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 3/10/2026 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 § 102/103
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 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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jacobus et al. (“Jacobus”)(US 2018/0357601) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chilson (US 2009/0271058),
Jacobus (fig. 1-14) teaches a delivery assist system for use inside a delivery vehicle comprising:
(re: claims 1, 13 and certain elements of claims 10, 18-20) at least one support surface for supporting a pallet (fig. 3 and para. 90-91 teaching that standard lift truck comprising wheels and support surface/forks 25 can be configured with automation kit shown in fig. 8-9 that creates an automated delivery sled);
a plurality of wheels supporting the at least one support surface (Id.);
a motor configured to drive at least one of the plurality of wheels (Id. inherent in teaching of speed controls);
at least one processor (fig. 8-9 and para. 97-103 teaching controllers, such as 45 and 46, for managing automated sleds, wherein controller receives delivery requests and sends instructions);
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor cause the delivery assist system to:
a) locate a first pallet on the delivery vehicle (Id. wherein controller instructions include locating the pallet, e.g., a loading dock parking space, and engaging the pallet with the support surface and then moving said pallet to the identified storage location within the warehouse facility);
b) lift the first pallet on the at least one support surface (Id.); and
c) move the first pallet on the at least one support surface within the delivery vehicle (Id.);
(re: certain elements of claim 2) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the delivery assist system to, prior to operation a):
d) receive a current location; and
e) based upon the current location, determine that the first pallet on the delivery vehicle should be delivered (Id. teaching that controller analyzes source and destination locations to determine whether pallet should be delivered, wherein source and destination locations include a loading dock parking lot and pallet storage slots for a store/warehouse—thus it logically follows that determination is based on the delivery vehicle within said loading dock parking area);
(re: claim 3) further including an RFID reader, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the delivery assist system to: f) prior to operation c) read an RFID tag on the first pallet within the vehicle with the RFID reader (fig. 7 and para. 12, 33, 95, 98114 teaching that automated sled can integrate various readers—including RFID—to verify pallet identity/contents and that source destination can include loading dock parking lot);
(re: claim 4) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the delivery assist system to: g) prior to operation f), read an RFID on a second pallet with the RFID reader; and h) prior to operation f), based upon the current location, determine that the second pallet should not be delivered (para. 98 teaching that system controller determines whether to support request based on availability and location of items);
(re: claim 5) a GPS receiver for determining the current location, wherein the current location is received in operation d) from the GPS receiver (para. 122, 124 teaching that GPS units may be integrated into system to improve accuracy of automated sleds);
(re: claim 8) a lift mechanism for raising the at least one support surface relative to the plurality of wheels (fig. 3 showing lifting elements for forks/support surface; para. 91)
(re: claim 9) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the delivery assist system to:
d) receive a current location;
e) read an RFID tag on each of a first plurality of pallets including the first pallet;
f) based upon the current location and the RFID tags, determine that the first plurality of pallets should be delivered at the current location; and
g) based upon operation f), perform operations a) through c) on each of the first plurality of pallets (para. 90-95 teaching delivery determination based on location and RFID info).
Jacobus as set forth above teaches all that is claimed. However, under an alternate interpretation, the prior art may be regarded as not teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1-5, 8-9, 13) instructions that cause the delivery assist system to move the first pallet on the least one support surface within—or from—the delivery vehicle.
Here, it is noted that Jacobus already teaches using automated lift vehicles that transport pallets within existing warehouse and inventory systems—including a loading dock parking space—thus it logically follows that the delivery assist system engages with the pallet within a vehicle located in the loading dock parking space (para. 10, 12, 34, 38 teaching automated lift configured to sense pallets or load positions, read pallet identifications (e.g., RFID), and then plan from-to paths through a warehouse map that includes multiple warehouses).
Chilson further teaches that it is well-known to provide handling instructions/ features to an automated sled in various situations—including inside a delivery vehicle or at a lowered liftgate of a vehicle parked in loading dock—to increase the flexibility and to optimize use of the automated sled (Cf. fig. 2- 3, 16-17 showing lowered liftgate 86 and automated sled engaging pallet thereon or within delivery vehicle; para. 18, 19, 82-84, 88-98, 106-107 teaching use of sensors to map inside of delivery vehicle to allow automated sled to optimize loading of the pallet thereon and create a transport path).
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. 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 Jacobus for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 6, 7, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobus and Chilson (“Jacobus et al.”) as set forth above, and further in view of Skaaksrud et al. (“Skaaksrud”)(US 2019/0287063).
Jacobus et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 6 and certain elements of claim 18) wherein operation includes moving the first pallet onto a lift gate of the delivery vehicle;
(re: claim 7) wherein the instructions cause the delivery assist system to cause the lift gate to move to a lowered position;
(re: certain elements of claims 10, 20) said instructions include:
b) follow a primary delivery sled from a delivery vehicle to a delivery destination; and
c) lower the pallet onto a floor or ground at the delivery destination;
(re: claims 11, 14, 15) wherein the delivery destination is outside of a store or inside of a store;
(re: claim 12) a camera, wherein operation b) includes use the camera to follow the primary delivery sled;
(re: claim 17) wherein operation a) further includes: lift the pallet from a liftgate of the delivery vehicle;
(re: claim 16) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the delivery assist system to:
c) deliver the pallet to the delivery destination;
d) return to the delivery vehicle without the pallet; and
e) repeat operations a) through d) for each of a plurality of pallets;
(re: claim 21) wherein the delivery vehicle is a truck or trailer, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the delivery assist system to navigate within a storage area of the truck or trailer using at least one local navigation sensor to locate the first pallet;
(re: claim 22) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the delivery assist system to move the first pallet to a rear opening of the delivery vehicle for unloading;
(re: claim 23) a wireless communication circuit, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the delivery assist system to communicate with a liftgate controller of the delivery vehicle to lower a liftgate after moving the first pallet onto the liftgate;
(re: claim 24) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the delivery assist system to:
d) determine a delivery route of the delivery vehicle;
e) based upon the delivery route and a current location of the delivery vehicle, select the first pallet from a plurality of pallets in the delivery vehicle for delivery at the current location;
(re: claim 25) wherein the at least one support surface includes a pair of fork tines adjustable in spacing, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the delivery assist system to adjust the spacing of the fork tines based on a size of the first pallet while inside the delivery vehicle.
Here, it is noted that Jacobus already teaches that it is well-known to determine a delivery route and to integrate a robust guidance system, including GPS units and various sensors, to accurately guide the automated sleds on said route (fig. 7 and para. 122-133 teaching GPS units and various sensors provide accuracy to within 20cm; para. 98-101 teaching that controller determines a delivery route for the automated sled and that source and destination include loading docks and warehouse storage locations); to send the various load/unload/guidance instructions to a respective sled wirelessly (fig. 8 and 10 showing automated sleds configured to receive instructions wirelessly and para. 97 teaching mobile platform) and to repeat the loading and delivery steps until the controller determines that the mission is complete (para. 97-102 teaching loading at loading dock and unloading at warehouse lot and until mission plan is complete).
Chilson further teaches that it is well-known to include the inside of the delivery vehicle as well as the liftgate/rear opening to optimizing loading, i.e., balancing size and weights of loads within a transport, and when creating a transport path for an automated transport sled (supra and para. 78-82 teaching that “any known guidance system may be used to guide” the sled and deposit load in locations ranging from a front to an end wall of a transport, wherein shifting mechanism 22 assists in adjusting spacing of pair of forks when loading/unloading—based on the load size/weight).
Skaaksrud further teaches that it is well-known to send instructions related to a “follow mode” to allow automated sleds to follow a primary sled or a human courier to reduce a system load and increase productivity when delivering multiple pallets (para. 1068-1069 teaching use of sensors –such as multiple cameras—to enable a “follow mode” to allow manual guidance and fig. 60A-60B and para. 1111-1112 teaching that a group of automated sleds can be slaved together) and that automated sleds can be used to deliver pallets to a variety of locations—including a store (fig. 47A and para. 850-852 teaching use of automated carts to better manage inventory between central hub and stores).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references 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. 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 Jacobus et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, the rejection as set forth above establishes that it is well-known to use the inside of a vehicle as a routing destination and as a variable when planning warehouse operations. Consequently, as 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
------
April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights