. 13E & Fig. 13F) [0044 & 0074 & 0100 & 0121].
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisatsune (CN 111942790 A) in view of Martelli et al. (WO 2007007354 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Stevens et al. (US 20210047117 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hisatsune teaches:
the robots comprise at least one set of wheels (31 & 1000) (Fig. 5B).
Hisatsune in view of Martelli does not teach:
the robots comprise at least one omni wheel and/or a mecanum wheel.
Stevens teaches:
A storage system (Fig. 1A & Fig. 1B & Fig. 1C) having:
at least one robot (712) on the robot level (S), which can move on the robot level [0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0165 & 0166 & 0167 & 0168 & 0169 & 0170],
container carriers (714) which can be moved by the at least one robot [0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0165],
wherein the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the robot level, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots (Fig. 7C & Fig. 7D),
wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers (Fig. 7A),
wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier and displace it by moving the robots in the robot level (Fig. 7D) [0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0165], and
the robots comprise at least one omni wheel (754b & 756b) [0168 & 0187 & 0188] and/or a mecanum wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modular storage system having robotic vehicles traveling under containers for engaging and moving the containers taught where the containers are supported by container carriers and the container carriers can be lifted and moved by the at least one robot, the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the baseplates, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots, wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers and can rotate under the container carriers, and wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier by Hisatsune in view of Martelli with the storage system having robotic vehicles traveling under container carriers for engaging and moving the container carriers where the container carriers can be lifted and moved by the at least one robot, the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the robot level, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots, wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers, and wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier, where the robots comprise at least one omni wheel taught by Martelli in order to provide a storage means which utilizes modular container supports in order to increase the versatility of the system as well as incorporating rolling stabilizers capable of facilitating motion in any direction in order to increase the stability and maneuverability of the robotic vehicles.
Regarding Claim 9, Hisatsune teaches:
the robots have driven wheels [0079].
Hisatsune in view of Martelli does not teach:
the robots have two driven wheels and two omni wheels.
Stevens teaches:
the robots have two driven wheels (752b) [0168] and two omni wheels (754b & 756b) [0168 & 0187 & 0188].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modular storage system having robotic vehicles traveling under containers for engaging and moving the containers taught where the containers are supported by container carriers and the container carriers can be lifted and moved by the at least one robot, the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the baseplates, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots, wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers and can rotate under the container carriers, and wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier by Hisatsune in view of Martelli with the storage system having robotic vehicles traveling under container carriers for engaging and moving the container carriers where the container carriers can be lifted and moved by the at least one robot, the container carriers have feet for placing the container carriers on the robot level, the height of which feet is greater than the height of the robots, wherein the container carriers and the robots are shaped such that the robots can move under the container carriers, and wherein the robots have a lifting device, with which the robots can lift a container carrier, where the robots have two driven wheels and two omni wheels taught by Martelli in order to provide a storage means which utilizes modular container supports in order to increase the versatility of the system as well as incorporating rolling stabilizers capable of facilitating motion in any direction in order to increase the stability and maneuverability of the robotic vehicles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 20180265298 A1, US 10649445 B2, US 20180265291 A1, US 10807795 B2, US 20180273297 A1, US 10611021 B2, US 20180282066 A1, and US 10576621 B2 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: container transport robots utilizing mecanum wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights