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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required for Figures 19-22 in this application because 37 CFR 1.84(l) require that all characters must be uniform and sufficiently dense and dark to allow for adequate digital reproduction and size reduction, such as all handwritten characters in Figures 19-22.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9-10, 16, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For each of claims 6 and 16, the words “… and controller …” should be rewritten as “… and the controller …”.
For each of claims 9-10 and 19-20, the words “… wherein robot operation …” should be rewritten as “… wherein the robot operation …”.
For each of claims 10 and 20, the words “… is pick or place of a case or container …” should be rewritten as ”… is to pick or to place a case or container …”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct antecedent basis issues.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 19-20 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.
Each of claims 2 and 12 recites “wherein determination from the information, that “the autonomous guided vehicle robot is stall, is collaborative, …”. It is unclear and/or grammatically incorrect to recite that the autonomous guided vehicle robot is stall. Since the Examiner is unable to determine what each of these claims are directed to, the Examiner will strike-out the words “is stall,” when examining the merits of the claims.
Further, each of claims 2 and 12 recites “wherein determination from the information, that “and identifies the registered image data in advance of, preceding and proximate stall and/or impending stall, …”. It is unclear what is meant by “in advance of, preceding and proximate stall and/or impending stall,”. There appears to be a number of clerical and/or grammatical errors. Since the Examiner is unable to determine what each of these claims are directed to, the Examiner will strike-out the words “in advance of, preceding and proximate stall and/or impending stall,” when examining the merits of the claims.
Each of claims 6 and 16 recites “… and records [sic] in combination with the image data and information.” It is unclear what is meant by “registering feedback sensor data”. It is further unclear what the controller is recording. There appears to be a number of words missing between “records” and “in”. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will strike-out the words “controller registers feedback sensor data and records in combination with the image data and information.”
Each of claims 9 and 18 recites “… an undeterministic deck or rail along a predetermined path from a first location to a different second location and the autonomous guided vehicle robot is stalled by undetermined impediment on deck or rails in traverse path …”. The term “undeterministic” is not a standard dictionary word and the specification does not provide a definition for this term. Nor does the specification provide a definition for the phrase “undeterministic deck”. Likewise, the phrase “undetermined impediment” is unclear because the specification does not provide a definition for this phrase either. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “on deck or rails in traverse path”. There appears to be antecedent basis issues with respect to “deck” and “rails”. Should each of claims 9 and 19 recite “the deck” and “the rails”. In addition, what does “in traverse path” mean? What type of a path is a traverse path? Based on these reasons, the metes and bounds of each of these claims is undefined, and as a result, it is unclear what each of the claims is directed to. Since the Examiner is unable to determine what each of claims 9 and 18 is directed to, an examination of the merits of claims 29-30 will need to be performed at a future date after appropriate amendments are made.
Each of claims 10 and 20 recites “… wherein robot operation is pick or place of a case or container with the end effector to or from a rack at a predetermined destination and the case or container pick or place is stalled from undetermined case or container condition.” It is unclear what is meant by “… and the case or container pick or place is stalled from undetermined case or container condition.” There appears to be some missing words in the foregoing clause. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will strike-out the words “and the case or container pick or place is stalled from undetermined case or container condition.”
Appropriate amendments are required to address the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment. The Examiner reserves the right to update/revise an examination of the merits of these claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
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 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 1-4, 6-7, 10, 11-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Zadeh et al. (US 2023/0050980).
Regarding claim 1, Zadeh teaches an automated storage and retrieval system comprising: a storage array; a plurality of autonomous guided vehicle robots disposed to traverse through the storage array, (see Zadeh at [0002] which discloses that the disclosed embodiment generally relates to material handling systems, and more particularly, to transports for automated storage and retrieval systems; see Khan at [0003] which discloses that generally automated storage and retrieval systems employ autonomous vehicles that transport goods within the automated storage and retrieval system. Also, see Zadeh at [0045] which discloses that the transfer arm 210A is configured to (autonomously) transfer a payload (such as a case unit CU), with a flat undeterministic seating surface seated in the payload bed 210B, to and from the payload bed 210B of the autonomous guided vehicle 110 and a storage location (such as storage space 130S on storage shelf 555 (see FIG. 5A), a shelf of lift module 150A, 150B, buffer, transfer station, and/or any other suitable storage location), of the payload CU, in a storage array SA, where the storage location 130S, in the storage array SA, is separate and distinct from the transfer arm 210A and the payload bed 210B. Examiner maps transports or autonomous vehicles to the autonomous guided vehicle robots.)
that each autonomous guided vehicle robot being programed to perform at least one autonomous task automatically, the autonomous guided vehicle robot having: one or more actuators configured to effect the at least one autonomous task in accordance with programming of the autonomous guided vehicle robot, (see at least Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that the autonomous transport vehicle 110 further includes a supplemental hazard sensor system 290 that supplements the information from the autonomous navigation/operation sensor system 270 for opportunistically determining or discriminating a presence of a predetermined physical characteristic of at least one object or spatial feature 299 (see, e.g., FIGS. 4D and 15) within at least a portion of the facility 100 which the autonomous transport vehicle 110 is navigating (i.e., controller 122 is programmed to command the autonomous transport vehicle to different positions in the facility associated with effecting one or more predetermined payload autonomous transfer tasks) and that the vehicle navigates to the different positions with the navigation system and operates to effect the predetermined transfer tasks at the different positions separate and distinct from the captured image data by the supplemental hazard sensor system 290 in the different positions. Also, see Khan at [0045] which discloses that the transfer arm 210A is configured to (autonomously) transfer a payload (such as a case unit CU), with a flat undeterministic seating surface seated in the payload bed 210B, to and from the payload bed 210B of the autonomous guided vehicle 110 and a storage location. Examiner maps transfer arm, for example, to one or more actuators configured to effect the at least one autonomous task in accordance with programming of the autonomous guided vehicle robot. Examiner further notes that transferring a payload corresponds to performing at least one autonomous task automatically.)
and a sensor system connected to the autonomous guided vehicle robot for collaboration of the autonomous guided vehicle robot and an operator, the sensor system has, at least in part, a vision system with at least one camera disposed to capture image data informing physical characteristic of objects and/or spatial features within at least a portion of the storage array; (see Zadeh at the Abstract which discloses that an autonomous guided vehicle includes a frame, a drive section, a payload handler, a sensor system, and a supplemental sensor system, that the sensor system has electro-magnetic sensors, each responsive to interaction or interface of a sensor emitted or generated electro-magnetic beam or field with a physical characteristic, the electro-magnetic beam or field being disturbed by interaction or interface with the physical characteristic, and which disturbance is detected by and effects sensing of the physical characteristic, that the sensor system generates sensor data embodying at least one of a vehicle navigation pose or location information and payload pose or location information, and that the supplemental sensor system supplements the sensor system, and is, at least in part, a vision system with cameras disposed to capture image data informing the at least one of a vehicle navigation pose or location and payload pose or location supplement to the information of the sensor system. See Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that the vehicle navigates to the different positions with the navigation system and operates to effect the predetermined transfer tasks at the different positions separate and distinct from the captured image data by the supplemental hazard sensor system 290 in the different positions, that the opportunistic determination / discrimination of the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 executing navigation and transfer, causes the controller 122 to selectably reconfigure the autonomous transport vehicle 110 from an autonomous state to a collaborative vehicle state for collaboration with an operator so as to finalize discrimination of the object or spatial feature 299 as a hazard and identify a mitigation action of the vehicle with respect to the hazard (i.e., the collaborative state is supplemental (auxiliary) to the autonomous state of the vehicle (wherein in the autonomous state the vehicle autonomously effects each of the one or more predetermined payload autonomous transfer tasks and in the auxiliary/collaborative state the vehicle collaborates with the operator to discriminate and mitigate hazards as described herein. Further, see Zadeh at [0061] which discloses that the vision system 400 includes one or more of the following: case unit monitoring cameras 410A, 410B, forward navigation cameras 420A, 420B, rearward navigation cameras 430A, 430B, one or more three-dimensional imaging system 440A, 440B, one or more case edge detection sensors 450A, 450B, one or more traffic monitoring camera 460A, 460B, and one or more out of plane (e.g., upward or downward facing) localization cameras 477A, 477B (noting the downward facing cameras may supplement the line following sensors 275 of the physical characteristic sensor system 270 and provide a broader field of view than the line following sensors 275 so as to effect guidance/traverse of the vehicle 110 to place the guide lines 900 (see FIG. 9A) back within the field of view of the line following sensors 275 in the event the vehicle path strays from the guide line 900 removing the guide line 900 from the line following sensor 275 field of view). Also, see Khan at [0068] which discloses that the case unit monitoring cameras 410A, 410B have a field of view that encompasses the payload bed 210B.)
and a controller communicably connected to the autonomous guided vehicle robot and communicably coupled to the sensor system so as to register the information from the image data of the at least one camera, and the controller is configured to determine, from the information, presence of a non-conformance physical characteristic of at least one object, spatial features, and/or condition of the one or more actuators incongruous or inconsistent with autonomous guided vehicle robot programming that stalls the autonomous guided vehicle robot from completion of the at least one autonomous task, and in response thereto, selectably reconfigures the autonomous guided vehicle robot from autonomous to a collaborative vehicle disposed to receive operator commands for the vehicle to continue to effect vehicle operation (see Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that controller 122 is programmed to command the autonomous transport vehicle to different positions in the facility associated with effecting one or more predetermined payload autonomous transfer tasks and that the opportunistic determination/discrimination of the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 executing navigation and transfer, causes the controller 122 to selectably reconfigure the autonomous transport vehicle 110 from an autonomous state to a collaborative vehicle state for collaboration with an operator so as to finalize discrimination of the object or spatial feature 299 as a hazard and identify a mitigation action of the vehicle with respect to the hazard. Examiner maps the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 to the presence of a non-conformance physical characteristic of at least one object, spatial features, and/or condition of the one or more actuators incongruous or inconsistent with autonomous guided vehicle robot programming that stalls the autonomous guided vehicle robot from completion of the at least one autonomous task; see Zadeh at [0036] which discloses where the vision system 400 of the autonomous transport vehicle 110 senses or detects the presence of objects/hazards which are not present in the reference storage level map and storage structure information, a determination of the object(s)/hazard(s) type(s) is effected upon indication by the controller by a remote operator receiving the images/video of the object/hazard transmitted from/by the autonomous transport vehicle 110 to the user interface UI; also, see Zadeh at least at [0039] which discloses that the supplemental navigation sensor system 288 and/or the supplemental hazard sensor system 290 includes a vision system 400 that effects transmission (e.g., streaming live video, time stamped images, or any other suitable manner of transmission) of images/video to a remote operator for identification of the object/hazard present within the facility 100 (e.g., an object extending across the bot travel path, blocking the bot, proximate the bot within a predetermined distance) which is "unknown" (i.e., unidentifiable) by the autonomous transport vehicle 110. Further, see Zadeh at [0094] and [0107], for example, which discloses that the vision system controller 122VC is also configured to register image data captured by the supplemental hazard sensor system 290 and generate, from the captured image data, at least one image (e.g., still image and/or video image) of one or more object or spatial feature 299 showing the predetermined physical characteristic. Examiner notes that the detection of the presence of objects/hazards which are not present in the reference storage level map and storage structure information corresponds to the presence of a non-conformance physical characteristic of at least one object, spatial features, and/or condition of the one or more actuators incongruous or inconsistent with autonomous guided vehicle robot programming. Examiner notes that the transmission, by the vision system, of the video and/or images to a remote operator for identification of an object/hazard present, corresponds to register the information from the image data of the at least one camera, and the controller is configured to determine, from the information, presence of a non-conformance physical characteristic of at least one object, spatial features, and/or condition of the one or more actuators incongruous or inconsistent with autonomous guided vehicle robot programming that stalls the autonomous guided vehicle robot from completion of the at least one autonomous task. Further, see Zadeh at [0079] which discloses that the vision system controller 122VC detects and compares location fiducials (e.g., stored in a memory of or accessible to the vision system controller 122VC) to determine a location of the autonomous transport vehicle 110 within the storage structure; see Zadeh at [0080] which discloses that the cameras of the supplemental navigation sensor system 288 may be calibrated in any suitable manner (such as by, e.g., an intrinsic and extrinsic camera calibration) to effect sensing of case units CU, storage structure (e.g., shelves, columns, etc.), and other structural features of the storage and retrieval system. Referring to FIGS. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, and 5C, known objects (such as case units CU1, CU2, CU3 (or storage system structure) (e.g., having a known physical characteristic such as shape, size, etc.) may be placed within the field of view of a camera (or the vehicle 110 may be positioned so that the known objects are within the field of view of the camera) of the supplemental navigation sensor system 288, that these known objects may be imaged by the camera from several angles/view points to calibrate each camera so that the vision system controller 122VC is configured to detect the known objects based on sensor signals from the calibrated camera.)
Regarding claim 2, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein determination from the information, that the autonomous guided vehicle robot [is stall] is collaborative, wherein the controller records, in a memory, and identifies the registered image data and information [in advance of, preceding and proximate stall and/or impending stall,] and provides the recorded image data and information to the operator to review (see Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that controller 122 is programmed to command the autonomous transport vehicle to different positions in the facility associated with effecting one or more predetermined payload autonomous transfer tasks and that the opportunistic determination / discrimination of the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 executing navigation and transfer, causes the controller 122 to selectably reconfigure the autonomous transport vehicle 110 from an autonomous state to a collaborative vehicle state for collaboration with an operator so as to finalize discrimination of the object or spatial feature 299 as a hazard and identify a mitigation action of the vehicle with respect to the hazard; see Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that the vehicle navigates to the different positions with the navigation system and operates to effect the predetermined transfer tasks at the different positions separate and distinct from the captured image data by the supplemental hazard sensor system 290 in the different positions, that the opportunistic determination / discrimination of the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 executing navigation and transfer, causes the controller 122 to selectably reconfigure the autonomous transport vehicle 110 from an autonomous state to a collaborative vehicle state for collaboration with an operator so as to finalize discrimination of the object or spatial feature 299 as a hazard and identify a mitigation action of the vehicle with respect to the hazard (i.e., the collaborative state is supplemental (auxiliary) to the autonomous state of the vehicle (wherein in the autonomous state the vehicle autonomously effects each of the one or more predetermined payload autonomous transfer tasks and in the auxiliary / collaborative state the vehicle collaborates with the operator to discriminate and mitigate hazards as described herein. Moreover, see Zadeh at least at [0039] which discloses that the supplemental navigation sensor system 288 and/or the supplemental hazard sensor system 290 includes a vision system 400 that effects transmission (e.g., streaming live video, time stamped images, or any other suitable manner of transmission) of images/video to a remote operator for identification of the object/hazard present within the facility 100 (e.g., an object extending across the bot travel path, blocking the bot, proximate the bot within a predetermined distance) which is "unknown" (i.e., unidentifiable) by the autonomous transport vehicle 110. Zadeh at [0039] further discloses that in accordance with the aspects of the disclosed embodiment, a controller (such as one or more of a control server 120 of the storage and retrieval system 100, a controller 122 of the autonomous transport vehicle 110, the vision system controller 122VC, or any other suitable controller) or human operator of the storage and retrieval system 100 monitors, via the vision system 400, the bot travel paths as the autonomous transport vehicle 110 navigates the facility to perform autonomous storage and retrieval tasks in accordance with the controller 122 commands.)
Regarding claim 3, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein determination from the information is automatic, and the controller provides the recorded image data and information to the operator for review (see Khan at [0003] which discloses that generally automated storage and retrieval systems employ autonomous vehicles that transport goods within the automated storage and retrieval system. Also, see Zadeh at [0045] which discloses that the transfer arm 210A is configured to (autonomously) transfer a payload (such as a case unit CU), with a flat undeterministic seating surface seated in the payload bed 210B, to and from the payload bed 210B of the autonomous guided vehicle 110 and a storage location (such as storage space 130S on storage shelf 555 (see FIG. 5A), a shelf of lift module 150A, 150B, buffer, transfer station, and/or any other suitable storage location), of the payload CU, in a storage array SA, where the storage location 130S, in the storage array SA, is separate and distinct from the transfer arm 210A and the payload bed 210B; see Zadeh at [0039] further discloses that in accordance with the aspects of the disclosed embodiment, a controller (such as one or more of a control server 120 of the storage and retrieval system 100, a controller 122 of the autonomous transport vehicle 110, the vision system controller 122VC, or any other suitable controller) or human operator of the storage and retrieval system 100 monitors, via the vision system 400, the bot travel paths as the autonomous transport vehicle 110 navigates the facility to perform autonomous storage and retrieval tasks in accordance with the controller 122 commands.)"unknown" (i.e., unidentifiable) by the autonomous transport vehicle 110.)
Regarding claim 4, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein selectably reconfigure comprises the controller selectably switching from autonomous operation state to a collaborative operation state (see Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that the opportunistic determination/discrimination of the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 executing navigation and transfer, causes the controller 122 to selectably reconfigure the autonomous transport vehicle 110 from an autonomous state to a collaborative vehicle state for collaboration with an operator.)
Regarding claim 6, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein the sensor system includes force/torque, velocity, and/or position feedback sensors of the one or more actuators and [controller registers feedback sensor data and records in combination with the image data and information] (see Zadeh at [0053] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that the position sensors 274 may be mounted to the autonomous transport vehicle 110 at any suitable location. Examiner notes that Applicant has used the phrase “and/or” in the instant claim. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage (see Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811). Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.)
Regarding claim 7, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of autonomous guided vehicle robots has a drive section for robot navigation control and for motion and pose of an end effector to pick or place, and the operator commands at least two or more degrees of freedom (DOF) of the drive section for at least one of robot navigation and end effector motion to effect robot operation (see Zadeh at Fig. 2 which illustratively depicts drive section 261D; see Zadeh at [0047] which discloses that the autonomous transport vehicle 110 includes a drive section 261D, connected to the frame 200, with drive wheels 260 supporting the autonomous transport vehicle 110 on a traverse/rolling surface 284, where the drive wheels 260 effect vehicle traverse on the traverse surface 284 moving the autonomous transport vehicle 110 over the traverse surface 284 in a facility; see Zadeh at [0059] which discloses that controller 122 is configured to determine from the information of the physical characteristic sensor system 270 vehicle pose and location (e.g., in up to six degrees of freedom, X, Y, Z, Rx, Ry, Rz) effecting independent guidance of the autonomous transport vehicle 110 traversing the storage and retrieval facility/system 100. Examiner notes that effecting independent guidance of the vehicle in up to six degrees of freedom corresponds to the operator commands at least two or more degrees of freedom (DOF) of the drive section for at least one of robot navigation and end effector motion to effect robot operation.)
Regarding claim 10, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 7, wherein robot operation is pick or place of a case or container with the end effector to or from a rack at a predetermined destination [and the case or container pick or place is stalled from undetermined case or container condition] (see Zadeh at [0042] which discloses that the autonomous transport vehicles 110 may be configured to place case units, such as the above described retail merchandise, into picking stock in the one or more storage structure levels 130L of the storage structure 130 and then selectively retrieve ordered case units for shipping the ordered case units to, for example, a store or other suitable location; also, see Zadeh at [0071], for example, which discloses picking aisles and storage racks for picking and placing of a case or container.)
Claims 11-14, 16-17, and 20 recite methods that performs the steps recited in the systems of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the methods of claims 11-14, 16-17, and 20. Therefore, claims 11-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10 above.
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 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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadeh et al. (US 2023/0050980) in view of Doshi et al. (US 2025/0222947).
Regarding claim 5, Zadeh teaches the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein the controller [comprises a neural network/AI] that learns from the recorded image data and information and operator commands for resolution of the stall (see Zadeh at [0032] which discloses that the opportunistic determination / discrimination of the presence of the predetermined physical characteristic of the object or spatial feature 299, incidental or peripheral to the vehicle 110 executing navigation and transfer, causes the controller 122 to selectably reconfigure the autonomous transport vehicle 110 from an autonomous state to a collaborative vehicle state for collaboration with an operator so as to finalize discrimination of the object or spatial feature 299 as a hazard and identify a mitigation action of the vehicle with respect to the hazard; see Zadeh at [0036] which discloses that where the vision system 400 of the autonomous transport vehicle 110 senses or detects the presence of objects/hazards which are not present in the reference storage level map and storage structure information, a determination of the object(s)/hazard(s) type(s) is effected upon indication by the controller by a remote operator receiving the images/video of the object/hazard transmitted from/by the autonomous transport vehicle 110 to the user interface UI; see Zadeh at [0062] which discloses that the controller 122 may obtain images from one or more of the three-dimensional imaging system 440A, 440B, the case edge detection sensors 450A, 450B, and the case unit monitoring cameras 410A, 410B to effect case handling by the vehicle 110. Absent a clear definition in the specification, the Examiner interprets “neural network/AI” to mean either a neural network or artificial intelligence.)
Zadeh does not expressly disclose a comprises a neural network/AI, which in a related art, Doshi teaches (see Doshi at [0034] which discloses a first neural network implemented by the network 114, the navigation system 106, the controller 108, and/or other components of the computing device 102. Examiner maps first neural network to the recited neural network.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zadeh to include a neural network/AI, as taught by Doshi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to detect objects and to train neural networks or machine learning models using historical data, as suggested by Doshi at [0044].
Claim 15 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 5. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 5 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 5 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zadeh et al. (US 2023/0050980) in view of Dang et al. (CN 206527735 U).
Regarding claim 8, Zadeh does not expressly disclose the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 7, wherein the drive section has ten DOF or more for robot navigation and end effector pose, which in a related art, Dang teaches (see Dang at page x which discloses that the controller 24 control first double-rotor motor 5 operation, first double-rotor motor 5 drives the large arm 3 to rotate through the connecting column 6 and controller 24 control the elbow motor 9 operation, the elbow motor 9 drives the arm 8 to rotate through a first movable shaft 7, operation controller 24 to control hand motor 12, the hand motor 12 drives the hand 11 through the second movable shaft 10 to rotate, the controller 24 control the second double-rotor motor 16 operation, second double-rotor motor 16 through the third movable shaft 14 drives the leg arm 17 to rotate. a controller 24 controlling the leg motor 20 operation, the leg motor 20 via a fourth movable shaft 18 drives the leg arm 19 to rotate, a controller 24 controlling the foot motor 23 operation, a foot motor 23 through the fifth movable shaft 21 drives the foot 22 to rotate so as to reach the ten degrees of freedom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zadeh to include wherein the drive section has ten DOF or more for robot navigation and end effector pose, as taught by Dang.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to simplify robot structure and provide convenient maintenance, as suggested by Dang at the Abstract.
Claim 18 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 8. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 8 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights