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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 28-32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following with respect to the rejection and the disclosure of Brady et al. (United States Patent No. US 10233021 B1) [hereinafter “Brady”] on page 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
202
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees.
As noted in the previous Office action, Brady teaches a monitoring system 190/290 that performs the functions of the claimed “receiving processor” and “delivery processor.” While Brady does disclose that the monitoring system 190/290 is separate from the autonomous vehicles that act as the claimed “system collectors” (see Figures 1-2), Brady also discloses an embodiment where the monitoring system and its disclosed functions are provided onboard the plurality of autonomous vehicles. Col. 20, lines 4-31 of Brady is reproduced below with the relevant portion highlighted:
PNG
media_image2.png
408
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Brady does disclose a network of system collectors that each include a receiving processor configured for receiving a request from a first location to deliver goods to a second location, and selecting an optimum one of the system collectors, as claimed. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and claim 28 is rejected as presented below in this Office action, as are claims 29, 31-32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, and 53.
Applicant further contends for the allowability of claims 33, 39-40, 42, and 45-47 based upon the allowability of claim 28 (see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response). As claim 28 stand rejected, so too do claims 33, 39-40, 42, and 45-47.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 28-29, 31-32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brady et al. (United States Patent No. US 10233021 B1) [hereinafter “Brady”].
Regarding claim 28, Brady discloses a utility execution system (system 200) for moving goods from a first location (source locations 130) to a second location (destination locations 140), the system comprising:
a network of system collectors (autonomous vehicles 150 and/or 250-1 – 250-n; see Col. 4, lines 14-27 and Col. 12, lines 5-24), each of said system collectors comprising:
a receiving processor (processors 296; see Col. 20, lines 4-31); and
a delivery processor (processors 296; see Col. 20, lines 4-31);
wherein said receiving processor is configured for:
receiving a request from the first location to deliver the goods to the second location (see at least Col. 20, line 62 to Col. 21, line 29);
selecting an optimum one of said system collectors based on a status of said one of said system collectors (see Col. 5, lines 30-52 and Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21);
directing said delivery processor associated with the optimum one to command that the optimum one at the first location receive the goods (see Col. 5, lines 30-45 and Col. 25, line 60 to Col. 26, line 8); and
wherein said delivery processor is configured for:
associating a security means with the goods as the goods are stored in the optimum one, the security means requiring security information to release the goods (see Col. 18, lines 40-67; Col. 19, lines 25-37);
determining a proposed path between the first location and the second location based on historic data received from the network (see at least Col. 4, lines 28-61, Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21, and Col. 25, lines 27-43);
commanding the optimum one to proceed along the proposed path until the optimum one reaches the second location (see Col. 5, line 30 to Col. 6, line 54; see also Col. 20, line 32 to Col. 21, line 29; see also Col. 25, line 44 to Col. 26, line 20);
verifying receipt of the security information (see Col. 18, lines 40-67; Col. 19, lines 25-37); and
releasing the goods at the second location (see Col. 18, lines 40-67; Col. 19, lines 25-37; Col. 28, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 29, Brady further discloses said delivery processor is configured for executing:
updating the proposed path based on real-time data received from said network, defining an updated proposed path (see Col. 9, lines 10-19 and Col. 21, lines 30-37);
commanding the optimum one to proceed along the updated proposed path (see Col. 9, lines 10-19 and Col. 21, lines 30-37);
repeating (a) and (b) until the optimum one reaches the second location (see Col. 9, lines 10-19 and Col. 21, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 31, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors is an autonomous vehicle (autonomous vehicles 150 and/or 250-1 – 250-n).
Regarding claim 32, Brady further discloses said network defines a communications network (communications network 180) and one of said system collectors comprises a beacon positioned along the proposed path, wherein said beacon is configured for receiving and transmitting data over the communications network (see Col. 4, line 14 to Col. 15 to Col. 6, line 54).
Regarding claim 34, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors is configured for operating on a city sidewalk (see Col. 4, line 53 to Col. 5, line 29, wherein the autonomous vehicle 150 operates on sidewalks 104).
Regarding claim 35, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors comprises a localization subsystem configured for detecting, based on the historic data and real-time data received from the network, a current location and situation of said one of said system collectors (see Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32).
Regarding claim 36, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors comprises a wireless access location (see at least Col. 3, lines 47-51).
Regarding claim 37, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors comprises a preferred route subsystem configured for: determining a preferred path between the first location and the second location based on the historic data and the real time data (see at least Col. 4, lines 28-61, Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21, and Col. 25, lines 27-43); and determining an avoidable path between the first location and the second location based on a number of the at least one obstacle in the updated proposed path (see Col. 4, line 28 to Col. 5, line 29; Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21; Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32).
Regarding claim 41, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors comprises a sensor and a rules compliance subsystem (see Col. 3, lines 5-26 and Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32) configured for: accessing navigation rule information from the historic data, the real time data, the sensor, and combinations thereof (see Col. 4, lines 28-62, Col. 8, lines 1-21, and Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32); commanding the one of said system collectors to navigate according to the navigation rule information (see Col. 4, lines 28-62, Col. 6, lines 5-15, Col. 8, lines 1-21, and Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32); wherein said one of said system collectors is configured for learning the navigation rule information as said one of said system collectors operates and interacts with the updated proposed navigation path (see Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32 and Col. 21, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 43, Brady further discloses a first of said system collectors comprises a grouping subsystem configured for commanding a second one of said system collectors to follow said first one of said system collectors and maintaining a coupling between said first one of said system collectors and said second one of said system collectors (see Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21, wherein the autonomous vehicle “follows a path that has been recently followed by another autonomous vehicle”).
Regarding claim 44, Brady further discloses the coupling comprises an electronic coupling (see Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21).
Regarding claim 53, Brady further discloses one of said system collectors comprises a beacon configured for sensing an obstacle (see Col. 16, lines 16-40); enabling communication among said system collectors (see Col. 6, lines 35-54)protecting data exchanged among said beacon and said system collectors (see Col. 6, lines 35-54); and collecting sensor data from the proposed path (see Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32).
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.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Aggarwal et al. (United States Patent No. US 10628790 B1) [hereinafter “Aggarwal”].
Regarding claim 33, Brady does not expressly teach one of said system collectors comprises a beacon positioned along the proposed path, wherein said beacon is configured for providing fiducial information to the utility execution system.
Aggarwal also generally teaches a system for use in automated vehicles for the transportation of goods (see Abstract). Aggarwal teaches an operating environment is lined with beacon markers that provide fiducial information to facilitate the navigation of unmanned vehicles to move items within the environment (see Col. 2, lines 22-40).
Brady teaches the disclosed system can be used in multiple environments, including within a fulfillment center 135 (see Col. 3, line 62 to Col. 4, line 13).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Brady so as to include fiducial markers to provide fiducial information to the system, in view of Aggarwal, as Aggarwal teaches doing so facilitates accurate navigation of unmanned drive units (see Col. 20, lines 23-27).
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Schubert et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0041219 A1) [hereinafter “Schubert”].
Regarding claim 39, Brady does not expressly teach one of said system collectors comprises a road obstacle-climbing subsystem configured for detecting a road obstacle; commanding said one of said system collectors to crest the road obstacle; and commanding said one of said system collectors to maintain balance and stability while traversing the road obstacle.
Schubert also generally teaches a system for transporting goods using an autonomous vehicle (see Abstract and [0001]-[0006]). Schubert teaches that when the autonomous vehicle detects a road obstacle such as stairs in the navigation path, the computing system commands the vehicle to traverse the stairs to complete delivery (see at least [0103]-[0105]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Brady so that the one of said system collectors comprises a road obstacle-climbing subsystem configured for detecting a road obstacle, commanding said one of said system collectors to crest the road obstacle, and commanding said one of said system collectors to maintain balance and stability while traversing the road obstacle, in view of Schubert, as Schubert teaches certain autonomous delivery vehicles have the ability to climb stairs and therefore allows for the completion of the assigned delivery. As Brady teaches the autonomous vehicle may be of any size or construction (see Col. 10, lines 33-48), such a combination would be a simple addition of known functionality to an equivalent system that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Brady and Schubert, as applied to claim 39 above, teaches one of said system collectors comprises a stair-climbing subsystem configured for: detecting a stair; commanding said one of said system collectors to encounter and traverse the stair; and commanding said one of said system collectors to achieve stabilized operation while traversing the at least one stair (see at least [0103]-[0105] of Schubert and the rejection of claim 39 above).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Ferguson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0033868 A1) [hereinafter “Ferguson”].
Regarding claim 42, Brady does not expressly the system further comprises a training subsystem including a neural network.
Ferguson also generally teaches an autonomous system for the transportation of goods (see Abstract). Ferguson teaches a processor 125 of the autonomous vehicle uses a neural network to process image information to identify detected objects (see [0136]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Brady to include training subsystems including a neural network to identify detected object, in view of Ferguson, as Ferguson teaches a neural network allows for the accurate identification of detected objects and would therefore allow the autonomous vehicles taught by Brady to better navigate the environment.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Zevenbergen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0193629 A1) [hereinafter “Zevenbergen”].
Regarding claim 45, Brady teaches one of said system collectors comprises a battery (see Col. 18, lines 6-25).
Brady does not expressly teach the battery comprises a quick charge feature configured for accommodating a minimum amount of non-operational time of said one of said system collectors.
Zevenbergen generally teaches a system for autonomous control of a vehicle (see Abstract). Zevenbergen teaches the AGV 340 is powered by a battery that can be quickly charged (see [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle taught by Brady such that the battery has a quick charge feature, in view of Zevenbergen, in order to minimize the downtime for the vehicle.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady and Zevenbergen, as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0259142 A1) [hereinafter “Yin”].
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Brady and Zevenbergen, as applied to claim 45 above, does not expressly teach said battery comprises a locking feature configured for locking said battery of each of said system collectors, the locking feature including a security feature to enable removal of said battery.
Yin teaches a battery lock-up device for securing a battery in an electric vehicle (see Abstract). Yin teaches the device locks the battery to the vehicle and can be unlocked to facilitate remove of the battery (see at least [0041]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the locking security feature of Yin to secure the battery to the autonomous vehicle, in view of Yin, as Yin teaches the disclosed device reduces arrangement space and cost while improving reliability (see Abstract).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Baalke et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0329418 A1) [hereinafter “Baalke”].
Regarding claim 47, Brady teaches one of said system collectors comprises a sensor (sensor 262-i), said utility execution system further comprising: a sensor subsystem configured for processing data from said sensor (control system 260-I; see Col. 15, lines 57-65); wherein said sensor comprises a camera configured for sensing a moving object (see Col. 16, lines 16-40).
Brady does not expressly teach a sensor fusion subsystem configured for fusing data from a plurality of said sensor and classifying the obstacle, and a behavior model subsystem configured for predicting a future position of the obstacle.
Baalke also generally teaches a system for autonomously navigating a robot or vehicle (see Abstract). Baalke teaches the autonomous vehicle fuses data from various sensors to detect and classify objects in the environment (see at least [0010] and [0034]-[0035]). Baalke further teaches the autonomous vehicle then predicts a future position of the detected objects (see [0015], [0047], and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle taught by Brady to include a sensor fusion subsystem configured for fusing data from a plurality of said sensor and classifying the obstacle, and a behavior model subsystem configured for predicting a future position of the obstacle, in view of Baalke, as Baalke teaches equipping an autonomous vehicle with such features allows the vehicle to safely navigate its environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Voorhies et al. (US 10678228 B2) generally teaches:
Increased robotic sophistication and more efficient autonomous operation is implemented by providing separate physical autonomous robots shared and remote access to the sensory array and information from the sensory array of one another. Each robot can access a sensor of any other robot, or scans or other information obtained from the sensor of any other robot. The robots leverage the shared sensory access in order to perform batch order fulfillment, dynamic rearrangement of item or tote locations, and opportunistic charging. These coordinated robotic operations based on the shared sensory access increase the efficiency and productivity of the robots without adding resources or hardware to the robots, increasing the speed of the robots, or increasing the number of deployed robots.
Fosgard (US 2019/0164113 A1) generally teaches:
Systems and methods for the intermodal delivery of materials within an at least substantially autonomous carrier traveling along a delivery path. The carrier may dock with a transit vehicle or engage directly with a railway to travel along a transit line while making a delivery. The carrier may also be suitable for securably storing materials therein, such as where a plurality of carriers stop at a storage hub located substantially near and/or along the delivery path. The storage hub may include a charging station for the carriers, and serve as a portable warehouse for both materials and carriers. When adequately charged, the carrier may deliver materials to their final destinations. Or, the materials may be transferred to a load transporter to facilitate first- and/or last-mile delivery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667