Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/793,241

Article Storage Facility

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 02, 2024
Priority
Aug 04, 2023 — JP 2023-128036
Examiner
RANDAZZO, THOMAS
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Daifuku Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
813 granted / 938 resolved
+26.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
69.4%
+29.4% vs TC avg
§102
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§112
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 938 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Status Claims 1-6 are currently being examined. Specification The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Independent Claim 1 contains limitations with the phrase “holders are storable” that implies the holders may or may not be stored. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent Claim 1 contains a limitation with the phrase “holders capable of holding” that implies the holders may or may not be actually holding articles. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent Claim 1 contains a limitation with the phrase “a lower degree of automation” that is a subjective limitation. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “a lower degree of automation”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970). Dependent Claim 2 contains a limitation with the phrase “storeroom is capable of storing” that implies the storeroom may or may not be actually storing holders. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Dependent Claim 3 contains a limitation with the phrase “each of the plurality of article holders is capable of holding” that implies the holders may or may not be actually holding articles. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 4-6 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these prior art references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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. /THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 June 25, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679654
MATERIAL CONVEYING METHOD, SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679650
STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12668423
THREE-DIMENSIONAL UNLOADING SYSTEM CAPABLE OF UNLOADING GOODS INTO CONTAINER AND CONTROL METHOD OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL UNLOADING SYSTEM
3y 1m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12668422
SORTATION OF ITEMS USING AN IMAGE FINGERPRINT TO RIGHT THE ITEMS
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12654950
METHOD FOR ANALYZING MALFUNCTIONS IN AN OPERATION OF A HANDLING SYSTEM, METHOD FOR TRAINING OR RETRAINING A CLASSIFIER, COMPUTER PROGRAM AND SYSTEM FOR ANALYZING MALFUNCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.4%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 938 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