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 12/09/2025 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colucci, III et al. (“Colucci”)(US 10,242,333) in view of Garifi et al. (“Garifi”)(US 2023/0219761) and Dimino et al. (“Dimino”)(US 2024/0186931).
Colucci (fig. 1-12) teaches a pallet transport system and method for product intake, stocking, and retrieval, the system comprising:
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 20) a memory storing instructions (fig. 3 showing package management system 100 with inventory tracking including memory 360 and controller elements; col. 7-9); and
at least one processor (Id.) configured to execute the instructions for:
receiving a first user input corresponding to a group identification code (col. 7, ln. 25-36, col. 10, ln. 19-53 teaching that user input may include bar code reader or mobile device used to scan a shipping label and/or select a delivery route, wherein group identification code can be regarded as code related to geographic region related to delivery area/route/final destination of item—such as zip code or city block);
receiving a second user input corresponding to one or more tote identification codes to be loaded on a pallet (Id. teaching that user input may include selecting bins for transport);
assigning the one or more tote identification codes to a group corresponding to the group identification code (Id. wherein assigning step is regarded as associating bins to the delivery route/geographic group code after user selects delivery route);
assigning the group identification code to a location based on one or more items associated with the one or more tote identification codes (Id. wherein final destination of items within bins is used to assign group code to a location—such as staging locations for pallets shown in fig. 9; see also col. 17, ln. 8-col. 18 teaching that group code is associated with staging locations when preparing items for transport to final delivery destination, wherein bins may be stored in pallets in staging area);
(re: claim 2) wherein assigning the group identification code to a location comprises:
retrieving, from a network database storing information associated with the one or more items, item information and storage information (fig. 3 showing that information, such as item locations 330, container assignments 335 and package destinations 340 are stored on network element; col. 10 teaching that final destination of item can be used to categorize items into geographic code related to selected “Route”);
categorizing the one or more items into a common group based on one or more filtering rules (Id.);
(re: claim 3) wherein the instructions further comprise:
displaying a graphical user interface configured to receive user input for defining or adjusting the one or more filtering rules (fig. 5 showing “Route” selection; col. 11, ln. 60-col. 12 teaching use of mobile device with touch display that allows user to select “Route”, wherein the specific “Route” can be regarded as the filtering rule as it functions to categorize/filter items);
(re: claim 4) wherein the graphical user interface is configured to allow selective activation of the one or more filtering rules based on the user input (Id.);
(re: claim 9) wherein the pallet is retrievable from the location using at least one of the group identification code, any one of the one or more tote identification codes, or an item identification code of the one or more items (fig. 9 and also col. 17, ln. 8-col. 18 teaching that group code is associated with staging locations).
(re: claims 11-19) The computer-implemented method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Colucci as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 1) activating a conveyor to transport the pallet containing the one or more items;
determining, using a first sensor input from the weight sensor, a transportability of the pallet; and
causing a lift mechanism to transfer the pallet from the conveyor to a self-navigating platform;
preventing a movement of the conveyor until the pallet is loaded onto the self-navigating platform,
wherein the conveyor is locked using a mechanical lock configured to block the movement when engaged or using a software lock configured to deny a request to move the conveyor.
(re: claim 5) a clearance sensor configured to determine dimensions of the pallet, and wherein the instructions further comprise determining, using a second sensor input from the clearance sensor to further determine transportability of the pallet;
(re: claim 6) wherein using the clearance sensor to further determine transportability of the pallet comprises: comparing at least one of a width, a length, a height, a linear sum of the dimensions, a maximum of the dimensions, or a minimum of the dimensions against one or more constraints of the conveyor or the self-navigation platform;
(re: claims 7, 17) wherein the conveyor is locked using a mechanical lock configured to block the movement when engaged;
(re: claim 8) wherein the instructions further comprise:
reactivating the conveyor to return the pallet based on determining that the transportability of the pallet does not meet one or more requirements,
wherein the returned pallet is divided into a plurality of subgroups, each being associated with a subset of the one or more tote identification codes;
(re: claim 10) wherein the lift mechanism is configured to transfer the pallet between two or more different floors, wherein the two or more different floors are arranged vertically;
(re: certain elements of claim 20) activating the conveyor located on a first floor to transport the pallet containing the one or more items; and
using the lift mechanism to transfer the pallet from the conveyor to a self-navigating platform located on a second floor located above or below the first floor,
wherein the second floor is determined based on the assigned location.
Here, it is noted that Colucci (supra) already teaches that pallets are being temporarily held in a staging area for further transport and is merely silent on the transport elements.
Garifi teaches that conveyor, lift mechanisms and self-navigating platforms are common transport elements in an automated warehouse to ensure proper handling of the pallets that provide more efficient automated storage and retrieval tasks (fig. 1 showing transport elements including conveyor with moving platforms 154a and elevator 180 to lift pallets to upper levels; para. 82-84 teaching use of lift and platform elements to transport pallets from loading, re-work and storage areas in an automated fashion; see also fig. 2a, 2b and para. 85-88 teaching automated warehouse system can include conveyors, cranes, automated guided vehicles, etc. to ensure proper handling of pallets) and that it is well-known to integrate a variety of sensors—including weight and clearance, e.g., laser scanning, sensors--into a pallet transport system to optimize pallet transport within the warehouse (para. 8-9, 89-90 teaching use of laser scanning, temperature and weight sensors to determine that pallet meets proper size, alignment, weight and integrity constraints, wherein control algorithms reject pallets that do not meet particular criteria to optimize pallet management).
Dimino further teaches that it is well-known in the transport and conveying arts to integrate a software or mechanical lock in a conveying system to ensure proper loading/unloading of items onto the conveyor or to perform maintenance on the conveyor (para. 28-32, 63-68 teaching that motor drive system can be configured or programmed to intentionally stop the conveyor to ensure proper loading and that physical blocking mechanisms as well as a weight sensor to determine a transportability of an item are also well-known).
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., conveyor, lift, self-navigating platform elements, or software/mechanical conveyor locks) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). 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 Colucci for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above. As previously noted and as now expressly demonstrated, the feature of a software or mechanical lock to ensure proper loading/unloading of a conveyor element is a well-known and commonly implanted feature in the conveyor arts. Consequently, as Applicant has not advanced any additional arguments and 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
------
March 25, 2026