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 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 13 recites the limitation "the one or more automated guided vehicles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the one or more automated guided vehicles" is being interpreted as "one or more automated guided vehicles"
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tai 2017/0233188.
In Re Claim 1, Tai teaches a system comprising: a set of buffer shelves (20) holding one or more mobile storage units (94, 95), each of the one or more mobile storage units holding at least one item (commodity, Paragraph 45-46); a mobile robot (10) including a body structure (72) supporting a handling mechanism (68) and a translation motor (Paragraph 39), the translation motor moving the body structure to a first buffer shelf of the set of buffer shelves, (Paragraph 39) the handling mechanism moving a first mobile storage unit of the one or more mobile storage units from the first buffer shelf to a staging area (area around 94, Fig. 10); and a picking station (100) including the staging area at which the first mobile storage unit is held, a picking location (area around 102, 102b, 104, Fig. 10) at which a carton (95) is held, and a picking mechanism (robot, Paragraph 45, 46, 64) for moving a first item from the first mobile storage unit to the carton. (Paragraph 45, 46, 64)
In Re Claim 2, Tai teaches wherein: the set of buffer shelves include a plurality of buffer shelves arranged in a grid of at least two shelves wide by at least two shelves tall. (Fig. 1, Fig. 5) (Paragraph 40)
In Re Claim 5, Tai teaches a support rail (70) running horizontally along a face of the set of buffer shelves, the mobile robot being coupled with the support rail, the support rail providing guidance to the mobile robot. (Fig. 5)
In Re Claim 6, Tai teaches a power rail (6)(Paragraph 39) running along the face of the set of buffer shelves, the power rail providing electrical power to the mobile robot using one or more contact points between the mobile robot and the power rail.
In Re Claim 7, Tai teaches wherein: the mobile robot includes a mast (66) extending vertically from the body structure, the mast supporting the handling mechanism, the handling mechanism moving vertically along the mast, the handling mechanism of the mobile robot accessing the first buffer shelf based on a position of the mobile robot horizontally along the support rail and based on a position of the handling mechanism vertically along the mast. (Fig. 1, Fig. 5 and Fig. 7)
In Re Claim 9, Tai teaches wherein: the staging area includes a conveyor adapted to move the first mobile storage unit from a first location at which the first mobile storage unit is received from the mobile robot and to move the first mobile storage unit closer to the picking station. (Paragraph 46 unshown conveyor)
In Re Claim 11, Tai teaches a method comprising: instructing, by one or more processors (30, Paragraph 36), a robot (10) to remove a first mobile storage unit (94, 95) from a set of buffer shelves (20) using a handling mechanism (68), the first mobile storage unit holding at least one item (commodity, Paragraph 45-46); instructing, by the one or more processors, the robot to place the first mobile storage unit at a staging area (area around 94, Fig. 10) using the handling mechanism; instructing, by the one or more processors, a picking mechanism (robot, Paragraph 45, 46, 64) at a picking station (100) to perform a pick task including removing a first item from the first mobile storage unit; (Paragraph 45 and 46) determining, by the one or more processors, that the pick task has been completed at the picking station using the first mobile storage unit; instructing, by the one or more processors, the robot to remove the first mobile storage unit from the staging area using the handling mechanism; and instructing, by the one or more processors, the robot to place the first mobile storage unit on the set of buffer shelves. (Paragraph 50)
In Re Claim 15, Tai teaches wherein instructing the picking mechanism at the picking station to perform the pick task includes: instructing a robotic arm (robot, Paragraph 45, 46, 64) to remove the first item from the first mobile storage unit and place it in a carton at a picking location. (Paragraph 45 and 46)
In Re Claim 16, Tai teaches wherein instructing the picking mechanism at the picking station to perform the pick task includes: instructing a human picker via human interface device to remove the first item from the first mobile storage unit and place it in a carton at a picking location. (Paragraph 45 and 46)
In Re Claim 17, Tai teaches wherein instructing the picking mechanism at the picking station to perform the pick task includes: instructing the picking mechanism to remove a second item from the first mobile storage unit and place it in a carton with the first item. (Paragraph 45, 64)
In Re Claim 20, Tai teaches system comprising: one or more processors (30, Paragraph 36); and a memory (30, Paragraph 36) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising: instructing a robot (10) to remove a first mobile storage unit (94, 95) from a set of buffer shelves (20) using a handling mechanism (68), the first mobile storage unit holding at least one item (commodity, Paragraph 45-46); instructing the robot to place the first mobile storage unit at a staging area (area around 94, Fig. 10) using the handling mechanism; instructing a picking mechanism (robot, Paragraph 45, 46, 64) at a picking station to perform a pick task including removing a first item from the first mobile storage unit; determining that the pick task has been completed at the picking station using the first mobile storage unit; (Paragraph 45, 46, 49) instructing the robot to remove the first mobile storage unit from the staging area using the handling mechanism; (Paragraph 45, 46 and 49) and instructing the robot to place the first mobile storage unit on the set of buffer shelves. (Paragraph 46)
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and in view of Liu et al. 2024/0198389.
In Re Claim 3, Tai teaches the system of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Tai does not teach wherein: each of the plurality of buffer shelves is open at two opposing sides, the mobile robot accessing each of the plurality of buffer shelves at a first side of the two opposing sides, an automated guided vehicle accessing each of the plurality of buffer shelves at a second side of the two opposing sides, the automated guided vehicle being adapted to transport the one or more mobile storage units from a storage area to the set of buffer shelves.
However, Liu et al. teach wherein: each of the plurality of buffer shelves (15) is open at two opposing sides, (Fig. 1) the mobile robot (11) accessing each of the plurality of buffer shelves at a first side of the two opposing sides, an automated guided vehicle (16) accessing each of the plurality of buffer shelves at a second side of the two opposing sides, the automated guided vehicle being adapted to transport the one or more mobile storage units from a storage area to the set of buffer shelves; and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an AGV to the system of Tai as taught by Liu et al. with a reasonable expectation in order to provide more equipment for handling material and thereby increasing throughput of the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and in view of Fuji 2021/0300681.
In Re Claim 4, Tai teaches the system of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Tai does not teach wherein: each of the plurality of buffer shelves include a vertical post supporting at least two brackets, the at least two brackets supporting the one or more mobile storage units from two sides of the one or more mobile storage units while leaving a space open underneath the one or more mobile storage units and between the at least two brackets.
However, Fuji teaches wherein: each of the plurality of buffer shelves include a vertical post (13) supporting at least two brackets (14), the at least two brackets supporting the one or more mobile storage units (30) from two sides of the one or more mobile storage units while leaving a space open underneath the one or more mobile storage units and between the at least two brackets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add at least two brackets to the system of Tai as taught by Fuji with a reasonable expectation in order to provide a storage unit at a reduced cost.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and in view of Tatemi 2024/0051745.
In Re Claim 8, Tai teaches the system of Claim 7 as discussed above.
Tai does not teach wherein: the handling mechanism includes a support platform that translates horizontally away from the mast in a first direction when retrieving the first mobile storage unit from the first buffer shelf and translates horizontally away from the mast in a second direction when placing the first mobile storage unit at the staging area.
However, Tatemi teaches wherein: the handling mechanism includes a support platform (32) that translates horizontally away from the mast (22) in a first direction when retrieving the first mobile storage unit from the first buffer shelf (11B) and translates horizontally away from the mast in a second direction when placing the first mobile storage unit at the staging area (4b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to translate the support platform horizontally in a first direction and a second direction in the system of Tai as taught by Tatemi with a reasonable expectation in order to access more locations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and in view of Long 2021/0276796
In Re Claim 10, Tai teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tai does not teach an automated guided vehicle that moves freely within an operating environment to retrieve the one or more mobile storage units from one or more locations in a storage area, the mobile robot being coupled to a support rail parallel to a face of the set of buffer shelves and moves the one or more mobile storage units between the set of buffer shelves and the staging area.
However, Long teaches an automated guided vehicle (38) that moves freely within an operating environment to retrieve the one or more mobile storage units (41) from one or more locations in a storage area (48), the mobile robot (90) being coupled to a support rail (98) parallel to a face of the set of buffer shelves (44b) and moves the one or more mobile storage units between the set of buffer shelves and the staging area (114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an AGV to the system of Tai as taught by Long with a reasonable expectation in order to provide more equipment for handling material and thereby increasing throughput of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and in view of Long 2021/0276796
In Re Claim 12, Tai teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tai does not teach instructing, by the one or more processors, one or more automated guided vehicles to transport the first mobile storage unit from a storage area and place the first mobile storage unit on a first buffer shelf of the set of buffer shelves.
However, Long teaches instructing, by the one or more processors, (Paragraph 27) one or more automated guided vehicles (38) to transport the first mobile storage unit (41) from a storage area (48) and place the first mobile storage unit on a first buffer shelf (44a) of the set of buffer shelves.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an AGV to the system of Tai as taught by Long with a reasonable expectation in order to provide more equipment for handling material and thereby increasing throughput of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 18 and 19 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 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Asari, Bott and Kiyokawa teach buffer shelves and mobile robots to handle mobile storage units. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights