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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are amended by preliminary amendment and claims 15-20 are new.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “legs” of claims 7 and 20 and the “feet” of claim 9 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. We note as an aside that the “support fixtures” of claim 8 are present in fig. 6 as ref. char. 501, but these structures are neither legs nor feet in any conventional sense and are not identified as such in the instant specification. It is possible that the claimed feet and legs are shown in figs. 12-13, but this interpretation is unclear as the only relevant reference character (1201) is not mentioned in the instant specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: structures 1201 in figs. 12-13 are not mentioned. While it is possible that 1201 refers to the “feet” of claim 9, this is not entirely clear. If this association is correct, then the unnumbered support struts connecting 1201 to applicant’s sensing device might be considered the legs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tool" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer program product is “software per se”, see MPEP §2106.03. In order to be eligible, such a product must at least comprise or be stored in a non-transitory storage medium.
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.
Claims 1-6, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryer, et al., US 2018/0194571 (hereinafter Fryer) in view of Martono, et al., US 2019/0135552.
Note that some of Fryer’s text reference characters are defective and do not properly correspond to the figures, but after comparing text and figures it is clear what structure is intended. In the rejections below, where a Fryer reference character appears in parentheses, e.g. (11), it refers to the character in the figure, and where it appears without parentheses, it refers to the character in the text specification. For example, service robot 150 is said in paragraph [0051] to be depicted in fig. 10, but the actual robot reference character of fig. 10 is (11).
Regarding claim 1,
Fryer discloses:
the rail system (22: fig. 1) being part of a framework structure (14: fig. 1) where the rail system comprises a first set of parallel rails arranged to guide movement of container handling vehicles (30: fig. 3) in a first direction across the top of the framework structure, and a second set of parallel rails arranged perpendicular to the first set of rails to guide movement of the container handling vehicle in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, the first and second sets of parallel rails dividing the rail system into a plurality of grid cells, the framework structure comprising upright members (16: fig. 1) that define storage columns for storing containers within the framework structure,These limitations disclose the conventional features of a dense-grid storage system.
However, Fryer does not disclose:
A tool for detecting the positioning of a first container handling vehicle on a grid-based rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system,
the tool including a sensor for detecting the positioning of the first container handling vehicle on the rail system.Regarding the two above limitations, while embodiments of Fryer’s service robot can pick up and transport other robots from specified grid positions and so its robot can necessarily determine grid positions, Fryer does not disclose that any of these robots constitute position detection tools themselves.
characterized in that the tool comprises an upper surface provided with formations to allow the tool to be picked up by a lifting device of a second container handling vehicle working on the rail system,As seen in figs. 10-11 and disclosed in [0051]-[0053], Fryer’s service robot 150 or (11) comprises a hook (12) which provides a lifting device and the capability of picking up a tool, but the position detection tool itself is not disclosed.
Martono, an invention in the field of article-handling system inspection, teaches:
A tool (Martono, baggage 114: fig. 2) for detecting the positioning of a first container handling vehicle (Fryer, load handling device 30: fig. 3) on a grid-based rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system,
the tool including a sensor (Martono, location sensor 108: fig. 1) for detecting the positioning of the first container handling vehicle on the rail system.Regarding these two limitations, Martono’s tool is first of all plainly portable and transportable (by means of its handles as seen in fig. 2). Martono teaches the use of its tool’s location sensor in [0039]-[0040]. Thus the tool is a position-determining tool. In combination with Fryer, which teaches a grid-based rail system and determining vehicle locations therein and which also discloses transportation of items such as Martono’s tool by means of a hook in its figs. 10-11, Martono’s tool could be used to determine the vehicle location as claimed.
characterized in that the tool comprises an upper surface provided with formations (Martono, upper handle 202: fig. 2) to allow the tool to be picked up by a lifting device of a second container handling vehicle (Fryer, service device 150 or (11): fig. 10) working on the rail system,In combination with Fryer, as seen in Fryer’s figs. 10-11, Fryer’s hook (12) would engage with Martono’s handle 202 to pick up Martono’s tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fryer, with a tool for detecting the positioning of a first container handling vehicle on a grid-based rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, the tool including a sensor for detecting the positioning of the first container handling vehicle on the rail system, characterized in that the tool comprises an upper surface provided with formations to allow the tool to be picked up by a lifting device of a second container handling vehicle working on the rail system, as taught by Martono, because as Martono describes in [0003]-[0004], Martono’s tool is capable of detecting many error conditions in an article-handling system, and as part of this error detection it is plainly desirable to determine the location at which an error occurs. In the context of Fryer’s grid-based storage system with its rail-traversing mobile robots, one characteristic error is a derailed or otherwise unresponsive robot whose location must be determined before performing some corrective action.
Regarding claims 2 and 15,
Fryer in view of Martono teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 2) and claim 13 (parent of claim 15) and also:
wherein the sensor for determining the positioning of a first container handling vehicle is placed on a side or the bottom surface of the tool. Martono teaches in fig. 3 a configuration of its tool in which camera sensor 206 is located on a side surface of the tool.
Regarding claim 3 and 16,
Fryer in view of Martono teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 3) and claim 13 (parent of claim 16) and also:
wherein the sensor can be a camera (Martono, camera 206: fig. 2, [0047]), a lidar, a proximity sensor or any other type of sensor capable of detecting objects surrounding it.
Regarding claim 4 and 17,
Fryer in view of Martono teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 4) and claim 13 (parent of claim 17) and also:
wherein there can be more than one sensor attached to the tool. Martono teaches a plurality of sensors in [0030].
Regarding claim 5 and 18,
Fryer in view of Martono teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 5) and claim 13 (parent of claim 18) and also:
wherein the tool has tool support fixtures on at least one side for pushing the first container handling vehicle to a known location. Fryer teaches a latching mechanism capable of pushing a faulty robot (first container handling vehicle) in [0044].
Regarding claim 6 and 19,
Fryer in view of Martono teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 6) and claim 13 (parent of claim 19) and also:
wherein the tool has a wireless communication device, a power source, and a controller for performing measurements and communicating with a central computer system. Martono teaches the tool’s wireless communication with a central computer system in the form of an intelligence baggage docking station (comprised by Martono’s overall inspection system) in [0071]. Martono teaches the tool’s battery (power source) in [0048]. While a tool controller is not explicitly disclosed, it is impossible for an electronic device such as Martono’s to employ data communication such as Wi-Fi (taught in [0071]) without comprising a controller.
Regarding claim 13,
Fryer in view of Martono teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
A system for detecting the positioning of a first container handling vehicle (Fryer, 30: fig. 3) on a grid-based rail system (Fryer, 22: fig. 1) of an automated storage and retrieval system, the rail system being part of a framework structure (Fryer, 14: fig. 1) where the rail system comprises a first set of parallel rails arranged to guide movement of container handling vehicles in a first direction across the top of the framework structure, and a second set of parallel rails arranged perpendicular to the first set of rails to guide movement of the container handling vehicle in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, the first and second sets of parallel rails dividing the rail system into a plurality of grid cells, the framework structure comprising upright members (Fryer, 16: fig. 1) that define storage columns for storing containers within the framework structure, These limitations disclose the conventional features of a dense-grid storage system.
characterized in that the system comprises a tool according to claim 1;See the rejection of claim 1, above.
wherein the tool can be carried by a container handling vehicle. As seen in Fryer’s figs. 10-11 and disclosed in [0051]-[0053], Fryer’s service robot 150 or (11) comprises a hook (12) which provides a lifting device and the capability of picking up a tool. In combination with Martono, Martono’s tool handles seen in fig. 2 enable its tool to be picked up by Fryer’s robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claims 10 and 14, the method associated with applicant’s ASRS and tool, namely the picking up the tool by a container handling vehicle, the transport of the tool to a specified location on the ASRS grid structure rails at least one cell away from another vehicle, the determination of the location of the other vehicle, and the replacement of the tool at its original position, was neither found nor taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Secondary reference Martono, cited in several other rejections, is not a tool employed in an ASRS dense-grid structure like applicant’s. While Martono could be modified in combination with dense-grid primary reference Fryer, the combination of Fryer and Martono does not satisfactorily teach applicant’s method but can only be adapted to teach applicant’s structure. In other words, Fryer and Martono in combination demonstrate method capability without explicitly teaching performance and thus can only be cited in rejection of applicant’s structural claims. Moreover, no third reference was found to teach applicant’s method. Thus claim 10 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Independent claim 14, a parallel computer program product that discloses the same system and method as claim 10, is potentially allowable for the same reason. Dependent claims 11-12 inherit the potential allowability of claim 10.
Regarding dependent claims 7-9 and 20, the sensing tool of secondary reference Martono lacks the claimed legs, support structures, and feet of the claims intended to mount the tool on the rails of applicant’s ASRS, and no structurally and motivationally compatible third teaching reference could be found to further modify Martono in view of Fryer without the appearance of design by hindsight, an indicator of non-obviousness. Thus the matter of these claims was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0213852, like reference Martono, teaches a transportable position-sensing device with an upper-surface structure suitable for carrying; however, like Martono, this reference does not teach a tool specifically intended for use in a dense-grid storage ASRS. US 2019/0120966 was cited in the ISR, but while it teaches a top-mounting for a position-sensing device, it is even further afield than reference Martono and could not be employed in rejections in this office action. US 2020/0279217 teaches sensing devices attached to storage containers in a dense-grid ASRS, thus converting transportable storage containers into sensing tools; this reference could have been employed in rejections in this office action with more complicated rationales than enabled by reference Martono.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights