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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hainsworth only discloses a first support surface and not a second support surface. However, the claims as written do not define a size or shape or location of the two surfaces. In Hainsworth the tote supporting surface could be divided in half with the half nearest to the tote magazine being the second support surface and the first support surface being the other half. The current claim language does not require that the first and second support surfaces include identical structures or overlap with one another. Applicant can amend around this by specifying that the first surface supports a first tote while at the same time the second surface supports a second tote separate from and distinct from the first tote and adding additional features that make the two surfaces unique. US 12,162,687 discloses a support surface which includes either a single support surface or two distinct support surfaces on a single elevating mechanism, and could be used to support a 103 rejection in the future. Please take this into account in future responses. For at least the foregoing reasons claims 1-4 and 6-22 stand rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-7 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hainsworth US 4,492,504.
Hainsworth discloses an autonomous mobile robot for use in a warehouse including one
or more storage units for holding a plurality of source totes each associated with one or more
items, the autonomous mobile robot comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a mobile robot base including a base body having a top surface, a controller, and a
plurality of wheels” (38 figure 3). “a tote structure disposed on the top surface of the base body, the tote structure including a tote magazine having a plurality of positions vertically disposed relative to the top surface of the base body, each position configured to hold at least one order tote” (40 figure 3). “a tote elevator having a platform positioned adjacent to the tote magazine” (44 figure 3). “wherein the platform includes a first surface portion configured to receive a source tote retrieved from the one or more storage units and a second surface portion adjacent to the first surface portion and configured to receive an order tote from the tote magazine” (50 figure 8,13, col 9-10 lines 50-8). “wherein the second surface portion includes a tote transfer mechanism, responsive to the controller, configured to move in a direction parallel to the length of the platform from proximate the tote magazine across the second surface portion to the first surface portion” (222, 220 figure 13, col 9-10 lines 50-8). “a lift mechanism, responsive to the controller, configured to raise and lower the tote elevator relative to the top surface of the base body” (60 figure 4).
(Re claim 2) “the first surface portion of the platform includes a tote manipulator mechanism, responsive to the controller, to extend from a retracted position to an extended position and to retract from the extended position to the retracted position; and wherein a direction of travel of the tote manipulator mechanism is perpendicular to a length of the platform” (150,152 figure 8,9).
(Re claim 3) “the tote manipulator mechanism, responsive to the controller, is configured to engage with a storage tote of the retracted position on the first surface portion of the platform” (150,152 figure 8,9).
(Re claim 4) “the tote manipulator mechanism includes a tote manipulator device configured to engage with the storage tote; the tote manipulator device connected to a translation device configured to move the tote manipulator device in a direction perpendicular to the length of the platform” (col 9 lines 32-50).
(Re claim 6) “the tote transfer mechanism includes at least one projection configured to engage an order tote positioned in the tote magazine, the at least one projection connected to a translation device configured to transfer the order tote from the tote magazine to the second surface portion on the platform and from the second surface portion on the platform to the tote magazine” (222, 244 figure 13).
(Re claim 7) “the tote elevator is configured to be raised and lowered by the lift mechanism, responsive to the controller, to selectively align the second surface portion of the platform with each of the vertically disposed positions of the tote magazine” (60,40,44 figure 3).
Hainsworth discloses an autonomous mobile robot for use in a warehouse including one or more storage units for holding a plurality of source totes each associated with one or more items, the
autonomous mobile robot comprising:
(Re claim 13) “a mobile robot base including a base body having a top surface, a controller, and a plurality of wheels” (38 figure 3). “a tote structure disposed on the top surface of the base body, the tote structure including: a tote magazine having a plurality of positions vertically disposed relative to the
top surface of the base body, each position configured to hold at least one order tote” (40 figure 3). “a tote elevator having a platform positioned adjacent to the tote magazine” (44 figure 3). “wherein the platform includes a first surface portion configured to receive a source tote retrieved from the one or more storage units and a second surface portion adjacent to the first surface portion and configured to receive an order tote from the tote magazine” (50 figure 8,13, col 9-10 lines 50-8). “A lift mechanism, responsive to the controller, configured to raise and lower the tote elevator relative to the top surface of the base body” (60 figure 3). “wherein the first surface portion of the platform includes a tote manipulator mechanism, responsive to the controller, to extend from a retracted position to an extended position and to retract from the extended position to the retracted position; and wherein a direction of travel of the tote manipulator mechanism is perpendicular to a length of the platform” (150,152 figure 8,9). “wherein the second surface portion includes a tote transfer mechanism, responsive to the controller, configured to move in a direction parallel to the length of the platform
from proximate the tote magazine across the second surface portion to the first surface portion” (222, 220 figure 13, col 9-10 lines 50-8).
(Re claim 14) “the tote manipulator mechanism, responsive to the controller, is configured to engage with a storage tote of the plurality of storage totes when in the extended position and to retract the engaged storage tote to the retracted position on the first surface portion of the platform” (150,152 figure 8,9).
(Re claim 15) “the tote manipulator mechanism includes a tote manipulator device configured to engage with the storage tote; the tote manipulator device connected to a translation device configured to move the tote manipulator device in the direction perpendicular to the length of the platform” (col 9 lines 32-50).
(Re claim 16) “the tote transfer mechanism includes at least one projection configured to engage an order tote positioned in the tote magazine, the at least one projection connected to a translation device configured to transfer the order tote from the tote magazine to the second surface portion on the platform and from the second surface portion on the platform to the tote magazine” (222, 244 figure 13).
(Re claim 17) “the tote elevator is configured to be raised and lowered by the lift mechanism, responsive to the controller, to selectively align the second surface portion of the platform with each of the vertically disposed positions of the tote magazine” (44,60, 40 figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hainsworth in view of Zizka et al. US 2023/0415345.
Hainsworth discloses the system as rejected above.
(Re claim 8,18) Hainsworth does not disclose that the tote elevator includes a robotic pick arm having an imaging system and a gripper device, the robotic pick arm being disposed above the surface of the platform and secured to a mounting mechanism.
Zizka teaches that the tote elevator includes a robotic pick arm having an imaging system and a gripper device, the robotic pick arm being disposed above the surface of the platform and secured to a mounting mechanism (925 figure 5A).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hainsworth to include that the tote elevator includes a robotic pick arm having an imaging system and a gripper device, the robotic pick arm being disposed above the surface of the platform and secured to a mounting mechanism because it allows the system to automatically transfer goods between totes.
(Re claim 9,19) Hainsworth does not disclose that the mounting mechanism, responsive to the controller, is configured to move the robotic pick arm between the first surface portion and the second surface portion of the platform.
Zizka teaches that the mounting mechanism, responsive to the controller, is configured to move the robotic pick arm between the first surface portion and the second surface portion of the platform (para 0114).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hainsworth to include that the mounting mechanism, responsive to the controller, is configured to move the robotic pick arm between the first surface portion and the second surface portion of the platform because it allows the system to automatically transfer goods between totes.
(Re claim 10,20) “navigate the mobile robot base to a position adjacent to a storage unit having a source tote associated with an identified item” (30 figure 2). “cause the lift mechanism to align the platform of the elevator with a height of a position of the plurality of vertically disposed positions in the tote magazine having an order tote associated with the identified item” (40 figure 2). “cause the tote transfer mechanism to retrieve the order tote from the position in the tote magazine and move the retrieved order tote to the second surface portion of the platform” (220,240 figure 13). “cause the lift mechanism to align the platform of the elevator with a height of the source tote on the storage unit” (30,44 figure 2). “cause the tote manipulator mechanism to engage the source tote and retract the source tote to the retracted position on the first surface portion of the platform” (30,46,44 figure 2).
(Re claim 11,21) Hainsworth does not disclose that the controller is configured to: cause the robot pick arm to locate the identified item using the imaging system in one of the source tote or the order tote and pick the identified item using the gripper device; and cause the robot pick arm to move to the other of the source tote or the order tote and to drop the identified item from the gripper device into the other of the source tote or the order tote.
Zizka teaches that the controller is configured to: cause the robot pick arm to locate the identified item using the imaging system in one of the source tote or the order tote and pick the identified item using the gripper device; and cause the robot pick arm to move to the other of the source tote or the order tote and to drop the identified item from the gripper device into the other of the source tote or the order tote (para 0145).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hainsworth to include that the controller is configured to: cause the robot pick arm to locate the identified item using the imaging system in one of the source tote or the order tote and pick the identified item using the gripper device; and cause the robot pick arm to move to the other of the source tote or the order tote and to drop the identified item from the gripper device into the other of the source tote or the order tote because it allows the system to automatically pick orders by transferring items from one tote to another.
Claim(s) 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hainsworth in view of Borders et al. US 2020/0207546.
Hainsworth discloses the system as rejected above.
(Re claim 12,22) Hainsworth does not disclose that the plurality of wheels are mecanum wheels.
Borders teaches that the plurality of wheels are mecanum wheels (130 figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hainsworth to include disclose that the plurality of wheels are mecanum wheels because they provide greater mobility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights