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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/9/2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaaksrud et al. (12,518,582), Yoshitake (US 2023/0236597 A1) and Scott et al. (US 2022/0024486 A1).
For claims 1, 8 and 15, Skaaksrud discloses a system, comprising: a memory for storing a computer program for transporting items from one location to another location; and a processor connected to said memory (Fig. 2-5), wherein said processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program comprising:
determine a movement path for transporting items using one or more of a plurality of mobile robots either individually or in cooperation with other mobile robots,
wherein each of said plurality of mobile robots has a conveyor belt configured to carry or move one or more items (Fig. 20C, col. 91, ln 40 – col. 92, ln 7, col. 143, ln 30-38, where the plurality of mobile robots has conveyor belts for moving items),
wherein each of said plurality of mobile robots is configured to connect with other mobile robots to create a continuous movement path whereby said conveyer belt on each of said connected mobile robots used to create said continuous movement path is activated to move an item in a same direction; obtaining a source location for a plurality of items to be picked; obtaining a target location to receive said plurality of items transported from said source location (Fig. 67-68, 69, col. 155, ln 1-36, col. 291, ln 21 – col. 292, ln 4, where multiple robots cooperatively transport items between locations);
transporting said plurality of items from said source location to said target location using an individual movement path, said continuous movement path or a combination of said individual movement path and said continuous movement path (Fig. 67-68, col. 220, ln 55 – col. 221, ln 35, where the robots transport the items from source location to destinations using combinations of movement paths); and
organizing one or more mobile robots of a plurality of available mobile robots to implement a first movement path to transport said plurality of items from said source location to said target location (Fig. 19, col. 80, ln 42 – col. 81, ln 37, col. 291, ln 21 – col. 292, ln 4, col. 308, ln 66 – col. 309, ln 15, where the multiple available robots cooperated into transporting items between locations by implementing movement paths).
Skaaksrud does not specifically disclose building and training a model to determine the movement paths, simulating mobile robots to transport the items, and identifying the first movement path using said trained model based on said simulations and historical times for movement of items using various movement paths. Yoshitake in the same field of the art discloses building and training a model to determine the movement paths, simulating mobile robots to transport the items, and identifying the first movement path using said trained model based on said simulations (Para. 0019, 0025, 0033, 0035, 0039, where robots movement paths are learned and simulated based on learned model) and
Scott in the same field of the art discloses using historical times for movement of items using various movement paths (Abstract, para. 0062, 0073, 0110, 0113, where the robots determine movement paths based on previously learned routes and paths). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Skaaksrud to build and train a model to determine the movement paths, simulating mobile robots to transport the items, and identifying the first movement path using said trained model based on said simulations and historical times for movement of items using various movement paths, as taught by Yoshitake and Scott to identify the optimal and efficient transport paths from past paths.
For claims 2, 9, and 16, Skaaksrud, as modified, discloses the system as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein said organizing of said one or more mobile robots of said plurality of available mobile robots involves connecting two or more mobile robots to create said continuous movement path (At least in Fig. 67-68).
For claims 3, 10, and 17, Skaaksrud, as modified, discloses the system as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein said organizing of said one or more mobile robots of said plurality of available mobile robots involves splitting an existing continuous movement path into individual movement paths (At least in Fig. 67-68 and their corresponding para, where the plurality of available mobile robots may move with its own movement paths to reach the source or delivery locations).
For claims 4, 11, and 18, Skaaksrud, as modified, discloses the system as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein said organizing of said one or more mobile robots of said plurality of available mobile robots involves utilizing a first continuous movement path connected with a second continuous movement path via an individual movement path (At least in Fig. 67-68 and their corresponding para, where the at least two available mobile robots may utilize their own movement paths continuously with other mobile robots and/or connect with other mobile robots forming continuous paths in order to transport the items).
For claims 5, 12, and 19, Skaaksrud, as modified, discloses the system as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein the program instructions of the computer program further comprise: continuously tracking item movement using said first movement path;
determining a current duration of time in transportation of said plurality of items using said first movement path; and determining an estimated amount of remining time to complete transportation of said plurality of items to said target location using said first movement path (At least in col. 163, ln 36-66, col. 166, ln 13-39, where the transportation operation is continuously being monitored during the movements of the paths and estimated time of arrival is determined).
For claims 7 and 14, Skaaksrud, as modified, discloses the method as recited in claims 1 and 8, wherein said source location and said target location are located within a warehouse (Col. 184, ln 1-47, col. 217, ln 33-67, col. 218, ln 52-63, where the system may be for various environment including warehouse).
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaaksrud et al. (12,518,582), Yoshitake (US 2023/0236597 A1) and Scott et al. (US 2022/0024486 A1) as applied to claims 5, 12 and 19 above, and further in view of High et al. (11,568,508).
For claims 6, 13 and 20, Skaaksrud, as modified, discloses the system as recited in claims 5, 12 and 19, but does not specifically disclose determining, using said trained model, if said first movement path still corresponds to a movement path with a shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location; identifying a second movement path using said trained model in response to determining that said first movement path no longer corresponds to said movement path with said shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location and in response to determining that said second movement path corresponds to said movement path with said shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location; and organizing one or more mobile robots of said plurality of available mobile robots to implement said second movement path to transport said plurality of items to said target location. High in the same field of the art discloses determining, using said trained model, if said first movement path still corresponds to a movement path with a shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location; identifying a second movement path using said trained model in response to determining that said first movement path no longer corresponds to said movement path with said shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location and in response to determining that said second movement path corresponds to said movement path with said shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location; and organizing one or more mobile robots of said plurality of available mobile robots to implement said second movement path to transport said plurality of items to said target location (Col. 16, ln 18-41, where alternate shortest time for transporting is determined when the original path encountered obstacle that affected the route to be no longer the shortest time for transport). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Skaaksrud to determining, using said trained model, if said first movement path still corresponds to a movement path with a shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location; identifying a second movement path using said trained model in response to determining that said first movement path no longer corresponds to said movement path with said shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location and in response to determining that said second movement path corresponds to said movement path with said shortest time for transporting said plurality of items to said target location; and organizing one or more mobile robots of said plurality of available mobile robots to implement said second movement path to transport said plurality of items to said target location, as taught by High to dynamically modify the movements and paths of the robot to improve the efficiency of transporting the items.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(11,231,706) Curlander et al. discloses a delivery robot system performing cooperative and route determination for operating mobile robots.
(US 2021/0395011 A1) Crawford, JR. et al. discloses an automated delivery system coordinate item delivery using mobile robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657