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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Applicant’s response, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 28-29, 31-32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejections of claims 33, 39-40, 42, and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Deck (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0289013 A1).
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.
Claims 28-29, 31-32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, 53, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (United States Patent No. US 10233021 B1) [hereinafter “Brady”] in view of Deck (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0289013 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Brady teaches 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).
Brady does not expressly teach comparing information embedded in or on the goods to a manifest associated with a deliver, and if said comparing is false, then generating an alert.
Deck also generally teaches a system for facilitating movements of articles from a first location to a second location (see Abstract). Deck teaches that each good loaded onto a transport vehicle is affixed with a marker 14 that is scanned to identify the good. Deck teaches that the system checks each scanned item against a shipping manifest, and if there is a discrepancy, a user of the vehicle or a dispatched may be alerted (see [0036]-[0037]).
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 such that each good is affixed with a marker that is scanned, and the processor is configured for comparing information embedded in or on the goods to a manifest associated with a deliver, and if said comparing is false, then generating an alert, in view of Deck, as Deck teaches this helps facilitate ensuring goods are properly transported and reducing errors (see [0002]-[0004] of Deck).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches 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 of Brady);
commanding the optimum one to proceed along the updated proposed path (see Col. 9, lines 10-19 and Col. 21, lines 30-37 of Brady);
repeating (a) and (b) until the optimum one reaches the second location (see Col. 9, lines 10-19 and Col. 21, lines 30-37 of Brady).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches one of said system collectors is an autonomous vehicle (autonomous vehicles 150 and/or 250-1 – 250-n of Brady).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches said network defines a communications network (communications network 180 of Brady) 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 of Brady).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches one of said system collectors is configured for operating on a city sidewalk (see Col. 4, line 53 to Col. 5, line 29 of Brady, wherein the autonomous vehicle 150 operates on sidewalks 104).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches 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 of Brady).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches one of said system collectors comprises a wireless access location (see at least Col. 3, lines 47-51 of Brady).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches 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 of Brady); 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 of Brady; Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21 of Brady; Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32 of Brady).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches 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 of Brady) 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 of Brady); 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 of Brady); 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 of Brady).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches 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 of Brady, wherein the autonomous vehicle “follows a path that has been recently followed by another autonomous vehicle”).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches the coupling comprises an electronic coupling (see Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, line 21 of Brady).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches one of said system collectors comprises a beacon configured for sensing an obstacle (see Col. 16, lines 16-40 of Brady); enabling communication among said system collectors (see Col. 6, lines 35-54 of Brady) protecting data exchanged among said beacon and said system collectors (see Col. 6, lines 35-54 of Brady); and collecting sensor data from the proposed path (see Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 10, line 32 of Brady).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Brady and Deck further teaches said verifying comprises combining location information of the optimum one at the second location with one or more of a biometric identification of a service target and a code entry (see Col. 18, lines 40-67 and Col. 19, lines 25-37 of Brady).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brady and Deck, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Aggarwal et al. (United States Patent No. US 10628790 B1) [hereinafter “Aggarwal”].
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Schubert et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0041219 A1) [hereinafter “Schubert”].
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck 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, Deck, 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 the combination of Brady and Deck, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Ferguson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0033868 A1) [hereinafter “Ferguson”].
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Zevenbergen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0193629 A1) [hereinafter “Zevenbergen”].
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Brady and Deck teaches one of said system collectors comprises a battery (see Col. 18, lines 6-25 of Brady).
The combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady, Deck, 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, Deck, 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 the combination of Brady and Deck, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Baalke et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0329418 A1) [hereinafter “Baalke”].
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Brady and Deck teaches one of said system collectors comprises a sensor (sensor 262-i of Brady), said utility execution system further comprising: a sensor subsystem configured for processing data from said sensor (control system 260-i of Brady; see Col. 15, lines 57-65 of Brady); wherein said sensor comprises a camera configured for sensing a moving object (see Col. 16, lines 16-40 of Brady).
The combination of Brady and Deck 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 the combination of Brady and Deck 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 56-57 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights