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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igata et al. (US 20190227551 A1) in view of Villamar; Daniel Judge (US 9230236 B2)
In regards to claim 1, Igata teaches, A system for operating an object, the system comprising: (See abstract, The first autonomous mobile object includes a first controller that controls autonomous movement based on an operation command and a first carrying unit that carries the second autonomous mobile object.)
A plurality of autonomous driving platforms configured to perform autonomous driving; (See fig. 3, abstract, The first autonomous mobile object includes a first controller that controls autonomous movement based on an operation command and a first carrying unit that carries the second autonomous mobile object. Also see paragraph 39, a plurality of autonomous vehicles 100A, 100B, . . . 100n)
A plurality of objects configured to be loaded onto an upper portion of one of the plurality of autonomous driving platforms, unloaded from the upper portion of the one of the plurality of autonomous driving platforms, and equip a product; and (There is no clear metes and bounds defined on what constitutes “upper portion” of the autonomous driving platform. See fig. 3, abstract, The first autonomous mobile object includes a first controller that controls autonomous movement based on an operation command and a first carrying unit that carries the second autonomous mobile object, where “second autonomous mobile object” (e.g. robot in fig. 3) can be interpreted as claimed object. As shown in fig. 3 and paragraph 75, The autonomous vehicle 100 also has an automatically openable side door and an elevator for bringing the autonomous mobile robot 200 up and down. Also see fig. 4, paragraph 97, The autonomous mobile robot 200 further has a storage unit in the form of a storage compartment in which purchased merchandise is stored. Also see paragraph 49, a plurality of autonomous mobile robots 200.)
Igata teaches server apparatus 300 selecting particular autonomous vehicle 100 (paired with robot) based on location and product order as well as select one of the plurality of autonomous driving platforms, which performs the autonomous driving in the predetermined area, (paragraphs 13 and 99 and 114) however, does not specifically teach, a server configured to select one of the plurality of objects to provide the product…based on product purchase information… and select one of the plurality of autonomous driving platforms…based on … the selected object.
Villamar further teaches, a server configured to select one of the plurality of objects to provide the product…based on product purchase information…, and select one of the plurality of autonomous driving platforms…based on … the selected object. (See abstract, receiving, by a processing device, an order from a buyer. The order specifies one or more products to be delivered to the buyer and itinerary information. The processing device transmits the order to a placer robot. The placer robot positions the one or more products to a delivery vehicle. A carrier vehicle transports the delivery vehicle to a delivery destination based on the order. The carrier vehicle is driverless and lightweight and moves automatically…col. 1, lines 34-60, The processing device is configured to receive an order from a buyer and transmit the order to the placer robot. The order specifies one or more products to be delivered to the buyer and itinerary information. The placer robot is configured to position one or more products on the delivery vehicle based on the transmitted order. The carrier vehicle is configured to transport the at least one delivery vehicle with the one or more products based on the transmitted order. Also see col. 5, lines 4-5, The processing device 150 may include a server. Also see figs. 5-8, specific delivery vehicle is chosen based on particular order. ”Delivery vehicle” is being interpreted as claimed object. The delivery vehicle in Villamar is selected and assigned the specific products from the buyer’s order before any carrier vehicle is dispatched. Lastly see col. 9, line 35-50, When the products fulfilling the order are positioned to the delivery vehicle, the delivery vehicle may be attached to or positioned to a carrier vehicle. The carrier vehicle transports the products to the delivery destination at operation 408. Also see figs 8-9 and col. 10, line 55 thru col. 11, line 11, Villamar discloses a plurality of carrier vehicle types, an indoor carrier vehicle for transporting delivery vehicles through enclosed areas such as stores, and an outdoor carrier vehicle for transporting delivery vehicles on a platform to destination. The selection of which carrier vehicle to deploy is based on both the predetermined area (indoor store versus outdoor road destination) and the selected delivery vehicle being transported)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the server-side dispatch logic of Igata to further comprise sequential object-first, then platform selection architecture taught by Villamar because doing so would yield the advantage of ensuring that the autonomous mobile robot best suited for a given product type and delivery area is identified and tasked first, and that the autonomous vehicle dispatched is then specifically matched to transport that selected robot, thereby optimizing fleet resource allocation, reducing capability mismatches between robot and vehicle, and improving overall delivery efficiency across the predetermined service area.
In regards to claim 3, Igata-Villamar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to: transmit information on a destination for selling the product and information on the selected autonomous driving platform, to the selected object. (See paragraph 15, The command directed to the second autonomous mobile object may include information about the structure of a store to visit, an interior map of the store (indicating the locations of items of merchandise and checkouts etc), and information about merchandise to be purchased…paragraph 18, create the operation command based on a request by a user and to send the command to the first autonomous mobile object and the second autonomous mobile object…paragraph 44, the autonomous mobile robot 200 is designed mainly to move inside and outside stores. The autonomous vehicle 100 travels to a desired place and drops off the autonomous mobile robot 200 at that place, and then the autonomous mobile root 200 moves to a destination. Thus, the autonomous mobile robot 200 is enabled to do a task at a place where vehicles cannot enter (e.g. the interior of a store)…paragraph 44, the autonomous mobile robot 200 is enabled to do a task at a place where vehicles cannot enter (e.g. the interior of a store)…paragraph 46, The operation command is shared by the autonomous vehicle 100 and the autonomous mobile robot 200, and the task of “purchasing merchandise in the designated store and delivering the merchandise to a designated place” is carried out.)
In regards to claim 4, Igata-Villamar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to: transmit information on a position of the selected object to the selected autonomous driving platform. (See fig. 2, autonomous vehicle 100 and autonomous mobile robot 200 sharing communication via short distance communication unit 106 and 205. Also see paragraphs 72-74, 93, 128, The operation command is shared by the autonomous vehicle 100 and the autonomous mobile robot 200 using their short distance communication units 106 and 205, where the operation commands include position/path/travel/route information)
In regards to claim 9, Igata-Villamar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the selected object is configured to: provide to the user, inventory information and information on a position of the selected object. (See fig. 8)
Claim 11 and claim 1 are similar in scope, except claim 11 further recites, controlling to perform the autonomous driving, when the selected object and the selected autonomous driving platform is connected to each other. Igata teaches this limitation in at least fig. 7, paragraphs 72-74, 145, 148.
Rest of the limitation of claim 11 is similar to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igata et al. (US 20190227551 A1) in view of Villamar; Daniel Judge (US 9230236 B2), and further in view of CRONIN; John et al. (US 20180246513 A1)
In regards to claim 2, Igata- Villamar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to: obtain and learn the product purchase information, (See fig. 6, S11-S12, receiving delivery request and learning the product purchase information to create operation command) and select the at least one object, based on a result of the learning … information. (See fig. 6, S13, and associated paragraphs, particular object is indirectly selected with selection of autonomous vehicle in step 13. Also see paragraph 99, selection is based on position/location)
Igata- Villamar does not specifically teach, and select the at least one object, based on a result of the… weather information.
Cronin further teaches, and select the at least one object, based on a result of the… weather information. (See paragraph 22, Such a system may further enable more targeted marketing, as well as allow for greater flexibility in the locations in which products are marketed. A concessions robot for dispensing lemonade may be moved as needed, such that on a hot day, multiple robots may be servicing an area that is especially crowded or hot. When conditions change (e.g., the crowd disperses or the day grows cold), however, the concessions robot may be moved to a new service area or switched to dispensing a hot chocolate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Igata- Villamar to further comprise system taught by Cronin because efficient and effective utilization of resource (e.g. selection and usage of particular mobile robot) can be achieved through considering weather information, while also improving customer’s experience as well as their preference,
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claim 5 is that there were no prior arts available that discloses selected object [e.g. configured to be loaded/unloaded onto an upper portion of the autonomous driving platform…object capable of providing a product to be sold to a user] transmitting a connection or pairing request message to the selected autonomous driving platform when receiving the information on the selected autonomous driving platform from the server. While the term “object” itself appears broad, its parent claim has adequately provided the definition of the “object” being claimed [e.g. configured to be loaded/unloaded onto an upper portion of the autonomous driving platform…object capable of providing a product to be sold to a user]. Claims 6-7 are also allowed based on being dependent on allowable claim 5.
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claim 8 is that there were no prior arts available that discloses selected object [e.g. configured to be loaded/unloaded onto an upper portion of the autonomous driving platform…object capable of providing a product to be sold to a user] generating a path to the destination, when loaded onto an upper portion of the selected autonomous driving platform, and transmit, to the selected autonomous driving platform, a moving command based on the path. Most relevant prior art Igata (US 20190227551 A1) discloses a server generating a moving path to the destination (e.g. operation command, fig. 6, S12) and provides the operation command to the selected autonomous vehicle 100 which shares the data with the autonomous robot 200 inside the vehicle 100. Autonomous mobile robot (Igata fig. 4) does not appear to generate a path to the destination and instead, the path which is generated by a third-party is provided to the robot for use. Claim 10 is also allowed under similar rationale.
Claims 15-18, and 20 are similar in scope to claims 5-8 and 10, therefore, they are allowed under similar reason set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668