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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 12/10/2025.
Claims 15-22 remain withdrawn.
Claim 23 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 and 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. “US 10,800,040, B1” (Beckman) in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi e al. “US 2022/0187841 A1” (Ebrahimi).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8: A method for controlling order fulfillment in a warehouse, the method comprising:
controlling mobile autonomous devices, fixed autonomous devices, and issuing picking orders to humanoid pickers, (at least see Beckman Abstract; Figs. 1-3; 10:4-55);
recording operational data corresponding to the fulfillment activities in the warehouse (at least see Beckman Abstract; Figs. 2B and 4; 5:6-29);
holding the operational data in a memory module (at least see Beckman Abstract; Fig. 4; 5:30-49); facility
retraining the hierarchically tiered algorithms using reinforcement learning techniques, wherein said retraining performs the reinforcement learning on the operational data to retrain and update the hierarchically tiered algorithms (at least see Beckman Abstract; 16:21-49);
wherein the retraining comprises retraining the macro algorithm according to a first set of priorities for optimal operation of the warehouse, and retraining the plurality of micro algorithms according to corresponding second sets of priorities for optimal operation of respective different particular locations and/or activities within the warehouse (at least see Beckman Abstract; Figs. 1-2B; 4:40-61); and
adaptively controlling the fulfillment activities using the updated hierarchically tiered algorithms (at least see Beckman Abstract; Fig. 5; 18:20-49).
Beckman discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein said controlling adaptively controls fulfillment activities in the warehouse via the use of hierarchically tiered algorithms comprising a macro algorithm and a plurality of micro algorithms. However, Ebrahimi disclose this (at least see Ebrahim Abstract; Fig. 194N; [1062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Ebrahim’s teachings in Beckman’s enabled, for the advantage of autonomous robots for faster decision and functionalities.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9: The method of claim 8 further comprising simulating a warehouse, wherein said simulating comprises performing simulated order fulfillment activities and producing simulated operational data based on simulated operations (at least see Beckman Abstract; Figs. 2A-3).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10: The method of claim 9 further comprising synthesizing additional operational data from the operational data, wherein the synthesized data mimics the operational data (at least see Beckman 8:29-47).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11: The method of claim 10, wherein the operational data is at least one of: operational data recorded during performance of operational tasks within the warehouse; simulation data that simulates warehouse operations; and synthetic data that mimics the operational data (at least see Beckman Abstract; Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12: The method of claim 8, wherein said controlling comprises adaptively controlling the fulfillment activities in the warehouse using both the macro algorithm and at least one of the micro algorithms, wherein said controlling further comprises using the macro algorithm to select a particular warehouse priority and to then select at least one micro algorithm to execute a particular order fulfillment operation within the warehouse, and wherein an operational priority of the at least one micro algorithm is different from the warehouse priority of the macro algorithm (at least see Beckman 16:21-49).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13: The method of claim 8, wherein said retraining comprises training the macro algorithm separately from the micro algorithms (at least see Beckman 16:21-49).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14: The method of claim 8, wherein said retraining comprises: training the macro algorithm to find updated optimal operational strategies for the warehouse; and training the micro algorithms to find updated optimal operational strategies for each corresponding local task and/or operational requirement (at least see Beckman 21:38-56).
Regarding Claim 23: The order fulfillment control system of claim 1, wherein the macro algorithm is operable to control operations in the warehouse, and wherein each of the plurality of micro algorithms is operable to control operations in a respective particular location and/or activity within the warehouse (at least see Beckman Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 23 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights