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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 03/08/2023 (claimed foreign priority date 09/26/2022):
Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “input unit;” “output unit;” “determining unit;” “memory unit;” “first searching unit;” “second searching unit,” as claimed in claims 1-8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “input unit;” “output unit;” “determining unit;” “memory unit;” “first searching unit;” “second searching unit,” as described/specified in Para [0121, 0123, 0125, 0127, 0133] of the specification, at least as published. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “121” has been used to designate all “input unit;” “output unit;” “determining unit;” “memory unit;” “first searching unit;” “second searching unit,” as combination of other system elements/components, as described/specified in Para [0121, 0123, 0125, 0127, 0133] of the specification, at least as published.
4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is unclear and/or confusing to understand whether the specified, in Para [0121, 0123, 0125, 0127, 0133] of the specification, at least as published, “input unit;” “output unit;” “determining unit;” “memory unit;” “first searching unit;” “second searching unit” are individual hardware units, standing alone and able to operate independently, OR they are combinations of multiple hardware units connected/communicating between each other wirelessly or hardwired, as per introduction in the specification, such as, for example, “… an output unit (the dynamic optimization executing unit 121, the output device 150, the optimization result display unit 608, the communication device, a circuit, etc.),” as presented in Para [0127] of the specification, at least as published. Additionally, the claimed, in claims 1-8, “units” are not shown in the drawings, which renders the specification to be objected to. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step,” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “input unit;” “output unit;” “determining unit;” “memory unit;” “first searching unit;” “second searching unit” in claims 1-8.
Per fig. 1, Para [0110-0122] of the specification, at least as originally filed, the claimed “units” appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1.1 Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Particularly, the following method steps: “causing an input unit to input task group information indicating a task group including one or more tasks to be executed by an autonomous body and environmental information indicating an environment in which the task is executed;” “causing a determining unit to determine an order in which the autonomous body executes tasks included in a task group indicated by the task group information, based on the task group information and the environmental information that are input by the input unit;” “causing a memory unit to store order information indicating the order determined by the determining unit” are not described or supported in the specification, as originally filed, or as published. The specification is completely silent about how these method steps are being executed/performed/achieved/established/made. Clarification/more detail/description is required.
See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63).
See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx .
Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349) … . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
For the purpose of this examination, these method steps as well as entire claim 8 will be interpreted as the following:
8. A design execution method comprising:
inputting task group information indicating a task group including one or more tasks to be executed by an autonomous body and environmental information indicating an environment in which the task is executed;
determining an order in which the autonomous body executes tasks included in a task group indicated by the task group information, based on the task group information and the environmental information that are input
storing order information indicating the order determined
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1.1.1 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a design execution apparatus (i.e., machine, manufacture). Claim 8 is directed to design execution method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
8. A design execution method comprising:
causing an input unit to input task group information indicating a task group including one or more tasks to be executed by an autonomous body and environmental information indicating an environment in which the task is executed;
causing a determining unit to determine an order in which the autonomous body executes tasks included in a task group indicated by the task group information, based on the task group information and the environmental information that are input by the input unit; and
causing a memory unit to store order information indicating the order determined by the determining unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining;” “storing,” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data input/collected (from a library (i.e., task list, warehouse information indicating a state of a warehouse or the like, etc.) and forming a simple judgement, memorizing. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The claim limitations of "causing the unit(s)/execution apparatus to perform one or more tasks to be executed” is a mental process because it encompasses, at the very least, a decision/suggestion/willing (re: output) that is made based on task group information and the environmental information. The claim limitations are recited at such a high level of generality, that it encompasses a simple look up table or decision tree that would be capable of being practicably performed mentally. The claim limitation also comprises an additional element in that it can comprise merely inputting the result of the above mentioned mental step.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
8. A design execution method comprising:
causing an input unit to input task group information indicating a task group including one or more tasks to be executed by an autonomous body and environmental information indicating an environment in which the task is executed;
causing a determining unit to determine an order in which the autonomous body executes tasks included in a task group indicated by the task group information, based on the task group information and the environmental information that are input by the input unit; and
causing a memory unit to store order information indicating the order determined by the determining unit.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “inputting task group information,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer (design execution apparatus comprising units) to perform the process. In particular, the “inputting task group information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of inputting/gathering/collecting determining, storing step(s)), and amounts to mere pre solution inputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “design execution apparatus comprising units” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining, storing, causing steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a design execution apparatus comprising units to perform the determining, storing, causing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “inputting task group information,” the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “inputting task group information” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the design execution apparatus comprising units is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 2-7, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
1. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fosnight (US20210300664) in view of Lert (US20240029145).
As per claims 1 and 8, Fosnight discloses through the invention (see entire document) a design execution apparatus/method (fig. 1-2, 14, Para [0053, 0057, 0072] – teaching automated order fulfillment system/process flow for use in supply chains that fulfill orders for individual product items, e.g., eaches) comprising:
inputting task group information indicating a task group including one or more tasks to be executed by an autonomous body and environmental information indicating an environment in which the task is executed (Para [0053, 0057] – teaching fulfilled orders of/ordered multiple common eaches to be picked, on one of the autonomous mobile robots to a put location, for example an order tote that has a combination of different eaches that reflects a full or partially fulfilled order of ambient, chilled and frozen temperatures in ambient, chilled or frozen locations/storages);
determining an order in which the autonomous body executes tasks included in a task group indicated by the task group information, based on the task group information and the environmental information that are input (Para [0053-0057] – teaching, for the fulfilled orders, monitoring temperatures/dew points for robot/Bot Transitions Between Zones; tracking and managing robot/bots based on feedback from internal and external temperature sensors and humidity sensors on the bot; following exemplary rules while transitioning between temperature/dew point/condensation zones); and
storing order information indicating the order determined (fig. 14, Para [0072] – teaching dispatching order(s), e.g., transporting 824 the order tote(s) to cold storage, if the customer or recipient of the order is not ready 822, until the order is ready for pickup, which means that order information indicating the order determined has been stored/memorized).
Fosnight does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing storing order information indicating the order determined in memory.
However, Lert discloses these limitations/features through the invention, particularly in fig. 1, Para [0018-0020] – teaching database that stores other product information, such as scheduled pickup times, pending customer orders, historical sales data, current and seasonal velocity or other attributes associated with each product sold in or fulfilled from the retail self-service store 116.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Fosnight by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Lert, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to transport stored goods by mobile robots to a picking workstation or for automated fulfillment of online orders (see entire Lert document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 2, Fosnight further discloses through the invention (see entire document) searching for a first path through which an autonomous body travels, wherein when pieces of task group information for which an order has been determined and environmental information including information indicating use of a plurality of autonomous bodies are input the design execution apparatus searches for a path through which each of the autonomous bodies travels, based on pieces of order information corresponding respectively to the pieces of task group information, the environmental information (fig. 1-4, Para [0053-0057, 0072] – teaching autonomous robotic vehicles or robots 22, 24 as wholly or substantially identical and separated into specific robot types pacing and picking totes at/from different locations).
Fosnight does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing pieces of task group information that are stored in the memory.
However, Lert discloses these limitations/features through the invention, particularly in fig. 1, Para [0018-0020] – teaching database that stores other product information, such as scheduled pickup times, pending customer orders, historical sales data, current and seasonal velocity or other attributes associated with each product sold in or fulfilled from the retail self-service store 116.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Fosnight by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Lert, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to transport stored goods by mobile robots to a picking workstation or for automated fulfillment of online orders (see entire Lert document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 3, Fosnight further discloses through the invention (see entire document) changing an order in which a plurality of task groups indicated by the pieces of task group information are assigned respectively to the plurality of autonomous bodies, and searches for a path through which each of the autonomous bodies travels, using the changed order (fig. 12a, 29, Para [0053-0057, 0069, 0072, 0085, 0089] – teaching transporting tote(s) in accordance with changed required temperature(s), different changed tote insulating/insert materials, changed size of coolers, etc.).
As per claim 4, Fosnight further discloses through the invention (see entire document) outputting information on the first path (Para [0053, 0055, 0057, 0065, 0067, 0073] – teaching controlling/managing bot(s); controlling/monitoring temperature(s) while transporting eaches; controlling/managing transitions between temperature zone(s) while transporting eaches; monitoring the environmental state of the tote; bot(s) with RFID reader(s), wherein the Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that such a controlling/monitoring/managing is/are based on output information presented/displayed/provided to an automated or human workstation).
As per claim 5, Fosnight further discloses through the invention (see entire document) searching for a second path through which an autonomous body travels, wherein when pieces of task group information for which an order has been determined and environmental information including information indicating use of a plurality of autonomous bodies are input the design execution apparatus changes a parameter of the environmental information and searches for a path through which each of the autonomous bodies travels, based on pieces of order information corresponding respectively to the changed parameter, the pieces of task group information (fig. 1-4, Para [0053-0057, 0072] – teaching autonomous robotic vehicles or robots 22, 24 as wholly or substantially identical and separated into specific robot types pacing and picking totes at/from different locations, different temperature zone(s)).
Fosnight does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing pieces of task group information that are stored in the memory.
However, Lert discloses these limitations/features through the invention, particularly in fig. 1, Para [0018-0020] – teaching database that stores other product information, such as scheduled pickup times, pending customer orders, historical sales data, current and seasonal velocity or other attributes associated with each product sold in or fulfilled from the retail self-service store 116.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Fosnight by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Lert, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to transport stored goods by mobile robots to a picking workstation or for automated fulfillment of online orders (see entire Lert document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 6, Fosnight further discloses through the invention (see entire document) changing an order in which a plurality of task groups indicated by the pieces of task group information are assigned respectively to the plurality of autonomous bodies, and searches for a path through which each of the autonomous bodies travels, using the changed order (fig. 12a, 29, Para [0053-0057, 0069, 0072, 0085, 0089] – teaching transporting tote(s) in accordance with changed required temperature(s), different changed tote insulating/insert materials, changed size of coolers, etc.).
As per claim 7, Fosnight further discloses through the invention (see entire document) outputting information on the second path (Para [0053, 0055, 0057, 0065, 0067, 0073] – teaching controlling/managing bot(s); controlling/monitoring temperature(s) while transporting eaches; controlling/managing transitions between temperature zone(s) while transporting eaches; monitoring the environmental state of the tote; bot(s) with RFID reader(s), wherein the Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that such a controlling/monitoring/managing is/are based on output information presented/displayed/provided to an automated or human workstation).
.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Jung (US20140123299) – (see entire Jung document, particularly abstract – teaching computationally implemented methods and systems that include acquiring obscured data, said obscured data including property data regarding at least one property of one or more devices, wherein said obscured data has been obscured to avoid uniquely identifying the one or more devices, acquiring one or more services configured to be carried out on the one or more devices, said acquiring at least partly based on the acquired obscured data including the property data regarding at least one property of the one or more devices, and offering the one or more services in exchange for access to identifying data configured to uniquely identify the one or more devices associated with the property data. In addition to the foregoing, other aspects are described in the claims, drawings, and text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662