DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on June 30, 2025. Claims 1 - 4, 8 - 14 and 18 - 26 are presented for examination. Claims 1- 4, 8 - 14 and 18 - 26 are rejected and this Office Action is being made Final.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on June 30, 2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. Based on the amendment to overcome the objections to the claims and the amendment to overcome the interpretation of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), the objections and interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1, 11 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the applicants argue the prior art of Beniyama vails to teach a graphical overlay, along with “constructing a representation of an aisle rack in the warehouse using the received point cloud data for the aisle rack and the selected at least one warehouse infrastructure model types, by graphically overlaying the at least one aisle rack model onto the point cloud data representing an aisle rack in order to construct an accurate representation of the aisle rack, based on the recitation in the previous Office Action citing Beniyama on page 9, lines 4 - 9.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to the new amendments to the limitations in claims 1, 11, and the previous recitation on page 9, lines 4 - 9 of Beniyama, page 4, lines 33 - 36 and FIG. 6 of the Beniyama reference also discloses a matching step regarding warehouse shape data and shelf area shape data, with FIG. 6 showing a point cloud of warehouse shelves and a matching shelf model at identified coordinates, with the corresponding point cloud version of the matched shelf and warehouse shelf shown as a result. The shelves in Beniyama are interpreted as types of aisle racks, based on the language in paragraph [0042] of the original specification, which recites the racks “can include at least one storage configuration of tiers, shelfs, uprights, bays, etc.”. The amendments to the new amendments to the claims are rejected below, in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102.
With regards to claims 3, 13 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues that the combination of Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1) and Beinschob et al (“Semi-Automated Map Creation for Fast Deployment of AGC Fleets in Modern Logistics”) fails to teach or suggest claims 3 and 13 due to Beinschob failing to remedy the deficiencies of Beniyama regarding claims 1 and 11, and thus claims 3 and 13 are allowable for depending from claims 1 and 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed below in the rejections of the newly amended claims, the prior art of Beniyama discloses the amended features of claims 1 and 11. The combination of Beniyama and Beinschob discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 13, and thus, claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as shown below.
With regards to claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues that the combination of Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1) and Eckman (U.S. Patent 10,242,273 B1) fails to teach or suggest claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, and 19 due to Eckman failing to remedy the deficiencies of Beniyama regarding claims 1 and 11, and thus claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, and 19 are allowable for depending from claims 1 and 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed below in the rejections of the newly amended claims, the prior art of Beniyama discloses the amended features of claims 1 and 11. The combination of Beniyama and Eckman discloses the limitations of claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, and 19, and thus, claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as shown below.
With regards to claims 21, 23 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues that the combination of Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1) and Govers et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0358201 A1) fails to teach or suggest claims 21 and 23 due to Govers fails to remedy the deficiencies of Beniyama regarding claim 1, and thus claims 21 and 23 are allowable for depending from claims 1 and 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed below in the rejections of the newly amended claims, the prior art of Beniyama discloses the amended features of claims 1 and 11. The combination of Beniyama and Govers discloses the limitations of claims 21 and 23, and thus, claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as shown below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 14 recites “received infrastructure model types”, but it is recommended for the phrase to recite “received warehouse infrastructure model types”, to correspond to the previous warehouse infrastructure model types in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 - 4, 8 - 10, 21, 22, 25 and 26 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 1 lacks antecedent basis for “perform at least the following” (Claim 1, lines 6 - 7).
Dependent claims 2 - 4, 8 - 10, 21, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested Language: Amend the phrase to recite “perform steps comprising”.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “one of the received infrastructure model types” (Claim 1, line 14).
Dependent claims 2 - 4, 8 - 10, 21, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested Language: Amend the phrase to recite “one of a received infrastructure model types”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10 - 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1), hereinafter “Beniyama”.
As per claim 1, Beniyama discloses:
a site commissioning tool configured to operate with a plurality of model types for warehouse infrastructure, the site commissioning tool comprising (Beniyama, page 3, lines 3 - 4 discloses a computer connected to a warehouse system.)
at least one receiver configured to receive point cloud data for at least a portion of a site comprising warehouse infrastructure (Beniyama, page 3, lines 8 - 10 discloses a data extraction unit obtaining shape data of an area with regards to a warehouse.)
at least one site commissioning processor configured to perform at least the following (Beniyama, page 2, lines 28 - 31 discloses a computer used and includes a processor and at least one form of memory.)
select at least one of the warehouse infrastructure model types for at least a portion of the point cloud data for different sections of warehouse infrastructure (Beniyama, page 4, lines 16 - 21 discloses obtaining warehouse shape data from measurements using a sensor, and presented using point cloud data, with page 3, lines 34 - 41 adds the warehouse data includes CAD shelf data, shelf area data, as well as luggage installation area inside the warehouse.)
wherein the least one warehouse infrastructure model type includes an aisle rack model (Beniyama, page 3, lines 34 - 36 discloses shelf CAD data indicating shape and sizes of shelves in a warehouse, and page 5, lines 35 - 38 adds input shelf data, including CAD shelf data obtained from data associated with the shape of a warehouse.)
The CAD shelf data from data related to the shape of a warehouse is interpreted as performing the same function as an aisle rack model included in warehouse infrastructure model, with interpretation of a shelf CAD data as a type of rack model, based on the definition of a rack in paragraph [0042] of the original specification.
wherein the at least one warehouse infrastructure model type is selected for the portion of the point cloud data by detecting a graphical overlay of a graphical element of one of the received infrastructure model types to a display of the point cloud (Beniyama, page 4, lines 25 - 28 discloses the whole shape data regarding a shelf area is obtained when warehouse shape data is superimposed on CAD shelf data and an area of the superimpose shows a match, with page 4, line 20 adds the shape data is presented using point cloud data.)
construct a representation of an aisle rack in the warehouse using the received point cloud data for the aisle rack and the selected at least one warehouse infrastructure model types by graphically overlaying the at least one aisle rack model onto the point cloud data representing an aisle rack in order to construct an accurate representation of the aisle rack (Beniyama, page 9, lines 4 - 9 discloses using the warehouse shape data to generate a plan view of the warehouse, in which the location of shelves are obtained and the shelves are provided on the plan view, including location and orientation of the shelf. In addition, page 4, lines 33 - 38 adds the shelf area shape data obtained from the warehouse shape data, with the matching process unit using coordinates of the shelf area warehouse and the shelf area data, which also includes CAD shelf data.
FIG. 6 shows the shape area data as element 204, obtained by the matching of the CAD shelf data 202, interpreted to representing a shelf, and the warehouse shape data 201 interpreted to represent a plurality of shelves.
As per claim 11, Beniyama discloses:
a method of constructing a representation of an aisle rack in a warehouse using a site commissioning tool configured to operate with a plurality of warehouse infrastructure model types for the aisle rack the method comprising receiving, by the site commissioning tool, point cloud data for the aisle rack and at least one of the warehouse infrastructure model types for at least a portion of the point cloud data (Beniyama, page 3, lines 3 - 4 discloses a computer connected to a warehouse system, and page 4, lines 16 - 21 discloses obtaining warehouse shape data from measurements using a sensor, and presented using point cloud data.)
wherein the warehouse infrastructure model type is selected for the portion of the point cloud data by detecting overlay of a graphical element of one of the received infrastructure model types model types to a display of the point cloud (Beniyama, page 4, lines 25 - 28 discloses the whole shape data regarding a shelf area is obtained when warehouse shape data is superimposed on CAD shelf data and an area of the superimpose shows a match, with page 4, line 20 adds the shape data is presented using point cloud data.)
wherein the least one warehouse infrastructure model type includes an aisle rack model (Beniyama, page 3, lines 34 - 36 discloses shelf CAD data indicating shape and sizes of shelves in a warehouse, and page 5, lines 35 - 38 adds input shelf data, including CAD shelf data obtained from data associated with the shape of a warehouse.)
The CAD shelf data from data related to the shape of a warehouse is interpreted as performing the same function as an aisle rack model included in warehouse infrastructure model, with interpretation of a shelf CAD data as a type of rack model, based on the definition of a rack in paragraph [0042] of the original specification.
constructing a representation of the aisle rack in the warehouse using the received point cloud data for the aisle rack and the selected at least one warehouse infrastructure model types for the infrastructure of the site, by the graphical overlay of the received warehouse infrastructure model types onto the point cloud data for the aisle rack (Beniyama, page 9, lines 4 - 9 discloses using the warehouse shape data to generate a plan view of the warehouse, in which the location of shelves are obtained and the shelves are provided on the plan view, including location and orientation of the shelf. Page 3, lines 34 - 36 adds the warehouse shape data superimposed onto shelf CAD data, as shown in FIG. 6.)
wherein coordinates of the point cloud data are incorporated with the received warehouse infrastructure model types (Beniyama, page 4, lines 18 - 20 discloses shape data obtained from sensor measurements of a warehouse includes three-dimensional coordinate values, with page 4, line 20 adds the shape data is presented using point cloud data.)
For claim 2: The prior art of Beniyama discloses claim 2: The site commissioning tool of claim 1, wherein
point cloud data includes a plurality of points and includes location coordinates for each point in a coordinate system, and wherein the coordinate system is one of a two-dimensional and three-dimensional coordinate system (Beniyama, page 4, lines 18 - 20 discloses shape data obtained from sensor measurements of a warehouse includes three-dimensional coordinate values, with page 4, line 20 adds the shape data is presented using point cloud data, and page 9, lines 24 - 25 adds conversion of distance data into a coordinate system, represented as points in three-dimensional space .)
For claim 10: The prior art of Beniyama discloses claim 10: The site commissioning tool of claim 1, wherein
the at least one site commissioning processor outputs the aisle rack representation to at least one of a display and a storage device (Beniyama, page 2, lines 42 - 44 discloses a display device and a printer to provide output from the measurement system.)
As per claims 12 and 20, note the rejections of claims 2 and 10 above. The instant claim 12 and 20 recites substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claims 2 and 10, and are therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1), and further in view of Beinschob et al (“Semi-Automated Map Creation for Fast Deployment of AGC Fleets in Modern Logistics”), hereinafter “Beinschob”.
As per claim 3, the prior art of Beniyama discloses claim 3: The site commissioning tool of claim 1.
The prior art of Beniyama does not expressly disclose:
wherein the plurality of warehouse infrastructure model types comprise a bay model type selected for the portion of the point cloud data, and wherein the site commissioning tool is configured to operate with a plurality of bay model types.
Beinschob however discloses:
wherein the plurality of warehouse infrastructure model types comprise a bay model type selected for the portion of the point cloud data (Beinschob, page 283, right column, lines 9 - 15 discloses using point cloud to obtain a 3D map, page 286, left column, lines 44 - 63, thought right column, lines 1 - 4 discloses the generated 3D map, including walls and racks, with racks segmented into individual bays, with each bay having operational points. FIGS 7 and 13 each disclose a model of a rack, with FIG. 15 includes another rack based on point cloud, with each stacked rack interpreted as part of a bay.)
wherein the site commissioning tool is configured to operate with a plurality of bay model types (Beinschob, page 292, right column, lines 10 - 17 discloses the 3D map of the warehouse, with the operational point from bays used to indicate if the rack in the bay is being used (shown as “X” in FIG. 15).)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama with the bay and rack generated in a 3D map using point cloud and operational points to indicate usage of the bay and rack teaching of Beinschob. The motivation to do so would have been because Beinschob discloses the benefit of obtaining a point cloud of an industrial environment, obtaining a semantic map of the environment with main infrastructural elements stored together with size, position, and orientation information for a roadmap design (Beinschob, page 282, left column, lines 21 - 32), and using a semi-automated map creation that significantly speeds up installation procedure of mapped industrial elements, while also reducing overall labor costs (Beinschob, page 293, right column, lines 21 - 27).
As per claim 13, note the rejections of claim 3 above. The instant claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claim 13, and is therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1), and further in view of Eckman (U.S. Patent 10,242,273 B1), hereinafter “Eckman”.
As per claim 4, the prior art of Beniyama discloses claim 14: The site commissioning of claim 1,
The prior art of Beniyama does not expressly disclose:
wherein the plurality of warehouse infrastructure model types comprises one or more of a bay model, obstacle model, aisle rack model, bay opening model, automation interaction point model, point of egress model, and hazard model.
Eckman however discloses:
wherein the plurality of warehouse infrastructure model types comprise one or more of a bay model, obstacle model, aisle rack model, bay opening model, automation interaction point model, point of egress model, and hazard model (Eckman, column 3, lines 1 - 8 discloses objects modeled in a warehouse environment, including a pallets and racks, and column 5, lines 40 - 44 adds the spatial model of a warehouse environment, including objects in the warehouse, represented in a point cloud system, defined using coordinates.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama with the racks, pallets and other object in a warehouse as a spatial model represented in a point cloud teaching of Eckman. The motivation to do so would have been because Eckman discloses the benefit of verifying the proper location of an object delivered in its proper location in a warehouse, and can be re-directed if not (Eckman, column 2, lines 50 - 56), in which the proper location using the spatial model of the warehouse generated to track location of objects and vehicles (Eckman, column 3, lines 5 - 10).
For claim 8: The combination of Beniyama and Eckman discloses claim 8: The site commissioning tool of claim 1, wherein
the point cloud data provides location coordinates for infrastructure elements of the site (Eckman, column 5, lines 40 - 46 discloses warehouse objects in a spatial model with their locations provided with coordinates.)
and the aisle rack representation is constructed by matching locations of the warehouse infrastructure model types with the location coordinates for the infrastructure elements (Eckman, column 5, lines 43 - 48 discloses a coordinate system providing locations of objects in a warehouse represented in the spatial model.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama and the racks, pallets and other object in a warehouse as a spatial model represented in a point cloud teaching of Eckman with the additional teaching of coordinates to provide locations of objects in a warehouse represented by a spatial model, also found in Eckman. The motivation to do so would have been because Eckman discloses the benefit of verifying the proper location of an object delivered in its proper location in a warehouse, and can be re-directed if not (Eckman, column 2, lines 50 - 56), in which the proper location using the spatial model of the warehouse generated to track location of objects and vehicles (Eckman, column 3, lines 5 - 10).
For claim 9: The combination of Beniyama and Eckman discloses claim 9: The site commissioning tool of claim 1,
wherein the at least one site commissioning processor slices the point cloud data to generate point cloud data relevant to a portion of a site (Eckman, column 5, lines 40 - 42, in which the spatial model represented in a point cloud system, and column 6, lines 6 adds a section of the spatial model corresponding to the location of a particular area.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama and the racks, pallets and other object in a warehouse as a spatial model represented in a point cloud teaching of Eckman with the additional teaching of a spatial model corresponding to a location and represented in a point cloud system, also found in Eckman. The motivation to do so would have been because Eckman discloses the benefit of verifying the proper location of an object delivered in its proper location in a warehouse, and can be re-directed if not (Eckman, column 2, lines 50 - 56), in which the proper location using the spatial model of the warehouse generated to track location of objects and vehicles (Eckman, column 3, lines 5 - 10).
As per claims 14, 18, and 19, note the rejections of claims 4, 8, and 9 above. The instant claims 14, 18, and 19 recite substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claims 4, 8, and 9, and are therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
For claim 26: The combination of Beniyama and Eckman discloses claim 26: The site commissioning tool of claim 1, wherein
the site commissioning processor further appends the aisle rack model for use with automation systems (Eckman, col 2, ln 66 - 67 through col 3, ln 1 - 8 discloses a spatial model representing a warehouse environment with automated vehicles (“vehicles that are able to move of their own accord”) and objects representing racks in the environment and their location.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama and the racks, pallets and other object in a warehouse as a spatial model represented in a point cloud teaching of Eckman with the additional teaching of a warehouse environment with automated vehicles and racks in the environment, also found in Eckman. The motivation to do so would have been because Eckman discloses the benefit of verifying the proper location of an object delivered in its proper location in a warehouse, and can be re-directed if not (Eckman, column 2, lines 50 - 56), in which the proper location using the spatial model of the warehouse generated to track location of objects and vehicles (Eckman, column 3, lines 5 - 10).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1), and further in view of Govers et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0358201 A1), hereinafter “Govers”.
As per claim 21, the prior art of Beniyama discloses claim 21: The site commissioning tool of claim 1.
The prior art of Beniyama does not expressly disclose:
wherein the received point cloud data further comprises points for stored items that are not part of the warehouse infrastructure.
Govers however discloses:
wherein the received point cloud data further comprises points for stored items that are not part of the warehouse infrastructure (Govers, par [0102] discloses an infrastructure, including a warehouse infrastructure, and par [0120] adds point clouds representing objects in the environment, including objects discarded when determined not to be permanent objects in an environment.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama with the discarding of objects not permanent in an environment represented by point cloud data, including a warehouse infrastructure environment teaching of Govers. The motivation to do so would have been because Govers discloses the benefit of using point cloud data of an environment, including objects, to generate a map (Govers, par [0120]), and provide ability to remove the point cloud objects if the object is determined to be unnecessary or found to be mobile or not permanent to the object (Govers, par [0125]).
As per claim 23, note the rejections of claim 21 above. The instant claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1), and further in view of Goode et al (CA 2845776 A1), hereinafter “Goode”.
As per claim 22: The prior art of Beniyama discloses claim 22: The site commissioning tool of claim 1.
The prior art of Beniyama does not expressly disclose:
wherein the warehouse infrastructure comprises a rack face infrastructure, ceiling infrastructure, or combinations thereof.
Goode however discloses:
wherein the warehouse infrastructure comprises a rack face infrastructure, ceiling infrastructure, or combinations thereof (Goode, par [0058] discloses a warehouse including pallet racks, with par [0022] discloses racking including pallets on rack faces, and par [0058] adds aisle model matching a racking aisle row using map data, interpreted as providing a similar function as a rack face infrastructure as a warehouse structure.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves teaching of Beniyama with the rack faces in a warehouse, with an aisle model to match a racking aisle row teaching of Goode. The motivation to do would have been because Goode discloses the benefit of using an overview map of the area to identify the position of products in rows within a sub-area of an overview map of an environment (Goode, par [0057]), including identifying the type of row storing the object (racking aisle row based on matching the features of the aisle row to the aisle model (Goode, par [0058]).
As per claim 24, note the rejection of claim 22 above. The instant claim 24 recites substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
With regards to claim 1: The prior art of Beniyama et al (WO 2017175312 A1) discloses point cloud data to represent a warehouse and shelves, Beinschob et al (“Semi-Automated Map Creation for Fast Deployment of AGC Fleets in Modern Logistics”) discloses the bay and rack generated in a 3D map using point cloud and operational points to indicate usage of the bay and rack, Eckman (U.S. Patent 10,242,273 B1) discloses racks, pallets and other object in a warehouse as a spatial model represented in a point cloud, and coordinates to provide locations of objects in a warehouse represented by a spatial model, Govers et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0358201 A1) discloses discarding of objects not permanent in an environment represented by point cloud data, including a warehouse infrastructure environment, Goode et al (CA 2845776 A1) discloses rack faces in a warehouse, with an aisle model to match a racking aisle row.
In addition, Eckman et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2018/0300435 A1) “Eckman 2” discloses generating an automated warehouse model from a warehouse design, including obtaining parameters for components in the warehouse, including rack shelf and rack space, and automated components provided in the design of the warehouse, included storage racks, cranes, carts, pallets, and conveyors.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Beniyama, Beinschob, Eckman, Govers, Goode, and Eckman 2, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
For claim 25, wherein the site commissioning processor aligns a rack model with point cloud data using a control element providing the ability for adjustments, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention, with regards to overlaying the warehouse infrastructure model and spatial data of the warehouse in the form of point cloud data. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
October 1, 2025