DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the respective plurality of orders” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Independent Claim 1 contains limitations that recite the phrase “the orders” that lack a proper antecedent basis.
Independent Claim 1 contains limitations that recite the phrases “a number of packages”, “packages”, and “a package” that are confusing and lack consistency in the use of the term “packages” versus “package”.
Independent Claim 1 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “each package” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “respective ones” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 2 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “their respective routes” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “different ones” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 2 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “each robotic vehicle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 contains limitations that recite the phrase “each robotic vehicle” that lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “their respective robotic vehicle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “packages” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the robotic vehicle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “their respective routes” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “each package of the order” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the packages” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “each package of the order” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the aperture” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 contains the phrase “same items”. It is unclear if this “same items” refers to the same "same items" previously introduced in Claim 7. As a result, Claim 7 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “one another” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 8 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the aperture” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “one another” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Independent Claim 9 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “different ones” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Independent Claim 9 contains limitations that recite the phrase “the apertures” that lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the respective plurality of orders” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “different ones” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 10 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “…apertures of the packaging platform.” Should this phrase be written to read “…apertures on the packaging platform.”?
Claim 11 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the aperture” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 contains the phrase “selected packages”. It is unclear if this “selected packages” refers to the same "selected packages" previously introduced in Claim 11. As a result, Claim 11 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 11 contains the phrase “same items”. It is unclear if this “same items” refers to the same "same items" previously introduced in Claim 11. As a result, Claim 11 is rendered indefinite..
Claim 11 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “…apertures of the packaging platform.” Should this phrase be written to read “…apertures on the packaging platform.”?
Claim 11 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “one another” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 12 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “one another” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 14 contains limitations that recite the phrase “each robotic vehicle” that lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the respective robotic vehicle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the packages” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Independent Claim 16 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the respective plurality of orders” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Independent Claim 16 contains limitations that recite the phrase “the orders” that lack a proper antecedent basis.
Independent Claim 16 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “respective ones” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 16 contains the phrase “a package”. It is unclear if this “a package” refers to the same "a number of packages" previously introduced in Claim 16. As a result, Claim 16 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 17 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “each package” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “their respective routes” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “different ones” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 17 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 contains limitations that recite the phrase “each robotic vehicle” that lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the respective robotic vehicle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “items” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the packages” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “each package of the order” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “the aperture” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 contains the phrase “selected packages”. It is unclear if this “selected packages” refers to the same "selected packages" previously introduced in Claim 20. As a result, Claim 20 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 20 contains the phrase “same items”. It is unclear if this “same items” refers to the same "same items" previously introduced in Claim 20. As a result, Claim 20 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 20 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “apertures” that lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “…apertures of the packaging platform.” Should this phrase be written to read “…apertures on the packaging platform.”?
Claim 20 contains a limitation that recites the phrase “one another” that lacks specific clarity with respect to the phrase.
Claim 13 is rejected on the basis of depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0002205).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Zhu et al discloses the limitations of independent Claim 1 as follows:
A method, comprising:
determining, using computer hardware, a number of packages required to fulfill a plurality of orders based on items included in the respective plurality of orders; (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
assigning, using the computer hardware, packages of the plurality of orders to a plurality of apertures of a packaging platform; and (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders)
generating, using the computer hardware, routes for a plurality of robotic vehicles configured to carry items of the orders and traverse a surface of the packaging platform; (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 202(robotic vehicles), "transport paths"(routes), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
wherein the plurality of robotic vehicles, in traversing the routes, are configured to deposit the items of the orders into respective ones of the plurality of apertures assigned a package of the orders. (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
With respect to Claim 2, which depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 2, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
filling each package of the plurality of orders by the plurality of robotic vehicles autonomously traversing their respective routes and dropping items into different ones of the apertures corresponding to the packages. (See Pars. 0033, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items), "auto-navigating"(autonomously traversing)
With respect to Claim 3, which depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 3, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
each robotic vehicle carries a different item; and See Par.0039; Fig. 4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), "parcels"(items)
the route for each robotic vehicle defines a path on the packaging platform that visits apertures for the plurality of orders requiring items carried by the respective robotic vehicle. (See Pars.0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
With respect to Claim 4, which depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 4, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, the assigning, and the generating are performed concurrently for the plurality of orders such that packages of the plurality of orders are filled by the robotic vehicles traversing their respective routes concurrently. (See Par.0038; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items))
With respect to Claim 5, which depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 5, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of packages required to fulfill one or more of the plurality of orders is greater than one and wherein each package of the order is assigned to a different aperture. (See Pars.0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders)
With respect to Claim 7, which depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 7, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the assigning each package of the order to the aperture includes:
determining selected packages from the plurality of orders that include same items; and (See Par.0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
assigning selected packages that include same items to apertures of the packaging platform within a predetermined distance of one another. (See Par.0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
With respect to Independent Claim 9, Zhu et al discloses the limitations of independent Claim 9 as follows:
A system, comprising:
a packaging platform comprising a plurality of apertures; (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 103(packages)
a plurality of robotic vehicles configured to carry items, traverse a surface of the packaging platform, and deposit the items into different ones of the apertures according to a plurality of orders; and (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 102(apertures), 103(packages), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
a computer system in communication with the plurality of robotic vehicles and configured to generate routes for the plurality of robotic vehicles to traverse the surface of the packaging platform and deposit the items into the apertures. (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), "transport paths"(routes), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
With respect to Claim 10, which depends from independent Claim 9, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 10, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 9, wherein the computer system is configured to
determine a number of packages required to fulfill each order of the plurality of orders based on items included in the respective plurality of orders and (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
assign packages of the plurality of orders to different ones of the plurality of apertures of the packaging platform. (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders)
With respect to Claim 11, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 9, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 and Claim 10 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 11, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 10, wherein the assigning each package of the order to the aperture includes:
determining selected packages from the plurality of orders that include same items; and (See Par.0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
assigning selected packages that include same items to apertures of the packaging platform within a predetermined distance of one another. (See Par.0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
With respect to Claim 13, which depends from independent Claim 9, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 13, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of apertures are arranged in a grid. (See Fig. 4; Ref. Numeral 102(apertures)
With respect to Claim 14, which depends from independent Claim 9, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 14, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 9, wherein:
each robotic vehicle carries a different item; and See Par.0039; Fig. 4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), "parcels"(items)
the route for each robotic vehicle defines a path on the packaging platform that visits apertures for the plurality of orders requiring items carried by the respective robotic vehicle. (See Pars.0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
With respect to Independent Claim 16, Zhu et al discloses the limitations of independent Claim 16 as follows:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute operations including: (See Pars. 0019, 0067; Figs. 2, 3; Ref. Numeral 201(control system includes processors)
determining a number of packages required to fulfill a plurality of orders based on items included in the respective plurality of orders; (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
assigning packages of the plurality of orders to a plurality of apertures of a packaging platform; and (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders)
generating routes for a plurality of robotic vehicles configured to carry items of the orders and traverse a surface of the packaging platform; (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 202(robotic vehicles), "transport paths"(routes), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
wherein the plurality of robotic vehicles, in traversing the routes, are configured to deposit the items of the orders into respective ones of the plurality of apertures assigned a package of the orders. (See Pars. 0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "articles","parcels"(items)
With respect to Claim 17, which depends from independent Claim 16, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 16 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 17, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute operations including:
filling each package of the plurality of orders by the plurality of robotic vehicles autonomously traversing their respective routes and dropping items into different ones of the apertures corresponding to the packages. (See Pars. 0033, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items), "auto-navigating"(autonomously traversing)
With respect to Claim 18, which depends from independent Claim 16, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 16 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 18, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 16, wherein:
each robotic vehicle carries a different item; and See Par.0039; Fig. 4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), "parcels"(items)
the route for each robotic vehicle defines a path on the packaging platform that visits apertures for the plurality of orders requiring items carried by the respective robotic vehicle. (See Pars.0019, 0020, 0029, 0030, 0036-0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 100(packaging platform), 102(apertures), 202(robotic vehicles), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
With respect to Claim 20, which depends from independent Claim 16, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 16 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 20, Zhu et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 16, wherein the assigning each package of the order to the aperture includes:
determining selected packages from the plurality of orders that include same items; and (See Par.0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
assigning selected packages that include same items to apertures of the packaging platform within a predetermined distance of one another. (See Par.0039; Figs. 3,4; Ref. Numerals 202(robotic vehicles), 102(apertures), 103(packages), 201(computer hardware), "orders"(orders), "parcels"(items)
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove, in view of Gravelle et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0375590).
With respect to Claim 6, which depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 6, Zhu et al and Gravelle et al disclose as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a sequence in which items of the plurality of orders are to be deposited into the packages for the plurality of orders (See Gravelle et al: Pars. 0030, 0068, 0069; Figs. 7A-7H; Ref. Numerals "items"(items), "orders"(orders), "working station"(aperture), "order size"(attribute); Claim 16) based on one or more attributes of the items; (See Zhu et al: Par. 0034; "weight"(attribute)
wherein the routes for the plurality of robotic vehicles are determined based, at least in part, on the sequence in which the items of the plurality of orders are to be deposited into the packages. (See Gravelle et al: Pars. 0030, 0068, 0069; Figs. 7A-7H; Ref. Numerals "items"(items), "orders"(orders), "working station"(aperture), "order size"(attribute); Claim 16)
It 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, to modify Zhu et al with the teachings of Gravelle et al because having a process in place to determine a sequence for depositing items into a destination container will alleviate congestion should vehicles arrive at the drop off destination simultaneously. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gravelle et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (ie, having a sequence in place for drop off of items into a destination container) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 15 which depends from independent Claim 9, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9, which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 15, Zhu et al and Gravelle et al disclose as follows:
The system of claim 9, further comprising:
the computer system is configured to determine a sequence in which items of the plurality of orders are to be deposited into the packages for the plurality of orders (See Gravelle et al: Pars. 0030, 0068, 0069; Figs. 7A-7H; Ref. Numerals "items"(items), "orders"(orders), "working station"(aperture), "order size"(attribute); Claim 16) based on one or more attributes of the items; (See Zhu et al: Par. 0034; "weight"(attribute) and
the routes for the plurality of robotic vehicles are determined based, at least in part, on the sequence in which the items of the plurality of orders are to be deposited into the packages. (See Gravelle et al: Pars. 0030, 0068, 0069; Figs. 7A-7H; Ref. Numerals "items"(items), "orders"(orders), "working station"(aperture), "order size"(attribute); Claim 16)
It 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, to modify Zhu et al with the teachings of Gravelle et al because having a process in place to determine a sequence for depositing items into a destination container will alleviate congestion should vehicles arrive at the drop off destination simultaneously. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gravelle et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (ie, having a sequence in place for drop off of items into a destination container) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 19, which depends from independent Claim 16, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 16 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 19, Zhu et al and Gravelle et al disclose as follows:
The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute operations including:
determining a sequence in which items of the plurality of orders are to be deposited into the packages for the plurality of orders (See Gravelle et al: Pars. 0030, 0068, 0069; Figs. 7A-7H; Ref. Numerals "items"(items), "orders"(orders), "working station"(aperture), "order size"(attribute); Claim 16) based on one or more attributes of the items; (See Zhu et al: Par. 0034; "weight"(attribute)
wherein the routes for the plurality of robotic vehicles are determined based, at least in part, on the sequence in which the items of the plurality of orders are to be deposited into the packages. (See Gravelle et al: Pars. 0030, 0068, 0069; Figs. 7A-7H; Ref. Numerals "items"(items), "orders"(orders), "working station"(aperture), "order size"(attribute); Claim 16)
It 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, to modify Zhu et al with the teachings of Gravelle et al because having a process in place to determine a sequence for depositing items into a destination container will alleviate congestion should vehicles arrive at the drop off destination simultaneously. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gravelle et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (ie, having a sequence in place for drop off of items into a destination container) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove, in view of Lindbo et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0319590).
With respect to Claim 8, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 7 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 8, Lindbo et al discloses as follows:
The method of claim 7, wherein the selected packages are assigned to apertures adjacent to one another. (See Par. 0073; Fig. 6a; Ref. Numerals DT1,DT2(packages)
It 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, to modify Zhu et al with the teachings of Lindbo et al because destination containers positioned adjacent to one another to receive items to be deposited into packages with the same ultimate destination would result in more efficient delivery by the robotic delivery vehicles. Therefore, if the destination containers (ie, packages) are positioned adjacent to one another, it would be logical to position the apertures associated with the destination containers (ie, packages) to also be adjacent to one another to receive the items from the robotic delivery vehicles. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lindbo et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (ie, having robotic delivery vehicles deliver items to adjacent packages) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 12, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 9, Zhu et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 and Claim 11 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 12, Lindbo et al discloses as follows:
The system of claim 11, wherein the selected packages are assigned to apertures adjacent to one another. (See Par. 0073; Fig. 6a; Ref. Numerals DT1,DT2(packages)
It 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, to modify Zhu et al with the teachings of Lindbo et al because destination containers positioned adjacent to one another to receive items to be deposited into packages with the same ultimate destination would result in more efficient delivery by the robotic delivery vehicles. Therefore, if the destination containers (ie, packages) are positioned adjacent to one another, it would be logical to position the apertures associated with the destination containers (ie, packages) to also be adjacent to one another to receive the items from the robotic delivery vehicles. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lindbo et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (ie, having robotic delivery vehicles deliver items to adjacent packages) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Randazzo whose telephone number is 313-446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am to 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and between 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 October 14, 2025