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 .
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/26; 4/22/26; 2/6/26; 4/23/25 have been being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1A-4c, 6a-6d, 9a-10b, 12, 12a-12e all have improper shading that makes the drawings unclear. Further, there is a Fig. 12 and a Fig. 12A, this should be corrected so that it is clear what is being referred to and the rest of the figure 12 should be correctly renumbered. 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: In the brief description of drawings and in the specification, there is both a Fig. 12 and a Fig. 12A this needs to be clarified and the first Fig. 12 should be labeled 12a and the rest of the figures need to be renumbered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/972,776 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each set of claims has a mobile robot, with a tote array, elevator, lift mechanism, tote transfer mechanism and navigation from an initial location to a destination location.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/972,770 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each set of claims has a mobile robot, with a tote array, elevator, lift mechanism, tote transfer mechanism and navigation from an initial location to a destination location.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN109941653 to Xiao (A machine translation is enclosed and referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the Xiao patent teaches an autonomous mobile robot for use in a warehouse including one or more storage units for holding a plurality of source totes 4, each of the plurality of source totes being associated with one or more items, the autonomous mobile robot comprising: a mobile robot base 1 including a base body having a top surface and a plurality of wheels; a tote structure 2 disposed on the top surface of the base body, the tote structure including: a tote array having a plurality of order totes, each tote associated with one or more items; a tote elevator 7 having a platform 8 including a first surface portion (Fig. 4) configured to hold a source tote, a second surface portion configured to hold an order tote; wherein the second surface portion (Fig. 3) includes a tote transfer mechanism 3 configured to retrieve order totes (see Fig. 1) from the order tote array and place the order totes on the second surface portion of the platform; a lift mechanism 7 configured to raise and lower the tote elevator relative to the top surface of the base body; a controller and a memory, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the controller to move the tote from a shelf 5 to the part 3 and then to the carrier 21. See translation.
However, the Xiao patent does not explicitly state the steps of navigate from an initial location in the warehouse to a destination location, the destination location being associated with a source tote stored in a storage unit, wherein the source tote is associated with a predefined item; control the tote transfer mechanism to retrieve an order tote associated with the predefined item from the tote array and place the order tote on the second surface portion of the platform while the mobile robot base is en route from the initial location in the warehouse to the destination location; and control the lift mechanism to position the platform of the tote elevator at a height of the source tote on the storage unit while the mobile robot base is en route from the initial location in the warehouse to the destination location.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Xiao patent to do the steps of moving a tote as recited in the claims as this is a normal way of moving items from one place to another using a device that is disclosed in the Xiao patent that is capable of doing these steps as the act of moving the tote from one location to another is not a new concept and is known in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the tote array 2 includes 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. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the platform is positioned adjacent to the tote array. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the first surface portion of the platform includes a tote manipulator 3 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. See Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, 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 (Fig. 3) and to retract the engaged storage tote to the retracted position on the first surface portion of the platform. See Fig. 4.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, 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. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the tote transfer mechanism, responsive to the controller, is configured to move in a direction parallel to the length of the platform from proximate the tote array across the second surface portion to the first surface portion. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, the tote transfer mechanism includes at least one projection 34 configured to engage an order tote positioned in the tote array, the at least one projection connected to a translation device configured to transfer the order tote from the tote array to the second surface portion on the platform and from the second surface portion on the platform to the tote array. See Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, the tote elevator 6 is configured to be raised and lowered by the lift mechanism, responsive to the controller, to selectively align the first surface of the platform with each of the vertically disposed positions of the tote array. See Fig. 2.
Claims 10-12 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN109941653 to Xiao in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0415345 to Zizka et al. (A machine translation is enclosed and referred to herein).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, the Xiao patent teaches all of the elements of the claim except for the teaching the tote elevator includes a robotic pick arm 925 having an imaging system 960 and a gripper device, the robotic pick arm being disposed above the surface of the platform and secured to a mounting mechanism.
The Zizka publication teaches a robotic pick arm having an imaging system and a gripper device 950, the robotic pick arm being disposed above the surface of the platform and secured to a mounting mechanism. See Fig. 7a.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Xiao patent to have the pick arm and the imaging system as taught by the Zizka publication, as it would have been combining known prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of automatically picking items out of totes and moving that as needed.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, 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. See Figs. 3 and 4 of Xiao.
Regarding claims 12 and 26. the controller is configured to cause the tote manipulator mechanism to engage the source tote on the storage unit and retract the source tote to the retracted position on the first surface portion of the platform. See Figs. 3 and 4 of Xiao.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN109941653 to Xiao in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0207546 to Borders et al. (A machine translation is enclosed and referred to herein).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, the Xiao patent teaches all of the elements of the claim except for the plurality of wheels are mecanum wheels.
The Borders publication teaches a mobile robot having mecanum wheels 130.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Xiao patent to have the wheels as mecanum wheels as taught by Borders, as it would have been combining known prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of providing a way to accurately move and position the robot with the mecanum wheels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Patent No. CN111137808 to Zeng et al. teaches a robot with a sliding tray.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 S 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights