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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Rejection of claims 1-15, 20 and 22-24 presented under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn in response to amended claims submitted on 01/01/2026.
Objection to claims 3, 5 and 21 under minor informalities has been withdrawn in response to amended claims submitted on 01/01/2026.
Rejection to claims 22 and 24 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in response to amended claim submitted on 01/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because:
Claim 1 line 7 recites “examine, for a new drive request, an allocated trajectory for possible collisions with a drive request to acquire collision information”. BRI for the limitation is:
an allocated trajectory to a drive request examined for possible collisions with the drive request, or
an allocated trajectory to a drive request examined for possible collisions with allocated trajectory to a different drive request
As ii is not explicitly stated and i is unclear how a trajectory has collisions with a drive request, the limitation is deemed indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation as: a trajectory is evaluated for possible collisions.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-19 and 21-25 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16, 17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svec (US 10126747), in view of Lee (WO 2005096114).
For claim 1, Svec teaches: Sorting system controller (column 2 lines 56-65, disclosing management module. Figure 3 and column 12 lines 1-20, disclosing management module is implemented by a processor), comprising:
a coordinator configured to transmit drive requests to a plurality of vehicles, wherein each drive request comprises a drive from a start point to an end point along a respective (Column 4 lines 28-67, disclosing management module 15 may receive drive path information 102, position information 104, and/or velocity information 106 from an inventory management system i.e., coordinator. And a drive path information including starting and stopping locations i.e., start and end point. And drive path information may have sequence of directions including a listing of turn-by-turn directions that the first mobile drive unit 20A should follow to complete the task. And there are two mobile drive units 20A and 20B. Column 2-3, disclosing mobile drive units receive drive paths to follow in order to execute a task. Additionally management module may be distributed among the mobile drive units and drive path, position and velocity information may be received directly from mobile drive unit. Hence they also serve as coordinator);
wherein a predefined speed specification for a vehicle along the
a collision avoidance unit configured to examine, for a new drive request, an allocated
to amend the speed specification allocated to the
information to acquire an amended speed specification (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units); and
to prevent the possible collision (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units);
an interface for transmitting the new drive request to an autonomously driving vehicle of the sorting system, the new drive request comprising an instruction that comprises the trajectory and the amended speed specification to control the autonomously driving vehicle according to the new drive request(column 2 lines 56-67, disclosing mobile drive units receive tasks from a management module which may direct the mobile drive units to move inventory holders among different locations in the inventory system. For each task, a drive path may be generated. Column 7 line 58-67, disclosing mobile drive units communicate with management module wirelessly. Therefore, an interface is necessary to establish wireless communication).
Although Svec teaches of drive path and speed specification along the drive path, Svec does not explicitly disclose the path is a trajectory.
Lee teaches of a trajectory with speed specification (page 6, disclosing trajectory planning and avoiding collisions for multi robots. And collision avoidance is performed through velocity tuning. Page 7, disclosing when trajectory of a robot penetrates a predicted collision region, a collision is expected. Therefore velocity profile of robot is modified. As velocity profile is modified upon collision prediction of a trajectory, the velocity specification is allocated to the trajectory. Velocity has a speed component and direction)
Svec and Lee are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., collision avoidance for robots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Svec to utilize trajectory for path planning and collision avoidance as another means for safe navigation planning.
Method of claim 20 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 1, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 2, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the predefined speed specification associated with the trajectory is a speed specification based on a predetermination and comprises a speed profile for a speed across a path of the trajectory (Column 4 lines 28-67, disclosing management module 15 may receive drive path information 102, position information 104, and/or velocity information 106 from an inventory management system); and
the collision avoidance unit is configured to adapt the speed specification subsequently and prior to transmission of the drive request by the amended speed specification to avoid the possible collision (Column 4 lines 28-67, disclosing management module 15 may receive drive path information 102, position information 104, and/or velocity information 106 from an inventory management system i.e., subsequently to transmission from inventory management system, and column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units i.e., prior to transmitting the information to mobile drive units because, column 2 lines 56-67, disclosing mobile drive units receive tasks from a management module which may direct the mobile drive units to move inventory holders among different locations in the inventory system).
For claim 3, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the coordinator is configured to select, for the new drive request, the trajectory from a plurality of trajectory candidates (column 28, lines 40-50, disclosing using Dijkstra's search, or a general heuristic search such as variants of A* search for velocity profiles, hence a plurality of candidate trajectories with different velocity profiles are evaluated);
wherein among the plurality of trajectory candidates trajectories already allocated to vehicles in existing drive requests are also considered (column 28, lines 40-50, disclosing using Dijkstra's search, or a general heuristic search such as variants of A* search for velocity profiles. Trajectories already allocated to other drive units are necessarily considered i.e., considered as not available. Furthermore, column 13 lines 5-18, disclosing segment reservation module receives request to grant or deny a segment reservation request from mobile drive unit, hence segments i.e., trajectories already allocated to other vehicles are considered).
For claim 4, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance unit is configured to not adapt the predefined speed specification for already allocated trajectories of existing drive requests (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing both mobile drive units initially are assigned velocity value of 3m/s but due to collision possibility the second mobile drive unit is assigned velocity value of 1.2m/s. Hence the assigned velocity value of 3m/s is not assigned. Furthermore, column 3 lines 20-53, disclosing series of velocities of each mobile drive unit are different. Additionally, column 12 lines 29-60, disclosing coordination module computes velocity that prevents collision between two or more mobile drive units. Fig. 3 and column 12, disclosing coordination module is part of management module).
For claim 5, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 3, wherein the coordinator is configured to consider vehicles on already allocated trajectories for the selection of the trajectory as potential obstacles (figure 9, disclosing evaluating mobile drive unit paths and velocities for collisions. Column 5 lines 36-43, disclosing a safety measure indicate a spacing that the mobile drive units 20A, 20B keep between themselves, a spacing that the mobile drive units 20A, 20B maintain between themselves and other obstacles. Column 16 lines 31-65, disclosing obstacle sensor to detect state information of mobile drive units. state information may include, but is not limited to, the position, velocity, direction, and the braking capabilities of the transmitting mobile drive unit 20. In particular embodiments, the mobile drive unit 20 may use the state information transmitted by other mobile drive units to avoid collisions. Hence mobile drive units are also deemed as obstacles).
For claim 6, Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance unit is configured to acquire, for a plurality of new drive requests, a plurality of corresponding trajectories as respective time-optimum speed specification for traversing the trajectory and to determine, for the plurality of the new trajectories, possible collisions among the vehicles and to prevent the possible collisions within the new drive requests by adapting at least one of the predefined speed specifications (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units. Column 27 lines 13-35, disclosing velocities leading to collisions are removed and new values may be faster. Column 24, disclosing time of arrival metric may consider the time it takes for the mobile drive units to reach their destinations. For example, this metric may score velocity sets higher if they minimize the amount of time for a particular mobile drive unit to reach its destination. And favors velocities that prolong the life of physical components of the mobile drive units).
For claim 7, Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance unit is configured to determine possible collisions for a plurality of new drive requests and to match the predefined speed specifications of the speed profiles allocated to the drive requests by the coordinator (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units);
wherein already transmitted speed profiles remain unamended (figure 2, disclosing 3 mobile drive units. Velocity profiles transmitted to mobile drive units are necessarily unamended because they have already been amended).
For claim 8, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance unit is configured to treat already amended speed specifications as unamendable until the drive request on the allocated trajectory is terminated (column 3 lines, disclosing independently analyzing each intersection and a new intersection is encountered, the most recent state information (e.g., the final velocities and final locations in this example) may be used for determining updated velocity profiles for the mobile drive units in order to avoid a collision at the new intersection. Hence speed specification remains unamendable until new intersection is not encountered.
For claim 9, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, comprising:
a calculator configured to determine a third number of trajectories between a first number of start points and a second number of end points, wherein the coordinator is configured to allocate drive requests to the trajectories (column 28 lines 30-48, disclosing different search strategies may be used to find an optimal sequence of discrete event states and corresponding velocity profiles for the drives depending on the selected scoring metric, and using different search strategies for example, a greedy search. Dijkstra's search, or a general heuristic search. Velocity profiles define trajectories and they are necessarily between start points and end points).
For claim 10, Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 9, wherein the calculator is configured to calculate a plurality of trajectory candidates between a start point of the first number of start points and an end point of the second number of end points;
wherein the coordinator is configured to select one of the trajectory candidates as trajectory for the new drive request (column 28 lines 30-48, disclosing different search strategies may be used to find an optimal sequence of discrete event states and corresponding velocity profiles for the drives depending on the selected scoring metric, and using different search strategies for example, a greedy search. Dijkstra's search, or a general heuristic search. These search algorithms will yield one optimum trajectory).
For claim 11, Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 9, wherein the calculator is configured to calculate the trajectory based on splines (column 28 line 44, disclosing using A* algorithm as search strategy. Column 19 lines 20-36, disclosing mobile drive unit 20 is capable of moving the inventory holder 30 along a two-dimensional grid, combining movement along straight-line segments with ninety-degree rotations and arcing paths to transport the inventory holder 30 from the first location to the second location. As mobile drive units move along straight lines with ninety degree rotations and aching paths, the trajectory accounts for the straight lines and arching paths. Hence trajectory is calculated based on splines. Straight lines are splines. Furthermore A* algorithm also evaluates a trajectory based on splines).
l. For claim 12, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 9, wherein the calculator is configured to calculate the predefined speed specification in a kinodynamic manner as time-optimized speed specification (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units. Column 27 lines 13-35, disclosing velocities leading to collisions are removed and new values may be faster. Column 24, disclosing time of arrival metric may consider the time it takes for the mobile drive units to reach their destinations. For example, this metric may score velocity sets higher if they minimize the amount of time for a particular mobile drive unit to reach its destination. Column 23, disclosing stability metric to choose velocities that result in the inventory holder of mobile drive unit being more stable than compared to other velocities. The jerk metric may seek to minimize aggressive and/or jerky movements of a mobile drive unit or a set of the mobile drive units. The acceleration metric may seek to select velocities that can have smooth accelerations between them. This may include velocities that minimize the difference between initial velocities and computed velocities. Planning motion to adhere to speed and acceleration bounds is kinodynamic planning, hence speed specification is calculated in a kinodynamic manner as time-optimized speed specification)
m. For claim 13, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the trajectory describes a continuous path or a continuous route between a start point and an end point (Column 4 lines 28-67, disclosing management module 15 may receive drive path information 102, position information 104, and/or velocity information 106 from an inventory management system i.e., coordinator. And a drive path information including starting and stopping locations i.e., start and end point. Hence a continuous path).
n. For claim 14, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the trajectory comprises a plurality of trajectory portions (column 28 line 44, disclosing using A* algorithm as search strategy. Column 19 lines 20-36, disclosing mobile drive unit 20 is capable of moving the inventory holder 30 along a two-dimensional grid, combining movement along straight-line segments with ninety-degree rotations and arcing paths to transport the inventory holder 30 from the first location to the second location), wherein the calculator is configured to calculate a portion speed specification for each trajectory portion (Column 23, disclosing stability metric to choose velocities that result in the inventory holder of mobile drive unit being more stable than compared to other velocities. The jerk metric may seek to minimize aggressive and/or jerky movements of a mobile drive unit or a set of the mobile drive units. The acceleration metric may seek to select velocities that can have smooth accelerations between them. This may include velocities that minimize the difference between initial velocities and computed velocities); and
to calculate the speed specification based on a combination of the portion speed specifications (Column 23, disclosing stability metric to choose velocities that result in the inventory holder of mobile drive unit being more stable than compared to other velocities. The jerk metric may seek to minimize aggressive and/or jerky movements of a mobile drive unit or a set of the mobile drive units. The acceleration metric may seek to select velocities that can have smooth accelerations between them. This may include velocities that minimize the difference between initial velocities and computed velocities).
o. For claim 16, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system (column 2 lines 56-65, disclosing management module), comprising:
a plurality of vehicles configured to move along trajectories in the sorting system (Column 2-3, disclosing mobile drive units receive drive paths to follow in order to execute a task);
and the sorting system controller according to claim 1 comprising calculator configured to determine a third number of trajectories between a first number of start points and a second number of end points, wherein a speed specification for a vehicle along the trajectory is allocated to each trajectory (column 28 lines 30-48, disclosing different search strategies may be used to find an optimal sequence of discrete event states and corresponding velocity profiles for the drives depending on the selected scoring metric, and using different search strategies for example, a greedy search. Dijkstra's search, or a general heuristic search. Velocity profiles define trajectories and they are necessarily between start points and end points)
wherein the sorting system is configured to transmit, by means of the interface, the new drive request comprising the instruction that comprises the trajectory and the amended speed specification to a control of a vehicle (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units. column 2 lines 56-67, disclosing mobile drive units receive tasks from a management module which may direct the mobile drive units to move inventory holders among different locations in the inventory system).
p. For claim 17, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system according to claim 16, wherein a start point and/or an end point is a stationary area in the sorting system (column 2 lines 56-67, disclosing mobile drive units receive tasks from a management module which may direct the mobile drive units to move inventory holders among different locations in the inventory system. Inventory holders are at stationary area i.e., start point and are moved to stationary area. Figure 2 and column 6 lines 40-55, disclosing inventory holders 30 at stationary area); or
is based on the trajectory (column 2 lines 56-67, disclosing mobile drive units receive tasks from a management module which may direct the mobile drive units to move inventory holders among different locations in the inventory system. Column 2-3, disclosing mobile drive units receive drive paths to follow in order to execute a task. Drive path necessarily have start and stop points).
q. For claim 19, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system according to claim 16, wherein the coordinator is configured to transmit the new drive request as a common drive request to a vehicle group or a vehicle formation for a common drive along the trajectory (claim 12 lines 41-57, disclosing directing mobile drive units to move towards a maintenance station i.e., common drive request).
r. For claim 21, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance means is configured to adapt the new drive request to existing drive requests (column 13 lines4-15, disclosing segments are reserved to avoid collisions. Column 27 lines 12-20, disclosing removing velocity values that lead to collisions); and to thereby prevent the possible collision (column 13 lines4-15, disclosing segments are reserved to avoid collisions. Column 27 lines 12-20, disclosing removing velocity values that lead to collisions).
S. For claim 22, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the coordinator is configured to select, for the new drive request, the trajectory from a plurality of trajectory candidates; wherein the plurality of trajectory candidates considers
trajectories already allocated to vehicles in the existing drive requests by adapting the speed specification in view of the trajectories already allocated to the vehicles in the existing drive requests to avoid the possible collision with the existing drive requests (column 13 lines4-15, disclosing segments are reserved to avoid collisions. Column 27 lines 12-20, disclosing removing velocity values that lead to collisions).
T. For claim 23, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance unit is configured for determining, for a plurality of new drive requests, possible collisions among the vehicles within the new drive requests, and avoid the possible collisions within the new drive requests by adapting at least one of the speed specifications for mutual consideration of the new drive requests to each other and while allowing the existing drive requests to remain untouched (columns 26-26, disclosing allowing a mobile drive unit to maintain its velocity while adapting velocity value of other mobile drive unit, and determining velocity values and removing velocity values leading to collisions and duplicates).
u. For claim 24, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 23, adapted to remain the existing drive requests untouched in a first iteration and to adapt the existing drive requests and the new drive requests in a later second iteration for an updated calculation (column 6 lines 21-39, disclosing management module adjusts velocity of each drive unit to generate first and second velocity value respectfully to avoid collision between the drive units).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svec in view of Lee and Guttman (US 20160035223).
For claim 15, modified Svec teaches: Sorting system controller according to claim 14, wherein the calculator is configured to calculate a maximum speed for each trajectory portion (column 4 lines 1-10, disclosing determining maximum allowed velocity for mobile drive unit)
to calculate the portion speed specification based on the maximum speed, a speed specification at the start of the trajectory portion and a speed specification at an end of the trajectory portion (column 3 line 54-column 4 line 27, disclosing optimizing velocities of mobile drive units along two drive paths (start of the trajectory portion and end of the trajectory portion) to avoid potential collisions).
Svec teaches of acceleration, jerk and stability metric for speed calculation (column 24, disclosing selecting velocity set that favors stability, jerk and acceleration metric) and curved sections along movement paths (column 31 lines 50-54, disclosing mobile drive unit path may be curved). Svec further teaches of selecting velocity sets that have best score based on one or more scoring metrics may include a time of arrival metric, an energy expenditure metric, a component wear metric, a stability metric, a jerk metric, an acceleration metric, and any other suitable metric (see column 24). However, does not exclusively teach calculate a maximum speed for each trajectory portion based on a curvature of the trajectory portion and a maximum acceleration of a vehicle.
Guttman teaches: calculate a maximum speed for each trajectory portion based on a curvature of the trajectory portion and a maximum acceleration of a vehicle ([0023], disclosing an autonomous vehicle and vehicle's computers may determine a speed profile for the vehicle. This speed profile may be determined iteratively for a brief period of time in the future using any number of constraints including, but not limited to, road speed limit, curvature along trajectory of the autonomous vehicle, minimum and maximum acceleration the autonomous vehicle can execute).
Svec and Guttman are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., determining speed for autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Svec to calculate a maximum speed for each trajectory portion based on a curvature of the trajectory portion and a maximum acceleration of a vehicle as an additional metric in determining velocity for the mobile drive unit.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svec in view of Lee and Stubbs (US 20180086561).
For claim 18, modified Svec teaches:. Sorting system according to claim 16,
Svec teaches of moving the mobile drive unit in multiple directions (column 15 lines 45-56, disclosing drive module 120 may be configured to propel the mobile drive unit 20 in any appropriate manner and rotate the mobile drive unit). However, does not explicitly disclose: wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises holonomic vehicles.
Stubbs teaches wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises holonomic vehicles (abstract, disclosing mobile drive units. [0030-0033] and figure 1, disclosing mobile drive units transport inventory holders. And rolling elements include wheels, Mecanum wheels, omni wheels, balls, treads, and other structure for holonomic motion)
Stubbs and Svec are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., mobile drive units for transporting inventory holders in a warehouse. It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Svec to wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises holonomic vehicles as taught by Stubbs to improve movement capability of the mobile drive unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights