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 Status
This action is in response to the application filed on 08/06/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200103882 A1 (“Sullivan”).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan teaches a plurality of robots, each robot including at least two wheels driven by a motor, a wireless communications circuit and a processor in communication with the communications circuit and that controls the motor, each of the plurality of robots sized to fit in the open area underneath the load (see at least [0047]);
(b) a lifting device secured to each robot and controlled by the processor of each robot, the lifting device having a retracted state and a lifting state so that the robot and the lifting device can fit into the open area when the lifting device is in the retracted state and so that the load is lifted off of the floor when the lifting device is in the lifting state (see at least [0027]); and
(c) a central server in communication with the communications circuit of each of the plurality of robots, the central server configured to determine a configuration of robots to lift the load, to assign selected robots from the plurality of robots to comprise the configuration and to instruct the selected robots to go to a selected position in the open region under the load, lift the load and move the load to the selected destination (see at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan teaches the load comprises a pallet and an object disposed thereon (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan teaches the processor in each of the selected robots communicates with each other of the selected robots to coordinate lifting and moving of the load (see at least [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan teaches each of the selected robots is controlled by the central server to coordinate the selected robots lifting and moving of the load (see at least [0048] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan teaches each of the selected robots employ a collision avoidance system to avoid colliding with each other (see at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan teaches at least one of the selected robots includes at least one object sensor (see at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan teaches the object sensor includes a sensor technology selected from a list consisting of: LIDAR, ultrasonic, video, GPS, light sensing, touch sensing, humidity, temperature and combinations thereof (see at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan teaches at least one of the selected robots includes a load sensor (see at least [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan teaches each of the robots has at least two wheels and has a capability of turning (see at least Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 15, Sullivan teaches (a) selecting a set of robots from a plurality of robots to move the load, wherein the set of robots has a combined weight lifting capability greater than the weight of the load (see at least [0048]);
(b) directing each of the selected robots to the load (see at least [0048]) ;
(c) causing each of the selected set of robots to move to a selected position in the open region (see at least [0058]);
(d) actuating a lift mechanism in each of the selected set of robots so as to lift the load from the floor (see at least [0058]);
(e) moving each of the selected set of robots in a coordinated manner to the selected destination (see at least [0059]); and
(f) lowering the load to the floor at the selected destination (see at least [0059]and [0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan teaches causing each of the selected set of robots to move to a selected position in the open region comprises moving each of the selected set of robots to a different position underneath a pallet (see at least [0074]).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan teaches calculating a path for one of the selected robots from a first position to the selected destination (see at least [0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan teaches (a) sensing an obstacle on the path; and (b) employing a collision avoidance system to avoid the obstacle (see at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan teaches using an object sensor affixed to at least of the robots, the object sensor including a sensor technology selected from a list consisting of: LIDAR, ultrasonic, video, GPS, light sensing, touch sensing, humidity, temperature and combinations thereof (see at least [0028]).
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.
Claims 6, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200103882 A1 (“Sullivan”) in view of US 20210122620 A1 (“Schulz”).
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan is not explicit on the collision avoidance system employs a secant method, however,
Schulz discloses the collision avoidance system employs a secant method (see at least [0074].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Schulz so that the robustness of the inclination angle measuring system against measurement errors can be significantly increased (Schulz, [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan is not explicit on each of the robots comprises self-balancing transporter, however,
Schulz discloses each of the robots comprises self-balancing transporter (see at least [0066]-[0067]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Schulz so that the robustness of the inclination angle measuring system against measurement errors can be significantly increased (Schulz, [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan is not explicit on the lifting device comprises a linear actuator, however,
Schulz discloses the lifting device comprises a linear actuator (see at least [0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Schulz so that the robustness of the inclination angle measuring system against measurement errors can be significantly increased (Schulz, [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, Sullivan is not explicit on the step of calculating a path employs a secant method, however,
Schulz discloses the step of calculating a path employs a secant method (see at least [0074]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Schulz so that the robustness of the inclination angle measuring system against measurement errors can be significantly increased (Schulz, [0026]).
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200103882 A1 (“Sullivan”) in view of US 20210065556 A1 (“Toshiba”).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan is not explicit on the plurality of robots includes a battery and wherein each of the plurality of reports a current charge state of the battery to the central server, wherein when the central server selects robots it determines that the battery of each selected robot has a sufficient amount of charge so that the selected robots will be able to lift and move the load to the selected destination, however,
Toshiba discloses the plurality of robots includes a battery and wherein each of the plurality of reports a current charge state of the battery to the central server, wherein when the central server selects robots it determines that the battery of each selected robot has a sufficient amount of charge so that the selected robots will be able to lift and move the load to the selected destination (see at least [0053]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Toshiba because the use of multiple mobile robots or a network of mobile robots, acting in a collaborative/cooperative manner, improves efficiency and performance of industrial operations. Moreover, it creates new opportunities for automation processes targeting complex manipulative tasks (Toshiba, [0003]).
Regarding claim 21, Sullivan is not explicit on (a) stopping the set of robots when a first robot of the set of robots indicates that it no longer has sufficient battery capacity to reach the selected destination; (b) directing the first robot away from the load; (c) directing a second robot, not originally of the set of robots, to join the set of robots and take the place of the first robot in the selected position; and (d) directing set of robots with the second robot included to lift the load and move it to the selected destination, however,
Toshiba discloses (a) stopping the set of robots when a first robot of the set of robots indicates that it no longer has sufficient battery capacity to reach the selected destination; (b) directing the first robot away from the load; (c) directing a second robot, not originally of the set of robots, to join the set of robots and take the place of the first robot in the selected position; and (d) directing set of robots with the second robot included to lift the load and move it to the selected destination (see at least [0053] – [0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Toshiba because the use of multiple mobile robots or a network of mobile robots, acting in a collaborative/cooperative manner, improves efficiency and performance of industrial operations. Moreover, it creates new opportunities for automation processes targeting complex manipulative tasks (Toshiba, [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200103882 A1 (“Sullivan”) in view of US 20200339350 A1 (“Dooley”).
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan is not explicit on the lifting device comprises a scissors lift, however,
Dooley discloses the lifting device comprises a scissors lift (see at least [[0069]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Sullivan with the system disclosed by Dooley because the art continues to seek item retrieval and transport robots suitable for use in unstructured human-occupied spaces, including robots that can support manual and/or automated loading and unloading functions, and that address challenges associated with conventional robots (Dooley, [0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON whose telephone number is (408)918-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 - 5:00 PST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272 - 7298. 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.
/MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665