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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/05/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application No KR10-2023-0097699, filed on July 26, 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a driving unit as in SPEC (para 71) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kim (KR102000825B1), (hereinafter Kim) in view of Ko et al (US 2019/0176339 A1), (hereinafter Ko).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a transfer robot which is configured to recognize a position of another robot loaded with a carrier and dock with the other robot the transfer robot (see Kim paras “0011”, “0056-0061” and “0079-0080” “when the docking transfer robot 100 is instructed through a control signal received in the standby state, the docking transfer robot 100 moves along the path while establishing a detailed path and a transfer plan and recognizing the movement path set in the workplace w. Since the cargo 10 to be transported is loaded in the docking apparatus 200, the docking transport robot 100 moves to the position where the docking apparatus 200 set to be docked according to the transport plan is disposed, and the corresponding docking In the position close to the device 200”),
a first camera disposed on the first surface (see Kim paras “0050-0051” “the vision system unit 106 mounted on the main body unit 110 and detecting an external obstacle or other docking device 100 may include a landmark disposed on the obstacle detecting sensor 131 and the movement path. It includes a QR camera 132 for taking an image of L)”),
and configured to recognize the position of the other robot and generate position information of the other robot; (see Kim paras “0056-0061” and “0079” “when the three docking lamps 250 are disposed at relative positions forming vertices of an equilateral triangle having a predetermined size on the front surface, respectively, The docking transfer robot 100 stores reference data A about the size of the equilateral triangle and the relative position of each vertex, and recognizes each display lamp 250 to form a triangle formed by each of the recognized display lamps 250. The orientation direction toward the docked device 200 may be adjusted according to the shape, and the distance from the docked device 200 may be adjusted according to the spaced distance between the display lamps 250 so as to be aligned in the direction for docking” and “When the image of 250 is spaced apart from each of the reference data L, the docking transfer robot 100 may refer to the image of any one of the three display lamps 250 of the display lamps 250 with the reference data (L). Arranged to move to the circular dotted line of the matched position of the three circular dotted lines in the included, and docked by moving in the direction and distance to match the image of the remaining two display lamps 250 with the other two circular dotted lines It may be aligned with a position or posture for docking with the device 200”),
a driving unit capable of aligning the transfer robot with the other robot by moving the transfer robot (see Kim paras “0056-0061” and “0079” “when the three docking lamps 250 are disposed at relative positions forming vertices of an equilateral triangle having a predetermined size on the front surface, respectively, The docking transfer robot 100 stores reference data A about the size of the equilateral triangle and the relative position of each vertex, and recognizes each display lamp 250 to form a triangle formed by each of the recognized display lamps 250. The orientation direction toward the docked device 200 may be adjusted according to the shape, and the distance from the docked device 200 may be adjusted according to the spaced distance between the display lamps 250 so as to be aligned in the direction for docking” and “When the image of 250 is spaced apart from each of the reference data L, the docking transfer robot 100 may refer to the image of any one of the three display lamps 250 of the display lamps 250 with the reference data (L). Arranged to move to the circular dotted line of the matched position of the three circular dotted lines in the included, and docked by moving in the direction and distance to match the image of the remaining two display lamps 250 with the other two circular dotted lines It may be aligned with a position or posture for docking with the device 200”),
and a controller electrically connected to the first camera, and the driving unit to receive the position information generated by the first camera (see Kim paras “0050-0061” and “0079-0080” “the docking apparatus 200 has a plurality of display lamps 250 are disposed in the relative position set on the front surface, respectively, the docking transfer robot 100 is the relative position reference data (A) of each display lamp 250 Is stored, and the docking apparatus 200 is recognized according to the error data generated by recognizing each display lamp 250 and comparing the relative position recognition data between the current display lamps 250 and the relative position reference data A. FIG. Can be aligned to a direction for docking”),
wherein the controller control unit is configured to send a driving signal to the driving unit so that the transfer robot docks with the other robot based on the position information (see Kim paras “0054”, “0062-0065” and “0078-0082” “The operation server 300 transmits a control signal to the docking transfer robot 100 through a wireless communication network to move to the destination set by each docking transfer robot 100 and the docking device 200 according to the user's freight transport instructions. As an integrated control device to establish a transport operation plan according to the user's cargo transport instructions, and plan the path of each docking transfer robot 100, the control signal according to the route plan through the wireless communication network to each docking transfer robot ( Integrated control is transmitted to 100)” and “when the docking transfer robot 100 is instructed through a control signal received in the standby state, the docking transfer robot 100 moves along the path while establishing a detailed path and a transfer plan and recognizing the movement path set in the workplace… and the corresponding docking In the position close to the device 200, the image input through the vision system unit 106 is analyzed to recognize the device recognition marker 205 provided in the docking device 200, and the recognized docking device 200 When the individual codes and the individual codes of the set docking device 200 are compared and matched, the docking is performed close to the position where the docking device 200 can be docked”).
But Kim fails to explicitly teach providing a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the transfer robot comprising: a lower stage providing a first space for loading the carrier loaded on the other robot; a robot arm configured to hold the carrier and a controller electrically connected to the robot arm to receive the position information generated by the first camera
However, Ko teaches Ahn teaches providing a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the transfer robot comprising: a lower stage providing a first space for loading the carrier loaded on the other robot; robot arm configured to hold the carrier and a controller electrically connected to the robot arm to receive the position information generated by the first camera (see Ko paras “0006-0008”, “0026-0033” and “0047” “The body frame 21 of the gripper 20 may be mounted to the arm 10. For example, the body frame 21 of the gripper 20 may be mounted on the front end of the arm 10. Alternatively, the body frame 21 of the gripper 20 may be mounted on a side, upper, or lower surfaces of the arm 10.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for automatic freight transferring and picking system to adaptively grasp by a gripper a magazine to be moved even if the magazine deviates from a desired position, as taught by Ko (paras [0026-0033]) in order to enable reliable handling of carriers.
Regarding claim 4, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein: the controller sends an electrical signal to the robot arm to pick up the carrier loaded on the other robot when the transfer robot docks with the other robot.
However, Ko teaches Ahn teaches wherein: the controller sends an electrical signal to the robot arm to pick up the carrier loaded on the other robot when the transfer robot docks with the other robot (see Ko paras “0006-0008”, “0026-0033” and “0047” “The body frame 21 of the gripper 20 may be mounted to the arm 10. For example, the body frame 21 of the gripper 20 may be mounted on the front end of the arm 10. Alternatively, the body frame 21 of the gripper 20 may be mounted on a side, upper, or lower surfaces of the arm 10.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for automatic freight transferring and picking system to adaptively grasp by a gripper a magazine to be moved even if the magazine deviates from a desired position, as taught by Ko (paras [0026-0033]) in order to enable reliable handling of carriers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kim (KR102000825B1), (hereinafter Kim) in view of Ko et al (US 2019/0176339 A1), (hereinafter Ko) in further view of Fumiko et al (WO2017090108A1), (hereinafter Fumiko).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kim fails to explicitly teach a first landmark attached to the first surface; and a second landmark attached to the second surface, wherein the first landmark includes position information indicating that the surface to which the first landmark is attached is the first surface, and the second landmark includes position information indicating that the surface to which the second landmark is attached is the second surface.
However, Fumiko teaches a first landmark attached to the first surface; and a second landmark attached to the second surface, wherein the first landmark includes position information indicating that the surface to which the first landmark is attached is the first surface, and the second landmark includes position information indicating that the surface to which the second landmark is attached is the second surface (see Fumiko pages 3-9 “the image of the shelf arrangement in the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 2. FIG. 2 shows a shelf carrying system using two transfer robots 200 a and 200 b. The feature of the shelf arrangement in this embodiment is that the side of one transfer robot 200a is used instead of the wall.”, “The first transfer robot 200a that has reached the third shelf installation location reads the sensor data (sensor data 404 described later) acquired by the laser distance sensor 210 and the space in which the side shape of the second transfer robot 200b is additionally written And compares it with a map (map data 400 to be described later) so as to make the own vehicle a predetermined angle with respect to the side surface shape of the second transfer robot 200 b stopped on the front of the own vehicle and the right wall surface Adjust the position and posture, stop at the end of the adjustment, and lower the third shelf 100 on the spot”, “The map updating unit 254 updates the map data 400 stored in the storage unit so as to match the current state. The map updating unit 254 compares the transfer data 430 (the existing shelf coordinate value data 440, the shape reference robot coordinate value data 441) received from the management terminal 300 and the shelf foot shape data 405 stored in the storage unit of the own vehicle And the transfer robot shape data 406, the shape data of the shelf legs and the transfer robot is added to the map data 400 stored in the storage unit” and “the position where the transfer robot 200 other than the transfer robot 200 to be indicated stops, the transfer robot 200 A direction or the like is determined based on the measurement range (distance sensor measurement range 403) of the laser distance sensor 210, and data specifying the direction is stored in the shape reference destination data 423. The direction is determined based on the map data 400 (FIG. 5) … for example, the direction when the wall enters the front side of the transfer robot 200 is indicated by "F", the direction when the wall enters the right side is indicated by "R", the direction when the wall enters the left side is "L" . For example, in the case where the other transfer robot 200 is stopped at the position of "5" in the shelf arrangement order data 402 (FIG. 5), when the transfer robot 200 transports the sixth shelf 100, as shape reference destination data "5" and "R" are stored”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Kim for automatic freight transferring and picking system to improve the accuracy and reliability of robot positioning and docking by enabling a robot to readily identify which surface of another robot is being observed, as taught by Fumiko (pages [3-6]) in order to reduce orientation ambiguity during cooperative operations.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the first landmark and the second landmark are quick response (QR) code images (see Kim paras “0009”, “0012” and “0026” “the docking means and cargo can be transported stably to the desired destination, and the docking device set to dock by using the device recognition marker and display lamp such as QR code image can be recognized accurately and more precisely. An automatic cargo transfer and picking system capable of docking is provided”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kim (KR102000825B1), (hereinafter Kim) in view of Ko et al (US 2019/0176339 A1), (hereinafter Ko) in further view of Lert, JR. et al (US 2019/0270591), (hereinafter Lert).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kim fails to explicitly teach an upper stage providing a second space for loading the carrier, wherein a vertical level from the lowest surface of the transfer robot of the upper stage is higher than a vertical level from the lowest surface of the transfer robot of the lower stage.
However, Lert teaches an upper stage providing a second space for loading the carrier, wherein a vertical level from the lowest surface of the transfer robot of the upper stage is higher than a vertical level from the lowest surface of the transfer robot of the lower stage (see Lert paras “0390-0393” “a mobile robot for travelling within an order fulfillment center including a horizontal deck and one or more vertical storage racks, a vertical storage rack of the one or more storage racks including a plurality of horizontal rails, spaced apart from each other on respective levels of the vertical storage rack, and at least a pair of tracks, spaced apart from each other and extending between the plurality of levels of the vertical storage rack… on a level of the vertical storage rack”, “a plurality of horizontal rails, spaced apart from each other on respective levels of the vertical storage rack”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Kim for automatic freight transferring and picking system to constitute upper and lower loading spaces with an upper level necessarily being located at a higher vertical position than a lower level, as taught by Lert (paras [0390-0393]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights