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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azuma et al. (US 11,845,621).
Regarding independent claim 1, Azuma discloses a method comprising: positioning a base vehicle (120, see Fig. 8) in proximity to a cargo area or within the cargo area (L); picking, via a primary arm (60) coupled to a first portion of the base vehicle, at least one object (W) from the cargo area, wherein the primary arm is configured to move in one or more directions; receiving, via a secondary arm (30) coupled to a second portion of the base vehicle, the at least one object from the primary arm; and transporting, via the secondary arm, the at least one object received from the primary arm to a conveyor line (C) positioned at a third portion of the base vehicle, wherein the secondary arm comprises a plurality of linkages (34a, 34b, 34c) that are collectively configured to move in one or more directions for receiving the at least one object from the primary arm and transporting the at least one object to the conveyor line (see at least Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B).
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, Azuma discloses the base vehicle is further integrated with a plurality of wheels (124), wherein the plurality of wheels are configured to allow mobility of the base vehicle in one or more directions within the cargo area (see at least col. 11, lines 39-50 and col. 12, lines 13-16). The secondary arm is positioned with respect to the primary arm such that the primary arm is configured to deliver the at least one object to the secondary arm by moving in the one or more directions (see at least Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The primary arm has a first end and a second end (see at least Fig. 4A). The first end is integrated with a suction unit (76) and the second end is coupled with the first portion of the base vehicle (see Fig. 8). The suction unit is configured to allow the primary arm to grip onto the at least one object and place onto the secondary arm (see at least Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The second portion of the base vehicle comprises a platform (20’), and wherein the secondary arm is coupled to the platform (see Fig. 8). The plurality of linkages collectively define a first end and a second end, the secondary arm comprises a claw unit (40, see col. 5, lines 33-40), and the first end is coupled with the claw unit and the second end is coupled to a top surface of the platform (see Fig. 8). Azuma further discloses moving, via the plurality of linkages, the claw unit from the primary arm at the first portion of the base vehicle to the third portion of the base vehicle for transporting the at least one object from the primary arm to the conveyor line (see at least Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The first portion corresponds to a front portion of the base vehicle, the second portion corresponds to a middle portion of the base vehicle, and the third portion corresponds to a rear portion of the base vehicle (see Fig. 8). The middle portion of the base vehicle is at a predefined height relative to the front portion of the base vehicle and the middle portion of the base vehicle is in the same plane with the rear portion of the base vehicle (see Fig. 8).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
276
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Second Portion)]
[AltContent: textbox (Third Portion)]
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma et al. (US 11,845,621) in view of Girtman et al. (US 2015/0063972).
Regarding independent claim 12, Azuma discloses a logistic system comprising: a base vehicle (120, see Fig. 8); a primary arm (60) coupled to a first portion of the base vehicle, wherein the primary arm is configured to pick at least one object (W) from a cargo area (L), wherein the primary arm is configured to move in one or more directions; a secondary arm (30) coupled to a second portion of the base vehicle; and a conveyor line (C) positioned at a third portion of the base vehicle, wherein the secondary arm is configured to receive the at least one object from the primary arm and further transport the at least one object received from the primary arm to the conveyor line, and wherein the secondary arm comprises a plurality of linkages (34a, 34b, 34c) that are collectively configured to move in one or more directions for receiving the at least one object from the primary arm and transporting the at least one object to the conveyor line (see at least Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B).
Regarding dependent claims 13-20, Azuma discloses that the base vehicle is further integrated with a plurality of wheels (124), wherein the plurality of wheels are configured to allow mobility of the base vehicle in one or more directions within the cargo area (see at least col. 11, lines 39-50 and col. 12, lines 13-16). The secondary arm is positioned with respect to the primary arm such that the primary arm is configured to deliver the at least one object to the secondary arm by moving in the one or more directions (see at least Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The secondary arm comprises a plurality of parallel-axis joints (JT1, JT2, JT3, JT4) and is configured to move in horizontal directions and remain rigid in the vertical direction. The primary arm has a first end and a second end (see at least Fig. 4), wherein the first end is integrated with a suction unit (76) and the second end is coupled with the first portion of the base vehicle (see Fig. 8), wherein the suction unit is configured to allow the primary arm to grip onto the at least one object and place onto the secondary arm (see at least Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The second portion of the base vehicle comprises a platform (20’), the secondary arm is coupled to the platform (see Fig. 8), the secondary arm comprises a claw unit (40, see col. 5, lines 33-40), the plurality of linkages collectively define a first end and a second end, and the first end is coupled with a claw unit and the second end is coupled to a top surface of the platform (see Fig. 8). the claw unit via the plurality of linkages is configured to move from the primary arm at the first portion of the base vehicle to the third portion of the base vehicle for transporting the at least one object from the primary arm to the conveyor line (see at least Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The first portion corresponds to a front portion of the base vehicle, the second portion corresponds to a middle portion of the base vehicle, and the third portion corresponds to a rear portion of the base vehicle (see Fig. 8). The middle portion of the base vehicle is at a predefined height relative to the front portion of the base vehicle and the middle portion of the base vehicle is in the same plane with the rear portion of the base vehicle (see Fig. 8).
Azuma discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the conveyor line is coupled to the third portion of the base vehicle. However, Girtman discloses a similar system which includes a base vehicle (120) having a primary arm (160) and a secondary arm (176) and a conveyor line (137a) coupled to a third portion of the base vehicle for the purpose of extending the vehicle deep into a cargo area and conveying an object out of the deep portion of the cargo area. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Azuma by having the conveyor line coupled to the third portion of the base vehicle, as disclosed by Girtman, for the purpose of extending the vehicle deep into a cargo area and conveying an object out of the deep portion of the cargo area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 2025/0340391) and Garabaini (US 11,926,061) disclose similar logistic systems which utilize base vehicles have a plurality of arms to unload objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights