DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-2, 8, 11-14, 17, 21, 26, and 47-54 are pending in this application. Claims 3-7, 9-10, 15-16, 18-20, 22-25, and 27-46 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 8, 11-14, 17, 21, 26 and 47 were amended. Claims 48-54 are new.
We note that claims 2, 11-13, and 17, indicated as “currently amended”, have no markup such as strikethrough, underscore, or bracketed text indicating the amended matter, but since this information can be readily understood in comparison with the previous version of the claims, in the interest of compact prosecution we will proceed to examination on the merits.
Specification
4. 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 § 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 8, 11-14, 17, 21, 26 and 47-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea ( without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more because the additional elements fail to both integrate into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Moreover, all claimed computer-based features fail eligibility steps 2A and 2B in not advancing computer technology, nor do the claimed features advance any other technology or technical field.
The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below. Independent claim 1 is representative of all rejected claims and will be considered as an exemplar for these claims.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry, the method for responding to a managing one or more warehouses of claim 1 is ostensibly directed to an eligible category of subject matter, i.e. a process. Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and a method of organizing human activity.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. In this case, the invention is primarily concerned with “mental processes” and also “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Analysis of the further limitations of claim 1 follows:
the method comprising: obtaining information about multiple tasks completion agents (TCAs) of the one or more warehouses,Gathering information is a mental process.
wherein each TCA is configured to execute at least a task related to fulfillments of an order to obtain an item stored in the one or more warehouses, wherein the multiple TCAs comprises at least one type of TCAs differing from each other by capabilities with respect to one or more task related properties; wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;These limitations are of entities about which information is to be gathered. None of the information to be collected goes beyond the mental process a human subject could perform.
receiving multiple orders to obtain multiple items stored in the one or more warehouses;This is more information gathering, and again is routinely within the scope of human process.
scheduling an execution of tasks related to the provision of the multiple items; wherein the scheduling comprises (i) allocating at least some of the multiple TCAs to execute tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Scheduling is a mental process, and where the scheduling pertains to human TCAs, it is a method of human organization.
wherein the allocating is based, at least in part, on task related properties of the at least some of the multiple TCAs and on spatial relationships between the multiple items and the TCAs;The determination of task related properties and spatial relationships of this limitation is a mental process with no claimed features that exceed human capabilities.
and (ii) controlling the execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items.This is the only limitation that pertains to the actual activity of TCAs, at least some of which are robots. The robots, however, are abstract machines, with no claimed structural or functional features. Moreover, no details regarding the method of controlling TCA execution or the method of execution by the TCAs are claimed or disclosed, and so these steps are abstract in themselves.
All these limitations are within the scope of human capabilities. No special hardware or other inventive structures appears in these claims apart from some abstract robots that are merely black boxes in this claim. To the extent any computer system is implied by the limitations, per MPEP 2106.05(a) the invention does not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” nor does it improve “any other technology or technical field.“ In particular, the courts have indicated that the mere automation of manual processes does not constitute an improvement in computer functionality (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), second paragraph iii).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to control of abstract “Task Completion Agents”. This could have been done even in ancient times by a warehouse foreman or manager. No particular machine is claimed apart from black box robots (subtypes of TCA) that are considered to be on a par with human workers who are also TCAs, nor is the means of control or communication specified (though that alone would likely not repair the failure to integrate to a practical application). These elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, “and (ii) controlling the execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items”, is an abstract process of communication which also fails to add “significantly more” than the judicial exception. These elements have been considered, but add nothing more to what is essentially an act of mental process and human organization.
Independent claim 47 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim and independent claim 49 is a system claim; both claims parallel method claim 1 and recite limitations of similar scope. Both claims are found to be similarly directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. While claim 47 discloses a computer in the context of its non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, this computer is generic and does not advance any technological art.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 11-14, 17, 21, 26, 48, and 49-54 have been fully considered as well. The dependent claims add no inventive material substantially different from the analysis associated with claim 1; rather, they merely elaborate the method of the independent claims with more details, none of which add significant elements that transcend what are essentially mental processes and human organization. There is no indication that the combinations of elements in these claims improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
6. Claims 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 49 recites: “the system comprising: multiple tasks completion agents (TCAs) … wherein the multiple TCAs comprises at least one type of TCAs differing from each other by capabilities with respect to one or more task related properties; wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans”. (Elisions (…) and boldface emphasis provided for clarity.) A patentable machine or system cannot comprise humans according to the prohibition of “encompassing a human organism” quoted in the AIA above.
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.
7. Claims 1-2, 11-14, 17, 21, 26, 47, and 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kattepur, et al., US 2019/0049975 (hereinafter Kattepur) in view of Mason, et al., US 2016/0132059 (hereinafter Mason).
8. Regarding claim 1,
Kattepur discloses:
A method for managing one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses a warehouse method in [0009].
the method comprising: obtaining information about multiple tasks completion agents (TCAs) (agents 102,104,106: fig. 1A) of the one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses acquiring information about robotic agents in [0007]-[0009].
wherein each TCA is configured to execute at least a task related to fulfillments of an order to obtain an item stored in the one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses warehouse tasks in [0007] and task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the multiple TCAs comprises at least one type of TCAs differing from each other by capabilities with respect to one or more task related properties;Kattepur discloses robotic agents with different task-related properties such as load capacity in [0032].
receiving multiple orders to obtain multiple items stored in the one or more warehouses;Kattepur discloses batching multiple orders with multiple required products in [0033].
scheduling an execution of tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Kattepur discloses task planning and decomposition in [0007]-[0009] and queuing (scheduling) tasks in [0033]. Kattepur discloses task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the scheduling comprises (i) allocating at least some of the multiple TCAs to execute tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Kattepur discloses allocation of agents in step 5 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the allocating is based, at least in part, on task related properties of the at least some of the multiple TCAs and on spatial relationships between the multiple items and the TCAs;Kattepur discloses the allocation is based on “distributed optimization” in step 5 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078]. This optimization procedure is further disclosed in great detail in a sample scenario in [0083]-[0090] and figs. 5-7 where such agent qualities as load-bearing capacity, product weight, and robot utilization are taken into account. Kattepur discloses proximity considerations (“spatial relationships”) for robots and items in [0032].
and (ii) controlling the execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items.Kattepur discloses task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
However, Kattepur does not disclose:
wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;All Kattepur’s agents are autonomous robots.
Mason, an invention in the field of warehouse robotic fleet management, teaches:
wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;Mason teaches in [0002] that human operators may be acting in its warehouse to perform tasks and that human operators may also directly control robots. In combination with Kattepur, the information regarding such human workers and human-controlled robots would be on a par and of a kind with Kattepur’s disclosed information regarding autonomous robots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kattepur, wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans, as taught by Mason, because even when most order fulfillment tasks can be performed automatically, there will always be extraordinary order fulfillment tasks that require human intervention. Moreover, it is commonplace in the art to combine tasks associated with order fulfillment such as container or pallet picking from storage that are easy to automate using robots with other tasks such as customer order assembly at workstations using items individually picked from containers that are more often performed either by humans or by humans with machine assistance.
9. Regarding claim 2,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the one or more task related properties comprise at least one of: a reach zone of the TCAs, a load carrying capacity of the TCAs or a progress velocity of the TCAs.Kattepur discloses robotic agents with the task-related property load capacity in [0032].
10. Regarding claim 11,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein at least one TCA of the at least some of the TCAs is an autonomous robot, and wherein the controlling of the execution of the tasks comprises sending to the autonomous robot an instruction to complete a task, avoiding from guiding the autonomous robot during a completion of the task and waiting to receive a completion report from the autonomous robot.Kattepur discloses this method in steps 5 and 9-11 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078]. Step 10 in particular discloses the claimed completion report. We hold that the nature of an autonomous robot is such (based on the common understanding of the word “autonomous”) that it is unnecessary to explicitly disclose refraining from guiding it during the execution of its task.
11. Regarding claim 12,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein at least one TCA of the at least some of the TCAs is an non-autonomous robot, and wherein the controlling of the execution of the tasks comprises sending to the non-autonomous robot an instruction to complete a task; and guiding the non-autonomous robot to complete the task.Given Kattepur’s disclosure of a method for assigning tasks to autonomous robots in steps 5 and 9-11 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078], in combination with Mason, we incorporate Mason’s teaching of human-controlled robots in its paragraph [0002]. Humans must necessarily guide human-controlled (as opposed to autonomous) robots in the course of the performance of their tasks. This guidance must necessarily involve sending a series of instructions to the robot.
12. Regarding claim 13,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the scheduling of the execution of tasks comprises at least one of (i) prioritizing orders based on due dates of the orders; (ii) minimizing an effort related to the execution of the tasks; (iii) optimizing the execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items or (iv) allocating path route segments within the one or more warehouses to an execution of the tasks.Kattepur discloses task optimization in great detail throughout its specification, but introduces its approach in [0027]-[0028]. Kattepur also discloses minimizing effort in the form of minimizing energy usage in [0052].
13. Regarding claim 14,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the controlling of the execution of the tasks comprises at least one of (i) monitoring an execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items or (ii) changing the allocation.Kattepur discloses in step 10 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078] that its coordinator receives reports of robotic task completion. This constitutes monitoring the execution of a task.
14. Regarding claim 17,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the controlling of the execution of the tasks comprises at least one of (i) monitoring an execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items or (ii) changing the allocation.Kattepur discloses its method allocates tasks to robotic agents based on item accessibility (closeness of the robot to the shelves) in [0031] and also discloses in [0031] that inventory is monitored, which determines whether an item is available. Kattepur also discloses in [0090]-[0091] circumstances that can lead to the reallocation of a robotic agent.
15. Regarding claim 21,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein the changing of the allocation is performed in response to an occurrence of a fault in a TCA.Kattepur discloses fault detection and reallocation of robotic agents in response in [0090]-[0091].
16. Regarding claim 26,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the tasks related to fulfillments of an order comprise at least one out of unloading trucks, depalletizing, storing pallets, moving pallets, storing boxes, moving boxes, picking items, cycle counting, replenishing, packing, shipping, folding and or conveying.Kattepur discloses picking agents (i.e. for picking items) and delivery agents (i.e. for moving items or containers) in [0049]. Of course, all the claimed tasks are routine in a wide variety of robot-staffed warehouses long known to the art.
17. Regarding claim 47,
Kattepur discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by a computerized system causes the computerized system to manage one or more warehouses, Kattepur discloses the warehouse method and the corresponding non-transitory memory in [0009].
by: obtaining information about multiple tasks completion agents (TCAs) (agents 102,104,106: fig. 1A) of the one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses acquiring information about robotic agents in [0007].
wherein a TCA is configured to execute a task related to fulfillments of an order to obtain an item stored in one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses warehouse tasks in [0007] and task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the multiple TCAs comprise at least one type of TCAs differing from each other by capabilities with respect to one or more task related properties,Kattepur discloses robotic agents with different task-related properties such as load capacity in [0032].
receiving multiple orders to obtain multiple items stored in the one or more warehouses;Kattepur discloses batching multiple orders with multiple required products in [0033].
scheduling an execution of tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Kattepur discloses task planning and decomposition in [0007]-[0009] and queuing (scheduling) tasks in [0033]. Kattepur discloses task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the scheduling comprises (i) allocating at least some of the multiple TCAs to execute tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Kattepur discloses allocation of agents in step 5 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the allocating is based, at least in part, on task related properties of the at least some of the multiple TCAs and on spatial relationships between the multiple items and the TCAs;Kattepur discloses the allocation is based on “distributed optimization” in step 5 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078]. This optimization procedure is further disclosed in great detail in a sample scenario in [0083]-[0090] and figs. 5-7 where such agent qualities as load-bearing capacity, product weight, and robot utilization are taken into account. Kattepur discloses proximity considerations (“spatial relationships”) for robots and items in [0032].
and (ii) controlling the execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items.Kattepur discloses task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
However, Kattepur does not disclose:
wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;All Kattepur’s agents are autonomous robots.
Mason, an invention in the field of warehouse robotic fleet management, teaches:
wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;Mason teaches in [0002] that human operators may be acting in its warehouse to perform tasks and that human operators may also directly control robots. In combination with Kattepur, the information regarding such human workers and human-controlled robots would be on a par and of a kind with Kattepur’s disclosed information regarding autonomous robots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kattepur, wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans, as taught by Mason, because even when most order fulfillment tasks can be performed automatically, there will always be extraordinary order fulfillment tasks that require human intervention. Moreover, it is commonplace in the art to combine tasks associated with order fulfillment such as container or pallet picking from storage that are easy to automate using robots with other tasks such as customer order assembly at workstations using items individually picked from containers that are more often performed either by humans or by humans with machine assistance.
18. Regarding claim 49,
Kattepur discloses:
A system for managing one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses its warehouse system in [0031] as 100 and [0037] as 202.
the system comprising: multiple tasks completion agents (TCAs) (agents 102,104,106: fig. 1A),
wherein each TCA is configured to execute a task related to fulfillments of an order to obtain an item stored in the one or more warehouses of the one or more warehouses,Kattepur discloses warehouse tasks in [0007] and task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the multiple TCAs comprises at least one type of TCAs differing from each other by capabilities with respect to one or more task related properties;Kattepur discloses robotic agents with different task-related properties such as load capacity in [0032].
a controller being configured and operable to (i) obtain information about said multiple TCAs;Kattepur discloses a coordinating agent and an associated computer obtaining robotic agent information in [0007]-[0009].
(ii) receive multiple orders to obtain multiple items stored in the one or more warehouses;Kattepur discloses batching multiple orders with multiple required products in [0033].
(iii) scheduling an execution of tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Kattepur discloses task planning and decomposition in [0007]-[0009] and queuing (scheduling) tasks in [0033]. Kattepur discloses task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the scheduling comprises (i) allocating at least some of the multiple TCAs to execute tasks related to the provision of the multiple items;Kattepur discloses allocation of agents in step 5 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
wherein the allocating is based, at least in part, on task related properties of the at least some of the multiple TCAs and on spatial relationships between the multiple items and the TCAs;Kattepur discloses the allocation is based on “distributed optimization” in step 5 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078]. This optimization procedure is further disclosed in great detail in a sample scenario in [0083]-[0090] and figs. 5-7 where such agent qualities as load-bearing capacity, product weight, and robot utilization are taken into account. Kattepur discloses proximity considerations (“spatial relationships”) for robots and items in [0032].
and (ii) controlling the execution of the tasks related to the provision of the multiple items.Kattepur discloses task completion (execution) as part of its general algorithm in step 9 of table “Algorithm 1” between [0077] and [0078].
However, Kattepur does not disclose:
wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;All Kattepur’s agents are autonomous robots.
Mason, an invention in the field of warehouse robotic fleet management, teaches:
wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans;Mason teaches in [0002] that human operators may be acting in its warehouse to perform tasks and that human operators may also directly control robots. In combination with Kattepur, the information regarding such human workers and human-controlled robots would be on a par and of a kind with Kattepur’s disclosed information regarding autonomous robots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kattepur, wherein each type of TCAs comprises: (i) one or more autonomous robots, (ii) one or more human controlled robots and (iii) one or more humans, as taught by Mason, because even when most order fulfillment tasks can be performed automatically, there will always be extraordinary order fulfillment tasks that require human intervention. Moreover, it is commonplace in the art to combine tasks associated with order fulfillment such as container or pallet picking from storage that are easy to automate using robots with other tasks such as customer order assembly at workstations using items individually picked from containers that are more often performed either by humans or by humans with machine assistance.
19. Regarding claim 50,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 49 and also:
wherein the TCAs comprise robots (Mason, 112, 114, 116, 122: fig. 1A) of different types.Mason teaches a wide variety of types of cooperating robots in its fig. 1A.
20. Regarding claim 51,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 49 and also:
wherein the TCAs comprise at least one of one or more drones, one or more ground-propagating robots or one or more static robots. Mason teaches both wheeled and tracked (“ground-propagating”) and static robots in fig. 1A.
21. Regarding claim 52,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 49 and also:
wherein the one or more task related properties comprise at least one of a reach zone of the TCAs, a load carrying capacity of the TCAs or a progress velocity of the TCAs.Kattepur discloses robotic agents with different task-related properties such as load capacity in [0032].
22. Regarding claim 53,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 49 and also:
wherein said controller comprises a centralized computerized system being configured and operable to executing the scheduling and the controlling of the execution of tasks.Kattepur discloses a central “coordinating agent” and associated computer in [0007]-[0009].
23. Regarding claim 54,
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 49 and also:
wherein said centralized computerized system is configured and operable to distribute missions, tasks or routes to the TCAs, enabling the TCAs to collaborate and to perform a series of tasks.Kattepur discloses this activity in [0007]-[0009].
24. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kattepur in view of Mason and further in view of Adato, et al., US 2019/0149725 (hereinafter Adato).
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
wherein the allocating comprises allocating a human to execute a task that is not-executable by any of the one or more autonomous robots or of the human controlled robots.While the combination of Kattepur and Mason, which selects appropriate agents for tasks and also teaches that human may perform certain tasks, might imply the assignment of a human to a task that cannot be performed by a robot, we invoke a third reference to make this teaching explicit.
Adato, an invention in the field of image capturing, teaches:
wherein the allocating comprises allocating a human to execute a task that is not-executable by any of the one or more autonomous robots or of the human controlled robots.Adato teaches in [0674] that in a mixed group of human and robotic employees, robots may be selected first for a task if they are capable of performing it, and humans only assigned the task if robots are incapable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kattepur and Mason, wherein the allocating comprises allocating a human to execute a task that is not-executable by any of the one or more autonomous robots or of the human controlled robots, as taught by Adato, because it is often the case that robots are more efficient at performing repetitive tasks than humans, and so human resources should be reserved only for tasks that robots cannot complete. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the cost-savings benefits of this method.
25. Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kattepur in view of Mason and further in view of Hodak, Max, US 2015/0242395 (hereinafter Hodak).
Kattepur in view of Mason teaches the limitations of claim 13, but not all aspects of:
wherein the optimizing of the execution of the tasks comprises at least one of (i) reducing lost time between tasks assigned to same TCA; (ii) reducing futile TCA trips.While Kattepur discloses a variety of means of optimizing robotic fleet task execution, it does not explicitly disclose either of the claimed types of optimization.
Hodak, an invention in the field of equipment sharing, teaches:
wherein the optimizing of the execution of the tasks comprises at least one of (i) reducing lost time between tasks assigned to same TCA; (ii) reducing futile TCA trips.Hodak teaches time-based optimization in [0052] and [0124], both approaches seeking to reduce lost time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kattepur and Mason, wherein the optimizing of the execution of the tasks comprises at least one of (i) reducing lost time between tasks assigned to same TCA; (ii) reducing futile TCA trips, as taught by Hodak, because time-based optimization is one of the most common forms of efficiency improvement in the industrial arts and it is plain how reducing lost time saves operating costs in virtually any commercial or industrial context.
Conclusion
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0029797 also teaches a variety of forms of robotic fleet cooperation. Applicant’s prior art US 2017/0121114 teaches some of the same features claimed in the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655