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 and Arguments
The amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19, 21 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US9829333B1 ("Calder").
Interview Summary
Examiner initiated an interview on 12/17/2025 with Applicant’s representative, Marianne Buckley. During the interview the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment to place the application in condition for allowance.
Allowable Subject Matter
The aforementioned proposed Examiner’s Amendment included the following limitation(s) added to the independent claim(s): “…detect a first condition associated with the first location, the first condition to affect a first pending task performance condition associated with performance of the first pending task by an autonomous vehicle, the first pending task performance condition including at least a performance efficiency of a robot type, the first condition including at least congestion at the first location…”. The prior art is silent on task performance efficiency of a robot type as described by the present application specification paragraph [0027]: “Some examples disclosed herein consider robot type and/or equipment type when assigning pending or uncompleted tasks. Some examples may account for differences in robots such as size, storage area capacity, etc. when assigning tasks. Some examples disclosed herein may choose to assign a task different than, for instance, a high priority task, to a particular robot if the robot could perform another task more efficiently based on the robot type (e.g., an autonomous robot having a forklift versus an autonomous robot having an arm to reach items on a shelf). Some examples disclosed herein consider other types of equipment (e.g., a manually operated forklift) when assigning tasks to robots.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1 and 9 recite a "memory", which can be interpreted as non-transitory waves. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 do not cure this deficiency and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 14, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200246972A1 ("Johnson", previously cited) in view of US9829333B1 ("Calder").
As per claims 1, 9, and 14 Johnson teaches:
An apparatus comprising: memory; machine readable machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to execute the machine readable machine-readable instructions to: identify a first pending task having a first priority level and a second pending task having a second priority level, the first priority level higher than the second priority level, the first pending task associated with a first location and the second pending task associated with a second location, the second location different than the first location, the first pending task different than the second pending task; detect a first condition associated with the first location, the first condition to affect a first pending task performance condition associated with performance of the first pending task by an autonomous vehicle, the first condition including congestion at the first location; detect a second condition associated with the second location, the second condition to affect a second task performance condition associated with performance of the second pending task by the autonomous vehicle; (Johnson at least [0009], abstract, [0057])
select the second pending task to be performed by the autonomous vehicle based on the first condition and the second condition; select the first pending task to be performed by the autonomous vehicle after performance of the second pending task based on the predicted change in the first condition; and cause the autonomous vehicle to travel to the second location to perform the second pending task at a first time and cause the autonomous vehicle to travel to the first location to perform the first pending task at a second time, the second time after the first time. (Johnson at least [0057])
Johnson does not disclose:
predict a change in the first condition over time;
Calder teaches the aforementioned limitations (Calder at least the abstract, col 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Calder with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve efficiency of robots performing tasks.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson additionally teaches:
the second condition includes a location of a product associated with the second pending task at the second location. (Johnson at least [0008]: “second pose location”)
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson additionally teaches:
the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to detect the first condition based on a location of one or more other autonomous vehicles relative to the first location, the one or more other autonomous vehicles different than the first autonomous vehicle. (Johnson at least [0049]: “popular consumer item may cause robots to converge on a common location”, [0055]: “metrics…number of other robots proximate…vehicles”)
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson additionally teaches:
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to detect the first condition based on a location of equipment relative to the first location, the equipment different than the first autonomous vehicle or the one or more other autonomous vehicles. (Johnson at least [0055])
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson additionally teaches:
the first pending task performance condition includes one or more of a duration of time for completion of the first pending task or a number of unplanned stops by the autonomous vehicle during travel to the first location. (Johnson at least [0057])
Regarding claim 8, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson additionally teaches:
the first pending task is assigned a first priority level and the second pending task is assigned a second priority level, the first priority level higher than the second priority level. (Johnson at least [0011]: “second task being a next highest priority task on the task list, proximity of the second task to the first task”)
As per claim 18, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above, Johnson additionally teaches:
the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to determine that the first condition will affect one or more of a duration of time for completion of the first task or a number of unplanned stops by the autonomous robot during travel to the first location. (Johnson at least [0057]: “considering such efficiency factors…travel time…dwell time…congested areas”)
As per claim 21, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above, Johnson additionally teaches:
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: prior to the identification of the first condition and the second condition, generate task assignment data indicating that the first autonomous robot is to perform the first pending task at the first time; and responsive to the identification of the first condition and the second condition, generate adjusted task assignment data, the adjusted task assignment data indicating that the first autonomous robot is to perform the second pending task at the first time and the first autonomous robot or the second autonomous robot is to perform the first pending task at the second time. (Johnson at least [0008]: “cause the autonomous robot to determine, from a task list assigned to the robot, a first pose location corresponding to a first task…receive…congestion information associated with the first pose location…select, responsive to the identification of the congested state, a second task from the task list”, [0056]: “adjust the order of the task list by skipping”).
Claim(s) 2, 10-11, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Calder in view of US20090099897A1 ("Ehrman", previously cited) .
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle, the first autonomous vehicle associated with a first vehicle type and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the first pending task to be performed by the first autonomous vehicle based on the first vehicle type relative to a second vehicle type associated with a second autonomous vehicle.
However, Ehrman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ehrman at least [0166]: "hierarchical question list…Table…associated with the vehicle type…that is valid for the associated vehicle type").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ehrman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to manage work requests in a fleet of varying types of autonomous vehicles (Ehrman abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the first autonomous robot to perform the second pending task at the first time based on a property of the first autonomous robot.
However, Ehrman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ehrman at least [0166]: "hierarchical question list…Table…associated with the vehicle type…that is valid for the associated vehicle type").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ehrman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to manage work requests in a fleet of varying types of autonomous vehicles (Ehrman abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
the autonomous robot is a first autonomous robot, the first autonomous robot associated with a first robot type and the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to select the second task to be performed by the first autonomous robot based on the first robot type relative to a second robot type associated with a second autonomous robot.
However, Ehrman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ehrman at least [0166]: "hierarchical question list…Table…associated with the vehicle type…that is valid for the associated vehicle type").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ehrman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to manage work requests in a fleet of varying types of autonomous vehicles (Ehrman abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
the property of the first autonomous robot includes vehicle type.
However, Ehrman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ehrman at least [0166]: "hierarchical question list…Table…associated with the vehicle type…that is valid for the associated vehicle type").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ehrman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to manage work requests in a fleet of varying types of autonomous vehicles (Ehrman abstract).
As per claim 16, Johnson in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Johnson further teaches:
the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to detect the first condition based on a location of one or more other autonomous robots relative to the first location, the one or more other autonomous robots different than the first autonomous robot.
(Johnson at least [0049]: “popular consumer item may cause robots to converge on a common location”, [0055]: “metrics…number of other robots proximate…vehicles”)
As per claim 17, Johnson in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Johnson further teaches:
the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to detect the first condition based on a location of equipment relative to the first location, the equipment to be manually operated. (Johnson at least [0055]: “human operator”, [0030]: “human…physically removing…shelf…tote”)
Claim(s) 7, 12-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Calder in view of US20200042019A1 ("Marczuk", previously cited) .
Regarding claim 7, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: identify a second autonomous vehicle to perform a third task, the third task associated with the first location; determine an expected time at which the first autonomous vehicle is to arrive at the first location; identify a time for the second autonomous vehicle to travel to the first location based on the expected time for the first autonomous vehicle; and cause the second autonomous vehicle to travel to the first location to perform the third task at the identified time.
Marczuk teaches the aforementioned limitations (Marczuk at least [0150-151]: “two or more autonomous vehicles are positioned at a similar location…similar destination location…provide different travel paths”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Marczuk with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the efficiency of an AV fleet (Marczuk [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
the first condition includes congestion due to a presence of one or more other autonomous robots in a travel path of the first autonomous robot or one or more equipment devices in the travel path, the equipment devices different than the first autonomous robot and the one or more other autonomous robots.
Marczuk teaches the aforementioned limitations (Marczuk at least [0088], [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Marczuk with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the efficiency of an AV fleet (Marczuk [0071]).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to identify the first condition by predicting a likelihood of congestion in the environment based on the presence of the one or more other autonomous robots.
Marczuk teaches the aforementioned limitations (Marczuk at least [0088], [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Marczuk with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the efficiency of an AV fleet (Marczuk [0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Johnson does not disclose:
the autonomous robot is a first autonomous robot, and the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: identify a second autonomous robot to perform a third task, the third task associated with the first location; determine an expected time at which the first autonomous robot is to arrive at the first location; identify a time for the second autonomous robot to travel to the first location based on the expected time for the first autonomous robot; and cause the second autonomous robot to travel to the first location to perform the third task at the identified time.
Marczuk teaches the aforementioned limitations (Marczuk at least [0150-151]: “two or more autonomous vehicles are positioned at a similar location…similar destination location…provide different travel paths”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with the aforementioned limitations taught by Marczuk with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the efficiency of an AV fleet (Marczuk [0071]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669