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 § 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 10-20 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 each robot level of the at least two horizontal robot levels is each formed by at least three baseplates (113 & 113c) (Fig. 13A),
at least eight vertical supports (111 & 112C), which are perpendicular to the at least two horizontal robot levels and support the at least two horizontal robot levels (Fig. 1 & Fig. 13A & Fig. 14B),
a plurality of robots including 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],
a plurality of container carriers (12) including at least two container carriers (12) per robot level ,
wherein a height of each of the plurality of container carriers is greater than a height of the plurality of robots (Fig. 6A & Fig. 14A) [0102],
wherein the plurality of container carriers and the plurality of robots are shaped such that the plurality of robots can move under the plurality of container carriers and the plurality of container carriers are shaped such that the plurality of robots can rotate under the container carriers (Fig. 13F & Fig. 14A) [0102],
wherein each robot of the plurality of robots has a lifting device (32), with which the robots can lift a container and displace the container carrier 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 a horizontal direction by adding one or more further baseplates and one or more further vertical supports [0087 & 0088 & 0105 & 0210].
Regarding Claim 3, Hisatsune teaches:
the at least eight vertical supports comprise a plurality of pillars connected to one another in a direction perpendicular to the at least two horizontal robot levels and a height of the plurality of pillars corresponds to a distance between the at least two horizontal robot levels, wherein the storage system can be extended in height by adding one or more further pillars and inserting one or more further robot levels with one or more further baseplates (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132].
Regarding Claim 4, Hisatsune teaches:
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 at least three 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 at least three baseplates of each robot level comprise lines (1131) (Fig. 1) [0074], for guiding the at least one robot on each robot level through the storage system, and/or markings (160) for positioning, the at least one robot on the at least three baseplates (Fig. 1) [0117].
Regarding Claim 6, Hisatsune teaches:
each robot of the plurality of robots has optical sensors, for recognizing the lines and/or the markings [0076].
Regarding Claim 7, Hisatsune teaches:
the at least three baseplates comprise sensor tags (160) for determining an absolute position and an orientation of the at least one robot on each robot level in the storage system (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:
connecting the at least eight vertical supports (111 & 112C) (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132], to the at least three baseplates (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132] to create a structure is created which can support the plurality of robots, the plurality of container carriers, containers and goods and which can take up loads caused by accelerations of the plurality of robots and movement of the plurality of container carriers, the containers and the goods without using cross struts between the at least eight vertical supports (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132].
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:
the plurality of robots move along lines in the storage system and displace the plurality of container carriers in the storage system (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 13C & Fig. 13D & Fig. 13E & Fig. 13F) [0044 & 0074 & 0100 & 0121].
Regarding Claim 14, Hisatsune teaches:
the lines are along central axes of the at least three baseplates (Fig. 1) [0074].
Regarding Claim 15, Hisatsune teaches:
the markings are for centering the at least one robot on the at least three baseplates (Fig. 1) [0117].
Regarding Claim 16, Hisatsune teaches:
the optical sensors include IR line arrays [0076].
Regarding Claim 17, Hisatsune teaches:
each robot has at least two optical sensors including IR line arrays [0076].
Regarding Claim 18, Hisatsune teaches:
each baseplate of the at least three baseplates comprises sensor tags (160) mounted on a circle around a center of the baseplate, 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 19, Hisatsune teaches:
connecting the at least eight vertical supports to the at least three baseplates comprises connecting a plurality of vertical supports consisting of a plurality of pillars to the at least three baseplates (Fig. 13A & Fig. 13B & Fig. 14A & Fig. 14B) [0087 & 0126 & 0132].
Regarding Claim 20, Hisatsune teaches:
connecting the at least eight vertical supports (111 & 112C) to the at least three baseplates (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.
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:
each robot of the plurality of robots comprises at least one set of wheels (31 & 1000) (Fig. 5B).
Hisatsune in view of Martelli does not teach:
each robot of the plurality of robots comprises 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:
each robot of the plurality of robots has driven wheels [0079].
Hisatsune in view of Martelli does not teach:
each robot of the plurality of robots has 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response to Non-Final Office Action, filed 2026/06/11, with respect to the Examiner’s Rejection of Claims 5-7 and 10-13 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner’s Rejection of Claims 5-7 and 10-13 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “a plurality of container carriers including at least two container carriers per robot level, which can be moved by the at least one robot on each robot level”:
Applicant did not offer any argument related to the combination of Hisatsune in view of Martelli as it relates to the limitation and therefore the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “each container carrier of the plurality of container carriers has feet for placing the container carrier on one or more baseplates, a height of which feet is greater than a height of the plurality of robots”:
Applicant did not offer any argument related to the combination of Hisatsune in view of Martelli as it relates to the limitation and therefore the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the plurality of container carriers and the plurality of robots are shaped such that the plurality of robots can move under the plurality of container carriers and can rotate under the plurality of container carriers”:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. that the design of the baseplate and relationship between the baseplate and the AGV facilitate rotation of the AGV under the container carrier) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s assertion that the AGV of Hisatsune is shaped such that it could not rotate under the container carrier is not persuasive as the AGV is narrower than the vertical supports and not part of the container carrier interferes with the AGV and as such the AGV would be capable of rotating under the container carriers based on the shape of the AGV and conainer carriers.
Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to “screwing angle profiles to the vertical supports and the baseplates” is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
The Applicant's traversal of the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICAL NOTICE was not adequate for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s is directed to prior art references US 20230008025 A1, WO 2021175874 A1, US 20230128175 A1, and WO 2021175872 A1 which all teach screwing angle profiles to the vertical supports and the baseplates to reinforce the support structures.
Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to “RFID tags located in baseplates for determining an absolute position and orientation of the at least one robot” is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
The Applicant's traversal of the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICAL NOTICE was not adequate for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s is directed to prior art references US 20150314960 A1, US 20210356551 A1, US 20170203920 A1, US 20220097969 A1, US 20220097966 A1, and US 20170121114 A1 which all teach the use of RFID tags on support surfaces of a storage facility for coordinating AGV locating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 20230008025 A1, WO 2021175874 A1, US 20230128175 A1, and WO 2021175872 A1 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: screwing angle profiles to the vertical supports and the baseplates to reinforce the support structures. Patent publications US 20150314960 A1, US 20210356551 A1, US 20170203920 A1, US 20220097969 A1, US 20220097966 A1, and US 20170121114 A1 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: the use of RFID tags on support surfaces of a storage facility for coordinating AGV locating.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
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