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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention II, including claims 1-4 and 8-10 in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant amended claim 5 from Bsp to ABsp. The guidance in MPEP 806.05(c)(B)(II) states, “If the combination claims are amended after a restriction requirement such that each combination, as claimed, requires all the limitations of the subcombination as claimed, i.e., if the evidence claim ABbr is deleted or amended to require Bsp, the restriction requirement between the combination and subcombination should not be maintained.” However, applicant didn’t follow the guidance in MPEP 806.05(c)(B)(II). Therefore, claims 5-7 are withdrawn per applicant’s remark. Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are currently pending in the instant application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2026, 04/15/2025, and 11/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “scanning device” in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0022] of the specification states that a) “inbound transfer task” is to transfer a turnover box from the box pick-up port 106 to a storage location by transfer robot, b) “inbound conveying task” is to convey a turnover box from the picking station 109 to the box pick-up port 106 by the conveying line device, c) “outbound transfer task” is to transfer a turnover box from a storage location to the box drop-off port 107 by the transfer robot, and d)“outbound conveying task” is to convey the turnover box from the box drop-off port 107 to the picking station 109 by the conveying line device. The term “inbound” is misleading because at the box pick-up port 106, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “output/exit” from the port 106. However, in the term “inbound” in “inbound transfer task” or “inbound conveying task” indicates an action of input the box. The term “outbound” is also misleading because at the box drop-off port 107, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “input” to the port 107. However, in the term “outbound” in “outbound transfer task” or “outbound conveying task” indicates an output action from the port 107. Therefore, the disclosure is objected to because of the minor formalities as discussed above (see the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a) for “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “outputting prompt information, in response to: detecting fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot and determining that a target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a first preset condition, wherein the first preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound conveying task has been completed; wherein the prompt information is for instructing placing the target turnover box on a conveying line device, and the conveying line device is configured to convey the target turnover box whose conveying task status is that the inbound conveying has been completed to an abnormality replacement port”. 1) It is unclear what or who “outputting prompt information …”, “detecting fault alarm information …”, and “determining that a target turnover box …” 2) It’s unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “prompt information”. It is unclear whether the transfer robot receives the prompt information to place the target turnover box on the conveying line device. Paragraph [0036] of the specification states that, “After receiving the prompt information, a staff may place the target turnover box on the conveying line device” (emphasis added). 3) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “fault alarm information” and how the term is applied to the robot, e.g., a fault condition of the robot. 4) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “first preset condition” and further how the claimed “first preset condition” is applied to determine that the transfer robot carries the target turnover box meets the first present condition. The claimed “wherein the first preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound conveying task has been completed” is unclear as it does not allow to clarify the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “first preset condition”. In particular, the preset condition relies on terms such as “inbound transfer task” and “inbound conveying task” that are indefinite. Paragraph [0022] of the specification states that a) “inbound transfer task” is to transfer a turnover box from the box pick-up port 106 to a storage location by transfer robot, b) “inbound conveying task” is to convey a turnover box from the picking station 109 to the box pick-up port 106 by the conveying line device, c) “outbound transfer task” is to transfer a turnover box from a storage location to the box drop-off port 107 by the transfer robot, and d)“outbound conveying task” is to convey the turnover box from the box drop-off port 107 to the picking station 109 by the conveying line device. The term “inbound” is misleading because at the box pick-up port 106, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “output/exit” from the port 106. However, in the term “inbound” in “inbound transfer task” or “inbound conveying task” indicates an action of input the box. The term “outbound” is also misleading because at the box drop-off port 107, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “input” to the port 107. However, in the term “outbound” in “outbound transfer task” or “outbound conveying task” indicates an output action from the port 107. 5) It’s unclear whether the claimed “the prompt information” in “wherein the prompt information is for instructing …” is referring to the claimed “outputting prompt information, in response to: detecting fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot”. Paragraph [0036] of the specification states that, “After receiving the prompt information, a staff may place the target turnover box on the conveying line device” (emphasis added). Moreover, it’s unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “prompt information” and further how the term “prompt information” is applied to instruct to place the box on the conveying line device. 6) The term “abnormality replacement port” is indefinite. 7) The term “target turnover box” is indefinite. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant further provides the claimed limitation, “dispatching a target idle transfer robot to the abnormality replacement port of the conveying line device”. The term “target idle transfer robot” is indefinite. It is also unclear what/who “dispatching a target idle transfer robot …” Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant further provides the claimed limitation, “in response to detecting that the target idle transfer robot obtains the target turnover box at the abnormality replacement port, controlling the target idle transfer robot to continue executing the inbound transfer task”. It is unclear who/what “detecting that the target idle transfer robot obtains the target turnover box at the abnormality replacement port, controlling the target idle transfer robot to continue executing the inbound transfer task”. Moreover, it is unclear how to detect that the target idle transfer robot obtains the target turnover box at the abnormality replacement port. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant provides the claimed limitation, “outputting prompt information, in response to detecting the fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot and determining that the target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a second preset condition, wherein the second preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound conveying task has not been completed”. 1) It is unclear who/what “outputting prompt information …”, “determining that the target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a second preset condition”, “changing the transfer task status …” 2) It is unclear whether the claimed “prompt information” is referring to the claimed “prompt information” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 3) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “second preset condition” and further the claimed “second preset condition” is applied to determine that the target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets the second preset condition. The claimed “wherein the second preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound conveying task has not been completed” is unclear as it does not allow to clarify the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “second preset condition”. In particular, the preset condition relies on terms such as “outbound transfer task” and “outbound conveying task” that are indefinite. a) It is unclear whether the claimed “a transfer task status” and “a conveying task status” are referring to the claimed “a transfer task status” and “a conveying task status” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. b) As discussed above, the term “outbound” is misleading because at the box drop-off port 107, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “input” to the port 107. However, in the term “outbound” in “outbound transfer task” or “outbound conveying task” indicates an output action from the port 107. 4) It is unclear if the second preset condition indicated in claim 2 should be concurrently met with the first preset condition indicated in claim 1, to which claim 2 refers. 5) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “fault alarm information” and how the term is applied to the robot, e.g., a fault condition of the robot. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant provides the claimed limitation, “outputting fault prompt information in response to detecting the fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot, wherein the fault prompt information is for instructing the transfer robot to switch to a manual mode, and move the transfer robot to a preset idle area for fault maintenance.” 1) It is what/who “outputting fault prompt information” and “detecting the fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot”. 2) The term “fault prompt information” is unclear for the same reasons indicated above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant provides the claimed limitation, “wherein the target idle transfer robot is a transfer robot closest to the conveying line device in idle transfer robots.” 1) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “closest” and further how to apply the term to determine the target idle transfer robot is closest to the conveying line device. 2) The term “the conveying line device in idle transfer robots” is indefinite. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant provides the claimed “A fault handling system for a transfer robot, wherein the system comprises a control device, a conveying line device, and a transfer robot”. 1) It is unclear whether the claimed “the system” is referring to “fault handling system” or a different system comprises “a control device, a conveying line device, and a transfer robot”. 2) It is unclear whether the claimed “a transfer robot” is referring to “A fault handling system for a transfer robot”. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant further provides the claimed “the control device is configured to perform operations comprising: outputting prompt information, in response to detecting fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot and determining that a target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a first preset condition, wherein the first preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound conveying task has been completed; wherein the prompt information is used to instruct to place the target turnover box to the conveying line device; dispatching a target idle transfer robot to the abnormality replacement port of the conveying line device; and in response to detecting that the target idle transfer robot obtains the target turnover box at the abnormality replacement port, controlling the target idle transfer robot to continue to execute the inbound transfer task”. 1) It’s unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “prompt information”. It is unclear whether the transfer robot receives the prompt information to place the target turnover box on the conveying line device. Paragraph [0036] of the specification states that, “After receiving the prompt information, a staff may place the target turnover box on the conveying line device” (emphasis added). 2) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “fault alarm information” and how the term is applied to the robot, e.g., a fault condition of the robot. 3) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “first preset condition” and further how the claimed “first preset condition” is applied to determine that the transfer robot carries the target turnover box meets the first present condition. The claimed “wherein the first preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound conveying task has been completed” is unclear as it does not allow to clarify the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “first preset condition”. In particular, the preset condition relies on terms such as “inbound transfer task” and “inbound conveying task” that are indefinite. Paragraph [0022] of the specification states that a) “inbound transfer task” is to transfer a turnover box from the box pick-up port 106 to a storage location by transfer robot, b) “inbound conveying task” is to convey a turnover box from the picking station 109 to the box pick-up port 106 by the conveying line device, c) “outbound transfer task” is to transfer a turnover box from a storage location to the box drop-off port 107 by the transfer robot, and d)“outbound conveying task” is to convey the turnover box from the box drop-off port 107 to the picking station 109 by the conveying line device. The term “inbound” is misleading because at the box pick-up port 106, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “output/exit” from the port 106. However, in the term “inbound” in “inbound transfer task” or “inbound conveying task” indicates an action of input the box. The term “outbound” is also misleading because at the box drop-off port 107, there is an arrow that indicates an action of “input” to the port 107. However, in the term “outbound” in “outbound transfer task” or “outbound conveying task” indicates an output action from the port 107. 4) It’s unclear whether the claimed “the prompt information” in “wherein the prompt information is used to instruct …” is referring to the claimed “outputting prompt information, in response to detecting fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot”. Paragraph [0036] of the specification states that, “After receiving the prompt information, a staff may place the target turnover box on the conveying line device” (emphasis added). Moreover, it’s unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “prompt information” and further how the term “prompt information” is applied to instruct to place the box on the conveying line device. 6) The term “abnormality replacement port” is indefinite. It is unclear what the term “abnormality replacement port” is referring to as it hasn’t introduced. 7) The term “target turnover box” is indefinite. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims are rejected for being dependent on previous rejected based claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (WO2019036932A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, Zhang discloses:
(Claim 1) A fault handling method for a transfer robot, wherein the method comprises:
outputting prompt information (Zhang, see at least par. [0033], “when a malfunction occurs, they will send a malfunction report to the server to notify the server of the malfunction and the last task executed”), in response to: detecting fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot (Zhang, see at least par. [0021, 0022], detecting a scheduling event such as a robot malfunction) and determining that a target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a first preset condition (Zhang, see at least par. [0021, 0022], detecting a scheduling event such as pending tasks to load/unload the cargo), wherein the first preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound conveying task has been completed (Zhang, see at least par. [0023], “Based on the work status information sent by the robots performing tasks at the loading and unloading site, the preset task schedule, or the task execution instructions sent by other devices, it is possible to detect whether a scheduling event has occurred … For example, when a fault report is received from a robot performing a task at the loading or unloading site, the scheduling event of detecting a robot fault is confirmed”); wherein the prompt information is for instructing placing the target turnover box on a conveying line device (Zhang, see at least par. [0019], “cargo 60 may be unloaded from cargo hold 30 onto conveyor 40”), and the conveying line device is configured to convey the target turnover box whose conveying task status is that the inbound conveying has been completed to an abnormality replacement port (Zhang, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0019], conveyor device 40 transfer the cargo to a cargo hold place);
dispatching a target idle transfer robot to the abnormality replacement port of the conveying line device (Zhang, see at least par. [0021], “When the server detects a scheduling event, it searches for an idle robot that can handle the scheduling event”; par. [0039], “The location indicated by the scheduling instruction is the location of the malfunctioning robot”); and
in response to detecting that the target idle transfer robot obtains the target turnover box at the abnormality replacement port, controlling the target idle transfer robot to continue executing the inbound transfer task (Zhang, see at least par. [0039-0040], “Scheduling instructions are used to direct idle robots to a specific location and perform a specific operation … Idle robots, following the instructions of the scheduling command, take over the operations corresponding to the tasks currently being performed by the faulty robot, such as continuing unfinished loading and unloading tasks”).
(Claim 9) An electronic device, comprising: at least one a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions that can be executed by the at least one processor, so that the at least one processor is capable of performing the method according to claim 1 (Zhang, see at least par. [0009], “A fourth aspect of the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that, when the computer program is executed by a processor, it implements the robot scheduling method provided in the first aspect of the present invention”).
(Claim 10) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are used to enable a computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (Zhang, see at least par. [0009], “A fourth aspect of the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that, when the computer program is executed by a processor, it implements the robot scheduling method provided in the first aspect of the present invention”).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO2019036932A1), and further in view of Lou (US 20250232253 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses a fault handling system for a transfer robot, wherein the system comprises a control device, a conveying line device, and a transfer robot (Zhang, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0019], “As shown in Figure 1, the robot 10 interacts with the server 80 via wired or wireless means. According to the instructions sent by the server 80, it goes to the cargo hold 30 to perform unloading or loading operations, such as loading the goods 60 from outside the cargo hold 30 or from the conveyor device 40 into the cargo hold 30”), wherein
the control device is configured to perform operations comprising: outputting prompt information (Zhang, see at least par. [0033], “when a malfunction occurs, they will send a malfunction report to the server to notify the server of the malfunction and the last task executed”), in response to detecting fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot (Zhang, see at least par. [0021, 0022], detecting a scheduling event such as a robot malfunction) and determining that a target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a first preset condition (Zhang, see at least par. [0021, 0022], detecting a scheduling event such as pending tasks to load/unload the cargo), wherein the first preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an inbound conveying task has been completed (Zhang, see at least par. [0023], “Based on the work status information sent by the robots performing tasks at the loading and unloading site, the preset task schedule, or the task execution instructions sent by other devices, it is possible to detect whether a scheduling event has occurred … For example, when a fault report is received from a robot performing a task at the loading or unloading site, the scheduling event of detecting a robot fault is confirmed”); wherein the prompt information is used to instruct to place the target turnover box to the conveying line device (Zhang, see at least par. [0019], “cargo 60 may be unloaded from cargo hold 30 onto conveyor 40”);
dispatching a target idle transfer robot to the abnormality replacement port of the conveying line device (Zhang, see at least par. [0021], “When the server detects a scheduling event, it searches for an idle robot that can handle the scheduling event”; par. [0039], “The location indicated by the scheduling instruction is the location of the malfunctioning robot”); and
in response to detecting that the target idle transfer robot obtains the target turnover box at the abnormality replacement port, controlling the target idle transfer robot to continue to execute the inbound transfer task (Zhang, see at least par. [0039-0040], “Scheduling instructions are used to direct idle robots to a specific location and perform a specific operation … Idle robots, following the instructions of the scheduling command, take over the operations corresponding to the tasks currently being performed by the faulty robot, such as continuing unfinished loading and unloading tasks”);
the transfer robot is configured to receive a dispatch instruction sent by the control device, move, according to the dispatch instruction, from a current location to the abnormality replacement port to load the target turnover box (Zhang, see at least par. [0019], “As shown in Figure 1, the robot 10 interacts with the server 80 via wired or wireless means. According to the instructions sent by the server 80, it goes to the cargo hold 30 to perform unloading or loading operations, such as loading the goods 60 from outside the cargo hold 30 or from the conveyor device 40 into the cargo hold 30. Alternatively, cargo 60 may be unloaded from cargo hold 30 onto conveyor 40 or moved to a location outside cargo hold 30”), and send the fault alarm information to the control device when a fault occurs (Zhang, see at least par. [0023], “For example, when a fault report is received from a robot performing a task at the loading or unloading site, the scheduling event of detecting a robot fault is confirmed”).
Zhang fails to explicitly teach the conveying line device is configured to perform operations comprising: scanning, by using a scanning device, a box number of a turnover box on a conveying line; and conveying the turnover box corresponding to the box number to the abnormality replacement port, in response to determining that a conveying task status corresponding to the box number is that an inbound conveying task has been completed.
Lou teaches the conveying line device (Lou, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0046], control device 107) is configured to perform operations comprising: scanning, by using a scanning device, a box number of a turnover box on a conveying line (Lou, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0051], “In step 201, after a target package of a target order is delivered to a target turnover box, the target turnover box is delivered to the second conveyor, and the scanning device located at the inlet conveying assembly of the second conveyor identifies the number of the target turnover box and reports the same to the control device. Wherein the number of the target turnover box, the number of the target package and the number of the target order have a correspondence”); and conveying the turnover box corresponding to the box number to the abnormality replacement port (Lou, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0052, 0053], “In step 203, the target turnover box enters the endless conveyor via the second conveyor, and passes through various steering wheel devices during the rotating process in the endless conveyor, each steering wheel device identifies the number of the target turnover box and obtains a flow direction corresponding to the number of the target turnover box from the control device, wherein the target steering wheel device corresponding to the number of the target turnover box (referred to as a third target steering wheel device, also that is, a steering wheel device at a junction of the inbound target first conveyor and the endless conveyor) steers so that the target turnover box in the endless conveyor is imported to the inbound target first conveyor and cached in a vacant position of the inbound target first conveyor”), in response to determining that a conveying task status corresponding to the box number is that an inbound conveying task has been completed (Lou, see at least par. [0054], “In step 204, the control device generates an inbound task according to an inbound target first conveyor corresponding to the number of the target turnover box and a target goods location in the temporary warehouse, and sends the same to the automated transportation device. The inbound task comprises information of the inbound task, such as a transporting object, which is the number of the target turnover box, a transporting departure, which is the number of the inbound target first conveyor, and a transporting destination, which is the number of the target goods location in the temporary warehouse, for instructing the automated transportation device to convey the target turnover box from the inbound target first conveyor to a target goods location in the temporary warehouse”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang to include the conveying line as taught by Lou. This modification would allow the automated transportation device to generate movement according to the task to move the target turnover box.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO2019036932A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Zhang further teaches further comprising: outputting prompt information, in response to detecting the fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot and determining that the target turnover box currently carried by the transfer robot meets a second preset condition, wherein the second preset condition comprises: a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound transfer task is in progress (Zhang, see at least par. [0023], “Based on the work status information sent by the robots performing tasks at the loading and unloading site, the preset task schedule, or the task execution instructions sent by other devices, it is possible to detect whether a scheduling event has occurred. The operational status information includes: fault reporting information, requests for assistance, etc. For example, when a fault report is received from a robot performing a task at the loading or unloading site, the scheduling event of detecting a robot fault is confirmed”).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound conveying task has not been completed; and changing the transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box from that the transfer task is in progress to that the transfer task has been completed. Nevertheless, It would have been obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box from that the transfer task is in progress to that the transfer task has been completed when a transfer task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound transfer task is in progress, and a conveying task status corresponding to the target turnover box is that an outbound conveying task has not been completed so that avoiding suspension of an outbound task that was caused by a fault of the transfer robot. The modification yields predictable result of reducing conveyor line delay when the second preset condition has been met.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO2019036932A1), and further in view of Gaydarov (US 20210060771 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Zhang fails to explicitly teach further comprising: outputting fault prompt information in response to detecting the fault alarm information sent by the transfer robot, wherein the fault prompt information is for instructing the transfer robot to switch to a manual mode, and move the transfer robot to a preset idle area for fault maintenance.
Gaydarov teaches a human operator manually bring robots that are in failure condition to a respective maintenance position for each robot (Gaydarov, see at least par. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang to include a human operator manually bring robots that are in failure condition to a respective maintenance position for each robot as taught by Gaydarov. This modification would allow to prevent further damaging to the robots.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO2019036932A1), and further in view of He et al. (US 20240067447 A1, hereinafter “He”).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the target idle transfer robot is a transfer robot closest to the conveying line device in idle transfer robots.
He teaches to dispatch an idle robot that is closest to the current position of corresponding to the box to be carried (He, see at least par. [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang to include wherein the target idle transfer robot is a transfer robot closest to the conveying line device in idle transfer robots as taught by Gaydarov. This modification would allow to improve task processing efficiency. This modification allows improved task processing efficiency by utilizing the closest robot to operate on the conveying line. The modification yields predictable result of faster response by using robot that is closest to the conveying line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights