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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed November 6, 2025. Claims 21, and 29 have been amended. Claims 21-29 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed November 6, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully 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 § 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 21-23, 35, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hance et al., US 20190034839 A1, in view of Gallaudet et al., US 11010903 B1, hereinafter referred to as Hance, and Gallaudet, respectively.
As to claim 21, Hance discloses a warehouse comprising:
a plurality of dedicated pallet working areas, the plurality of pallet working areas comprising:
a staging area configured for staging pallets to be moved in and received out of trucks docked at the warehouse (Various areas in warehouse – See at least ¶15 and Fig, 1; Truck loading – See at least ¶30 and Fig. 1);
a storage area comprising a plurality of storage racks configured to store the pallets (Various areas in warehouse, including pallet racks – See at least ¶15 and ¶34 and Fig. 1); and
a pick area configured to receive at least one pallet to which at least one case or layer picking operation is performed (Various areas in warehouse for placing pallets, i.e., “case operation,” and placing items, i.e., “picking” – See at least ¶15 and Fig. 1);
a pool of automated guided vehicles (AGVs) configured to automatically move the pallets within the warehouse, each of the AGVs including an indoor positioning system, a warehouse navigation system, a controller, motors, and a pallet retention component to retain the pallet as it is moved throughout the warehouse (Various autonomous vehicles for transporting pallets – See at least ¶30 and Fig. 1; Robotic devices include local vision systems and various other navigation systems – See at least ¶32 and 58); and
an AGV controller system that is configured to
(i) assign and direct a first portion of the pool of AGVs to move pallets between or within a first subset of the plurality of dedicated pallet working areas (Computing system assigns tasks to robots – See at least ¶51; Tasks include processing of pallets – See at least ¶29; Robotic loader loads/unloads pallets onto delivery truck, i.e., “first portion” – See at least ¶30 and Fig. 1), and
(ii) assign and direct a second portion of the pool of AGVs to move pallets between or within a second subset of the plurality of dedicated pallet working areas (Computing system assigns tasks to robots – See at least ¶51; Tasks include processing of pallets – See at least ¶29; Autonomous for truck interacts with storage racks – See at least ¶34),
wherein the first portion and the second portion of the pool of AGVs are different from each other, and wherein the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of dedicated pallet working areas are different from each other (Examiner notes loading/unloading truck area is different on its face from storage racks – See at least ¶30, 34 and Fig. 1).
Hance fails to disclose each of the claimed automated guide vehicles is configured to automatically move among the staging area, the storage area, and the pick area, and retaining the pallet as it is moved among and within the staging area, the storage area, and the pick area. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hance and include the feature of each of the claimed automated guide vehicles is configured to automatically move among the staging area, the storage area, and the pick area, and retaining the pallet as it is moved among and within the staging area, the storage area, and the pick area, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the claimed invention is simply consolidating all of the features disclosed by Hance, e.g., staging, storing, and picking of pallets, into a single type of AGV, and Gallaudet teaches it is well-known and routine in the automated warehouse arts to use a single type of AGV to move goods throughout the warehouse including staging, storing, and picking (Mobile drive units 112 used to transport goods throughout staging, storing, and picking – See at least Col. ).
As to claim 22, Hance discloses the plurality of storage racks comprise a plurality of different levels configured to store the pallets (Pallet levels – See at least ¶81).
As to claim 23, Hance discloses the plurality of storage racks are arranged in rows and columns to store the pallets across the plurality of different levels (Grid layout – See at least ¶81).
As to claim 35, Hance discloses the plurality of pallet working areas further comprising a pallet transportation area positioned between the staging area and the storage area (Examiner notes Fig. 1 shows an area between the shipping dock and pallet rows, similar to Applicant’s Fig. 11).
As to claim 38, Hance discloses the AGV controller system is further configured to determine timing of operations performed by at least one AGV in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs to minimize a likelihood of collisions when the at least one AGV is moving in the warehouse (Manage schedules to avoid traffic – See at least ¶49).
As to claim 39, Hance discloses the AGV controller system is further configured to determine instructions for moving the AGVs in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs based on minimizing an amount of time required to complete a particular pallet-movement task assigned to at least one of the AGVs in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs (Optimize time – See at least ¶52).
As to claim 40, Hance discloses the case or layer picking operations performed on the at least one pallet comprise at least one of accessing, processing, assembling, and disassembling the at least one pallet (Items manipulated, processed, etc. – See at least ¶14).
Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hance et al., US 20190034839 A1, in view of Gallaudet et al., US 11010903 B1, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of Toebes, US 20160176638 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hance, Gallaudet, and Toebes, respectively.
As to claim 24, the combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of rack conveyor belts configured to move the pallets to the storage locations in each of the plurality of different levels defined by the plurality of storage racks. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of a plurality of rack conveyor belts configured to move the pallets to the storage locations in each of the plurality of different levels defined by the plurality of storage racks, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Toebes teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to use conveyors (See at least ¶26, 42 of Toebes).
As to claim 25, the combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of dedicated pallet working areas further comprises a plurality of elevators configured to move the pallets to storage locations in a plurality of different levels defined by the storage racks. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of the plurality of dedicated pallet working areas further comprises a plurality of elevators configured to move the pallets to storage locations in a plurality of different levels defined by the storage racks, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Toebes teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to use elevators (See at least ¶26 of Toebes).
As to claim 26, Hance discloses at least one of the AGVs is configured to move a pallet between a first location and a second location within the warehouse (Transportation of pallets – See at least ¶30 and Fig. 1).
The combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose wherein the warehouse includes a plurality of levels accessible by elevators. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of the warehouse includes a plurality of levels accessible by elevators, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Toebes teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to use elevators (See at least ¶26 of Toebes).
As to claim 27, the combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose the at least one of the AGVs is configured to move the pallet into an elevator amongst the plurality of elevators at one of the plurality of levels. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of the at least one of the AGVs is configured to move the pallet into an elevator amongst the plurality of elevators at one of the plurality of levels, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Toebes teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to use elevators (See at least ¶26 of Toebes).
As to claim 28, the combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose a second AGV is configured to retrieve the pallet from the elevator at another of the plurality of levels. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of a second AGV is configured to retrieve the pallet from the elevator at another of the plurality of levels, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Toebes teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to use elevators (See at least ¶26 of Toebes).
Claims 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hance et al., US 20190034839 A1, in view of Gallaudet et al., US 11010903 B1, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of in view of Dooley et al., US 20200339350 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hance, and Dooley, respectively.
As to claim 29, Hance discloses the AGV controller system is further configured to assign and direct the first portion of the pool of AGVs to (i) move pallets to the pick area (Computing system assigns tasks to robots – See at least ¶51; Tasks include processing of pallets – See at least ¶29).
The combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose (ii) retain and support the pallets while the case or layer picking operations are performed by a warehouse device in the pick area, wherein the pallets are warehouse pallets. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of retaining and supporting the pallets while the case or layer picking operations are performed by a warehouse device in the pick area, wherein the pallets are warehouse pallets, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Dooley teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to use an AGV to hold a pallet during picking/loading/unloading/etc. operations (See at least ¶18 of Dooley; Examiner notes pallets in a warehouse, like the pallets of Dooley, are considered “warehouse pallets” as claimed.).
As to claim 30, Hance discloses the AGV controller system is further configured to assign and direct the first portion of the pool of AGVs to move the pallets to destination locations in the warehouse after the case or layer picking operations are performed by the warehouse device (Computing system assigns tasks to robots – See at least ¶51; Tasks include processing of pallets – See at least ¶29; Transportation of pallets and items from one location to another – See at least ¶30).
As to claim 31, Hance discloses the AGV controller system is further configured to assign and direct the second portion of the pool of AGVs to place the pallets in particular positions in the pick area for case or layer picking operations to be performed on the pallets by the warehouse device (Pallets can be placed at predetermined positions – See at least ¶42).
As to claim 32, Hance discloses the AGV controller system is further configured to assign and direct a third portion of the pool of AGVs to move the pallets from the staging area to at least one of the storage area and the pick area (Computing system assigns tasks to robots – See at least ¶51; Tasks include processing of pallets – See at least ¶29; Transportation of pallets and items from one location to another – See at least ¶30; Examiner notes different robotic devices can be considered additional portions from pool of autonomously guided vehicles, i.e., “third,” “fourth,” etc.).
As to claim 33, Hance discloses the warehouse device is at least one of a gantry head, a robotic arm, and another AGV (Variety of robotic devices including robotic arms and AGVs – See at least ¶30 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 34, Hance discloses the third portion of the pool of AGVs is different from the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs (Examiner notes by virtue of being assigned different tasks, portions of the pool of AGVs are on their face different.).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hance et al., US 20190034839 A1, in view of Gallaudet et al., US 11010903 B1, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of Zheng, US 20210395008 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hance, Gallaudet, and Zheng, respectively.
As to claim 36, the combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose the AGV controller system is further configured to determine a shortest route for moving at least one AGV in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of the AGV controller system is further configured to determine a shortest route for moving at least one AGV in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zheng teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to generate a shortest route when moving robot devices like the robotic devices of Hance (See at least ¶76-77 of Zheng).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hance et al., US 20190034839 A1, in view of Gallaudet et al., US 11010903 B1, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of Liu, US 20210323800 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hance, and Liu, respectively.
As to claim 37, the combination of Hance and Gallaudet fails to explicitly disclose the AGV controller system is further configured to determine routes for at least one AGV in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs that minimizes a quantity of route cross-overs with other AGVs in the pool of AGVS. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hance and Gallaudet and include the feature of the AGV controller system is further configured to the AGV controller system is further configured to determine routes for at least one AGV in the first and second portions of the pool of AGVs that minimizes a quantity of route cross-overs with other AGVs in the pool of AGVS, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Liu teaches it is well-known and routine in warehouse management to manage inter-vehicle movements (See at least ¶173 of Liu).
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668