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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 12, 14, 17-20, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (“Brady”)(US 2022/0097966) in view of Durkee et al. (“Durkee”)(US 2020/0005229).
Brady (fig. 1-16) teaches a RFID enabled material handling system and method for an validating locations of load units comprising:
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 2, 12, 20) a warehouse management system (WMS) comprising a computer configured to control said material handling system (fig. 15, 16 showing control systems 1500, 1600; para. 67-69, 147-167 teaching various computer control system elements for managing robotic warehouse and transport elements--including processors, memory, program instructions and various data stores, wherein data stores maintain data related to robotic warehouse and barge/tote lift elements such as position/location data);
an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) comprising a storage rack having a plurality of rack levels defining a plurality of storage locations each configured to support a load unit containing one or more inventory items (fig. 1-3 and para. 26, 38-49 teaching multiple rack levels with storage locations)
wherein said ASRS further comprising
a shuttle operable to traverse an aisle of at least one of said plurality of rack levels of said storage rack (fig. 6 and 7 showing barge and mouse drive/shuttle units for traversing ASRS as well as storage rack shown in fig. 3; para. 45-48, 75; see also fig. 13A, 13B showing process steps 1306 and 1326 instructing mouse drive unit to move a tote to a specific block, floor and storage grid location using highway grids and/or elevators); and further comprising
an RFID reader disposed at said shuttle and in communication with said computer, wherein said RFID reader at said shuttle is configured to communicate information associated with a recognized RFID tag to said computer (see generally para. 70-77 teaching with para. 76 teaching RFID reader integrated into shuttle allows movement to various locations in ASRS based on RFID tags and a shuttle drive unit is connected to the control system cited above with “to send and/or receive commands, instructions, and/or data to control and coordinate operation of” the shuttle; see also para. 39-40, 44, 48, 66, 120, 121, 130-132 teaching that storage grid location on each level may be connected by a plurality of highway grids that enable movement of robotic drive units between respective storage locations); and
a plurality of additional (RFID) readers positioned proximate various portions of said ASRS, each additional RFID reader having a known location relative to said ASRS and said being in communication with said computer and configured to read and recognize RFID tags of load units that are present in the ASRS and in sufficient proximity to a respective one of said RFID readers, each of said additional RFID readers configured to communicate information associated with a recognized RFID tag to said computer (para. 67-68, 77, 108-110 teaching that identifiers, such as multiple RFID readers/tags, may be integrated into various locations of ASRS, such as on “the floors, docks, regions adjacent to barge loading/unloading stations, and/or regions adjacent to processing stations” as well as robotic units themselves so that control system may coordinate operations of drive units, wherein the “one or more imaging sensors may be associated with various positions or locations within the environment, such that imaging data captured by such imaging sensors may be processed to detect various robotic drive units and their respective locations, with or without reference to fiducial markers or identifiers associated with particular locations”); and
said computer operable to determine a location of a load unit relative to said ASRS (para. 108-110, 120-124, 130-132 teaching that control system scans and stores an identifier for each load unit as well as a location of said load unit within the ASRS, wherein control system determines location using markers distributed throughout the ASRS, such as RFID tags located at loading and processing stations, on each floor and/or at each storage grid location);
validating inventory in a warehouse, said validating comprising comparing the determined position of each load unit with a database of assigned load unit storage locations that includes an assigned storage location for at least some of the plurality of load units within the storage system (para. 99, 106, 109-116, 120-131 teaching that control system uses data from variety of sensor inputs, including scanners and RFID readers, to confirm that processes, such as loading/unloading, are completed; to update control system data accordingly and to monitor and verify location of load unit throughout system);
determining whether a determined location of a particular load unit matches an assigned storage location (Id.); and
if the determined location of a load unit does not match the assigned storage location for the particular load unit, updating the assigned storage location in the database for that particular load unit to the particular load unit’s determined location (Id. teaching verifying and updating);
(re: certain elements of claims 14, 17, 18) an RFID reader disposed at said shuttle and configured to read and recognize RFID tags that are stored at storage locations adjacent the aisle and/or supported at said shuttle, wherein said RFID reader at said shuttle is configured to communicate information associated with a recognized RFID tag to said computer (para. 67-68, 108-110 teaching that robotic drive unit may include RFID reader for detecting RFID tags placed at various locations throughout warehouse system—such as floors, docks, unloading/loading stations, or on a respective robotic drive unit);
(re: claim 23) wherein said RFID reader is disposed at said shuttle in a manner chosen from one of (i) fixed to a portion of said shuttle, (ii) moveably coupled to said shuttle, and (iii) selectively supported on said shuttle (Id. teaching that drive unit includes RFID reader thus reader can be regarded as “fixed to” or “selectively supported” on said unit);
(re: certain elements of claims 19, 25) a lift system operable to transport load units and/or the shuttle between levels of the storage rack (fig. 2 and para. 39 teaching elevator 231 to connect various levels of warehouse system);
wherein an RFID reader is positioned proximate said lift system for reading RFID tags transported by the lift (para. 68);
(re: certain elements of claim 26) a transportation system configured to transport load units to and from said ASRS, said transportation system comprising an RFID reader which is in communication with said computer and configured to read and recognize an RFID tag transported by said transportation system and said computer operable to determine a location of a load unit relative to at least one chosen from (i) said RFID reader of said transportation system and (ii) a known reference location within said material handling system (para. 65-68, 130-132 teaching that control system manages transport of carrier elements between loading/unloading stations and respective warehouse elements).
(re: claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 12, 14, 17-19) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Brady as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 12, 20, 25, 26) wherein said RFID tag is coupled to the load unit;
wherein said RFID reader of said shuttle is configured to read and recognize RFID tags of load units that are stored at storage locations adjacent the aisle of the ASRA, and
said computer operable to determine a location of a load unit relative to said ASRS utilizing information of the load unit's RFID tag;
(re: claim 10 and certain elements of claim 12) the WMS receiving any spatial and orientation information for each load unit RFID tag that is recognized from the RFID reader;
for every load unit RFID tag that is recognized, the WMS determining a global position of the respective load unit relative to a reference location within the storage system; and
storing the global position of each load unit in an inventory database of the WMS;
wherein as the shuttle traverses the aisle, the RFID reader on the shuttle attempting to read and recognize RFID tags of load units stored at a storage location adjacent to the aisle; and
wherein said determining a global position of the respective load unit comprises correlating the reference location of the shuttle with the spatial and orientation information of each load unit RFID tag that is recognized to determine a location of each respective load unit relative to the storage rack.
Durkee, however, expressly teaches that it is well-known in the automated warehouse arts to integrate RFID tags in the totes themselves to enable RFID readers located throughout system to continuously track inventory and that this data can be combined with global positioning data as part of a robust inventory tracking system (fig. 10 showing inventory tracking steps such as Step 1014 “Receive sensor data of a detected tote as it is moved through the rack system, and confirm retrieval and transport of the instructed tote”; fig. 4 and 5 showing shuttle traversing storage rack; para. 22-25, 33-40, 54 teaching that warehouse storage system can combine location data from various readers, such as GPS and RFID tag readers, in load unit tracking system, wherein multiple RFID tag readers can be placed throughout system including within shuttles and that totes can have RFID tags).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention.
The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found
- in the prior art itself as cited above;
- from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., RFID tags and readers) with no change in their respective functions; and
- in the nature of the problem being solved. In the instant case, the problem revolves around properly tracking load units throughout an ASRS. The prior art as cited above teaches that it is well-known in the warehouse/automated material handling arts to integrate RFID readers as well as tags throughout the ASRS to allow continuously tracking of warehouse elements—including shuttles, load units and the items therein—thus, it logically follows that one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the RFID readers in the shuttles of Brady as part of an inventory tracking system configured to verify load units as well as items therein as Durkee already teaches using the broad sensor system to “confirm retrieval and transport of totes”.
Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brady for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 5-7, 15-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Durkee (“Brady et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Wankhede (US 2016/0364786) and legal precedent.
Brady et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 5, 15) wherein the storage rack comprises rows perpendicular to the aisle and each row comprising at least one of said plurality of storage locations and
the shuttle comprises an extendable arm selectively operable to extend into a row to attempt to read an RFID tag of a load unit present in that row, wherein the RFID reader is coupled to a distal end of the extendable arm,
wherein said attempting to read and recognize an RFID tag of each load unit comprises the WMS stopping the shuttle along the aisle adjacent a row, extending the extendable arm toward that row such that the RFID reader is in close proximity to a load unit at a storage location within that row, and attempting to read and recognize the RFID tag on the load unit;
(re: claims 6, 16) wherein each row comprises a plurality of storage locations for storing load units and the extendable arm is operable to extend beyond a first load unit in a row which is the load unit closest to the aisle in order to attempt to read an RFID tag of another load unit at a storage location behind the first load unit;
(re: claim 7) wherein the RFID reader is selectively supported on and transportable on the shuttle, wherein the shuttle is operable to retrieve the RFID reader when required for auditing processes and the RFID reader is storable apart from the shuttle when auditing processes are not required;
(re: claim 24) wherein said RFID reader is selectively supported on said shuttle and contained within a load unit such that said RFID reader is readily retrievable, transportable, and
dispensable by said shuttle such that said shuttle is operable to dispense the load unit containing said RFID reader at a storage location within said ASRS.
Here, it is noted that Durkee as cited above already teaches that the shuttle system may include a robotic gripper as well as various sensor elements, but is merely silent on the exact placement of the RFID reader.
Wankhede further teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage and retrieval arts to integrate a robotic gripper with an RFID reader into the shuttle element to provide expanded capability with respect to identifying, retrieving and moving an item (fig. 2 showing gripper near 207 for loading items contained in racks shown in fig. 1, 4; para. 20-21 teaching that gripper can be configured based on specific loading environment and item types and that sensor data includes navigation information for more accurate positioning of shuttle).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the configuration of known elements, such as an RFID reader or RFID tags, that includes the placement and whether the element is selectively supported or readily retrievable can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement of known elements, or making known elements portable, integral, separable or adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the separating arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brady et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art lacks the claimed features of an RFID reader disposed in a shuttle and configured to read and recognize RFID tags of load units that are stored at storage locations adjacent the aisle. Applicant attempts to distinguish the prior art by arguing that the base reference (Brady) merely includes RFID readers in the shuttles to coordinate movement of the vehicles and that the secondary reference (Durkee) only includes an RFID reader on the shuttle to locate the shuttle itself and that RFID tag readers located throughout the aisle are the only RFID readers used to identify the totes. This line of reasoning is unconvincing and undermined by a reasonable review of the prior art. Indeed, Durkee is explicit in teaching that the inventory tracking system receives sensor data from the shuttles (i.e., unmanned vehicles) that includes “product locations”, wherein the shuttle includes an RFID tag reader (para. 22 teaching that “inventory tracking system 204 typically receives sensor data from one or more sensor systems 136 and the unmanned vehicles” and includes information such as “product locations”; para. 24 teaching “vehicle typically includes multiple vehicle sensor systems”…including “location detection systems (e.g., GPS, bar code readers, RFID tag readers, etc.”). Durkee teaches a robust inventory tracking system that uses multiple sensor systems to track product/tote locations throughout the system and it strains logic to argue that one with ordinary skill in the art would review the teachings of Durkee--teaching that RFID readers and tags can be placed throughout system—including the shuttle—and conclude that the RFID reader located on the shuttle is to be excluded from the inventory tracking system and is incapable of reading an RFID tag of a tote when Durkee expressly teaches that sensor data from the load unit can be used to confirm a tote location (para. 34, 35, 38 teaching that “a confirmation is received that the first unmanned vehicle has retrieved the tote”; see also para. 19, 20, 47 teaching that the sensor system includes a plurality of sensor system and central control circuit are “configured to detect at least totes as they are moved through the rack system, and confirm a retrieval and transport of the first tote” and para. 48 teaching that “sensor data is received to confirm that the product and/or tote carrying the product is placed into the intended storage cell. This can include communications from sensor systems at the storage cell, communications from the unmanned vehicle, communications from the tote, and/or other such sensor information.”). Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights