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.
Claims 12-13, 15 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.
Claim 12 is confusing because based on how it is written as a whole, it is not clear whether there are multiple robots being claimed (or rather is this introducing another robot or could be interpreted as the same robot in the situation where there is only one robot in the set), whether the structure mentioned is part of robot or not and whether the robot configured to place items on a structure comprising the robot is the same robot or not. In general, the claim is confusing to read and interpret.
Claim 13 has the same issue as claim 12.
Claim 15 recites “additional robots” several times throughout the claim and introduces multiple sets of “additional robots” and it becomes very unclear as to which set of robots are being referenced throughout the claim.
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) 1-5, 11, 12, 14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (USpgpub 20230062676) in view of Huang et al. (USP 5908283).
Regarding claim 1, Patil et al. discloses a robotic system, comprising:
a first robot (40) configured to autonomously approach and enter a truck or other container (as at least described in paragraphs 58-59; the robot is capable of approaching and entering the cargo autonomously) and unload items from the truck or other container by placing each item on an outbound conveyor or other material handling equipment (it can place the items on outbound conveyor 14-18); and
Patil fails to explicitly disclose a set of one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container, including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations.
Huang et al. teaches the use of a a gantry or palletizing apparatus (fig.2, 10) having a set of one or more robots (17) including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations (the apparatus picks up conveyed items and places them in pallets 11 as readily apparent in fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in Patil to utilize a Gantry apparatus or modification thereof, such as the one taught by Huang et al. above, in order to provide the predictable result of allowing a more sophisticated sorting and distributing of the items received on the conveyor, thus improving the overall palletizing and storing of items in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Patil discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the first robot is configured to enter the truck or other container at least in part by driving under the conveyor (paragraph 82 describes how the conveyor 12 may be positioned or extended through the robot framework 55 and as a result the robot would at least in part drive under the conveyor relatively).
Regarding claim 3, Patil discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the first robot is configured to use computer vision to determine the placement of a ramp or other structure positioned to enable the first robot is to drive from a loading dock into the truck or other container (as noted in paragraph 59, the robot uses computer vision in part along with other sensors to determine if “other structure” such as a door of the cargo is open allowing it to drive from the loading dock into the truck).
Regarding claim 4, Patil discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein truck or other container comprises a first truck or other container and the first robot is configured to receive an indication to exit the first truck or other container and move to a second truck or other container (as evident in the disclosure, in part paragraph 78, the robot is capable of exiting the cargo vehicle after it is done and thus by repeating the process, once a new vehicle or cargo is present it is further capable of entering another vehicle or cargo).
Regarding claim 5, Patil discloses the robotic system of claim 4, wherein the first robot is configured to autonomously enter the second truck or other container (the same process of claim 1 applies to any vehicle, as further evidenced by paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 11, Patil in view of Huang disclose the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the destination locations comprising the plurality of destination locations are arranged in a plurality of rows oriented perpendicular to the conveyor or other material handling equipment, the rows defining one or more lanes via which the one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container move to pick items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment at one end of a lane included in the one or more lanes, carry each item via the lane to a corresponding one of the destination locations, and place the item on or in a pallet or other receptacle with which the item is associated (as seen in fig.2, there are rows for the destination locations that read on either perpendicular or parallel depending on how you look at the rows).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Patil in view of Huang disclose the robotic system of claim 1, wherein a robot included in the one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container are configured to place items on a structure comprising the robot, to carry the item to a selected one of the destination locations (robot 17 in Huang would have a gripping arm which reads on the structure and is configured to carry the items to a selected destination location).
Regarding claim 14, Patil in view of Huang disclose the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the destination locations comprising the plurality of destination locations are arranged in a plurality of rows oriented parallel to the conveyor or other material handling equipment, the rows defining one or more lanes via which the one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container move to navigate to a destination location with which an item picked from the conveyor or other material handling equipment is associated and place the item on or in a pallet or other receptacle with which the item is associated (as seen in fig.2, there are rows for the destination locations that read on either perpendicular or parallel depending on how you look at the rows)..
Regarding claim 18, Patil discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the conveyor or other material handling equipment is robotically controlled, and the robotic system is configured to control conveyor or other material handling to cause the conveyor or other material handling to move into or out of the truck or other container (as noted the extendible conveyor is robotically controlled via control 110).
Regarding claim 19,, Patil discloses a method to unload a truck or other container, comprising:
causing a first robot (40) to autonomously approach and enter a truck or other container (as at least described in paragraphs 58-59; the robot is capable of approaching and entering the cargo autonomously) and unload items from the truck or other container by placing each item on an outbound conveyor or other material handling equipment (it can place the items on outbound conveyor 14-18).
Patil fails to explicitly disclose a set of one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container, including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations and thus the configuration thereof.
Huang et al. teaches the use of a a gantry or palletizing apparatus (fig.2, 10) having a set of one or more robots (17) including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations (the apparatus picks up conveyed items and places them in pallets 11 as readily apparent in fig.2) and thus the configuration thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in Patil to utilize a Gantry apparatus or modification thereof and controls/instructions thereof, such as the one taught by Huang et al. above, in order to provide the predictable result of allowing a more sophisticated sorting and distributing of the items received on the conveyor, thus improving the overall palletizing and storing of items in the system.
Regarding claim 20, Patil discloses a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
controlling a first robot to autonomously approach and enter a truck or other container and unload items from the truck or other container by placing each item on an outbound conveyor or other material handling equipment (the computer program responsible for the controls as noted in claim 19).
Patil fails to explicitly disclose a set of one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container, including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations and thus the controls thereof.
Huang et al. teaches the use of a a gantry or palletizing apparatus (fig.2, 10) having a set of one or more robots (17) including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations (the apparatus picks up conveyed items and places them in pallets 11 as readily apparent in fig.2) and thus the controls thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in Patil to utilize a Gantry apparatus or modification thereof and controls/instructions thereof, such as the one taught by Huang et al. above, in order to provide the predictable result of allowing a more sophisticated sorting and distributing of the items received on the conveyor, thus improving the overall palletizing and storing of items in the system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (USpgpub 20230062676) in view of Huang et al. (USP 5908283), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Criswell et al. (USpgpub 20240217761).
Regarding claim 6, Patil fails to explicitly disclose the robotic system of claim 4, wherein the conveyor or other material handling equipment comprises an expandable conveyance structure attached to the first robot and the first robot is configured to push the expandable conveyance structure out of the first truck or other container as the first robot exits the first truck or other container and pull the expandable conveyance structure into the second truck or other container as the first robot enters the second truck or other container.
Criswell et al. teaches the concept of providing an expandable conveyance structure (48) attached to the first robot (10) and the first robot is configured to push the expandable conveyance structure out of the first truck or other container as the first robot exits the first truck or other container and pull the expandable conveyance structure into the second truck or other container as the first robot enters the second truck or other container (as described in Paragraph 42 and evident in fig.1b, the conveyor is attached to the robot and the robot repositions the conveyor during its movement in and out of the cargo area, thus reading on a push/pull function).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the expandable conveyor and connection thereof to the robot in Patil to utilize the assembly as taught/suggested in Criswell et al. in order to provide the predictable result of simplifying the assembly by allowing a manual control of the conveyor due to its attachment to the robot and thus not requiring a separate control of the expandable conveyor.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (USpgpub 20230062676) in view of Huang et al. (USP 5908283), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Arase et al. (USP 11077554).
Regarding claim 16, Patil in view of Huang fail to disclose the robotic system of claim 1, further comprising one or more autonomous mobile robots configured to carry away completed pallets or other receptacles from destination locations included in the plurality of destination locations.
Arase et al. teaches the concept of providing one or more autonomous mobile robots configured to carry away completed pallets or other receptacles from destination locations included in the plurality of destination locations (Fig.1, S104-S106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the combination above to include AGV to move the pallets to storage areas as taught by Arase, in order to provide the predictable result of creating an autonomous or semi autonomous robotic system for a warehouse. This would minimize the need for human operators.
Regarding claim 17, Patil in view of Huang fail to disclose the robotic system of claim 1, further comprising one or more autonomous mobile robots configured to bring empty or partially full pallets or other receptacles to destination locations included in the plurality of destination locations.
Arase et al. teaches one or more autonomous mobile robots configured to bring empty or partially full pallets or other receptacles to destination locations included in the plurality of destination locations (as visible in fig.9; robot 12 could bring storage containers partially 16 to and from area 103)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in the combination above to utilize robots to move pallets or receptacles to and from the storage areas, as taught by Arase et al. in order to provide the predictable result of creating an autonomous or semi autonomous robotic system for a warehouse. This would minimize the need for human operators.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (USpgpub 20230062676) in view of Kimoto et al. (USpgpub 20170267467).
Regarding claim 1, Patil et al. discloses a robotic system, comprising:
a first robot (40) configured to autonomously approach and enter a truck or other container (as at least described in paragraphs 58-59; the robot is capable of approaching and entering the cargo autonomously) and unload items from the truck or other container by placing each item on an outbound conveyor or other material handling equipment (it can place the items on outbound conveyor 14-18); and
Patil fails to explicitly disclose a set of one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container, including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations.
Kimoto et al. teaches the use of a palletizing apparatus (fig.1, 1) having a set of one or more robots (1) including by picking items from the conveyor or other material handling equipment, from a position to which the items have been conveyed by the conveyor or other material handling equipment and placing each item in a corresponding one of a plurality of destination locations (the apparatus picks up conveyed items and places them in pallets 32-33 as readily apparent in fig.1; the plurality of destination locations can be different spots on 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in Patil to utilize a robot, such as the one taught by Kimoto above, in order to provide the predictable result of allowing a more sophisticated sorting and distributing of the items received on the conveyor, thus improving the overall palletizing and storing of items in the system.
Regarding claim 7, Kimoto further teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein a robot included in the set of one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container is configured to determine that an item on the conveyor or other material handling equipment is associated with a pallet or other receptacle that is not currently included in the plurality of destination locations and to place the item in a buffer area based at least in part on the determination (as described in part in paragraph 91; if a box can not be placed on pallet 32, it is placed in a buffer area 33).
Regarding claim 8, Kimoto further teaches the robotic system of claim 7, wherein a robot included in the set of one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container is configured to determine that an item placed previously in a buffer area is associated with a pallet or other receptacle that is now included in the plurality of destination locations and to pick the item from the buffer area and place the item in the pallet or other receptacle with which it is associated (as detailed in paragraph 101-102; if boxes from the buffer can be placed in the pallet they will be).
Regarding claim 9, Kimoto further teaches the robotic system of claim 7, wherein the buffer area is located outside the truck or other container in an area adjacent to the conveyor or other material handling equipment (as evident in fig.1, it is at the end of an outbound conveyor 31).
Regarding claim 13, Kimoto as best understood further teaches discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein a robot included in the one or more additional robots configured to work outside the truck or other container are configured to place items on a structure comprising the robot, to hold the item until a pallet or other receptacle with which the item is associated becomes available at a corresponding one of the destination locations (the robot can place items into a buffer area 33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Contains relevant art to various inventive aspects of the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights