DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/26/2026. The claim(s) 1-24 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 11, & 21 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
In light of the latest amendments made to the claims, the outstanding claim objections, non-statotury double patenting rejections, and 112(b) rejections set forth in pages 2- 10 of the prior Office action mailed on 02/25/2026 have been rendered moot, and accordingly are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/26/2026 with respect to amended limitations of the independent claim(s) 1, 11, & 21 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.
Specifically, newly disocvered reference Choo (US 20130190915 A1, para. [065]) teaches and relied on against the amended and argued limitations for the independent claims in new ground of the rejections as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1- 2 & 11- 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis et al. (US 11124401 B1, reference of record) in view of Choo et al. (US 20130190915 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jarvis teaches a facility [an area where “loading environment 100 may include a cart loading zone 132” of fig. 1 is implemented as part of “robotic devices, systems, methods, and other aspects that can more efficiently prepare mobile carts 116”] comprising: (Fig. 1, Col 1 lines 15-35, Col 4 lines 10- 15);
[a] a production line [area from where the conveyor mechanism 108 receives items as part of “conveyor mechanism 108 may include handling mechanisms to route items to different door docks 110, etc.”] including an exit conveyor [“conveyor mechanism 108 may include handling mechanisms to route items to different door docks 110”] for providing finished products [“items” to be carried by the truck 104] produced on the production line (Fig. 1, Col 8 lines 60-65, Col 9 lines 20-25, Col 16 lines 64- 68);
[b] an intermediary storage area [“the location of a cart loading zone 132”, wherein “cart loading zone 132 may include space for a single mobile cart 116 or for multiple mobile carts 116”] where the finished products are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor (Fig. 1, Col 8 lines 50-60, Col 5 lines 55- 60);
[c] a loading dock [area between the “cart loading zone 132” to the vehicle 104: “once the cart filling AGV 102a has added the assigned items to the mobile cart 116b, the cart loading AGV 102b may transport the mobile cart 116b from the cart loading zone 132 into the delivery vehicle 104.”] having a plurality of dock doors [“cart loading zone 132 may be capable of serving or being associated with multiple door docks 110”] to accommodate vehicles [“delivery vehicles 104”, wherein the “delivery vehicle 104 may include a truck”] for loading the finished products after being removed from the intermediary storage area (Fig. 1, Col 6 lines 62-68, Col 16 lines 35- 45, fig. 8); and
[d] a transition area [area where the AGV 106a can move in “loading environment 100”. Thus, area that provides items into the conveyor 108 and collect the items out of the conveyor to the truck is interpreted as a transition area as in applicant’s spec in para. 0115] encompassing the production line, the intermediary storage area, and a space therebetween, wherein the transition area includes an automatic/autonomous guided vehicle (“AGV”) [Fig. 8, “cart filling AGV 102a to place the items on a mobile cart 116”] dedicated to moving mobile cart 116 may be loaded with items” are to be loaded to the vehicle means they are finished products for that facility) from the exit conveyor of the production line and place them into the intermediary storage area (Fig. 1, Col 4 lines 45-55; Col 5 lines 45-55),
wherein the AGV is positioned in alignment [“the operations and devices described herein may reduce the shuffling of items, distance moved by an AGV 102”, “the AGV 102 may follow a track, .. to navigate between its current location and the loading area”, “an AGV 102 may be fed by a conveyor mechanism 108…the AGV 102 to wait at the loading area for a conveyor mechanism 108”. In order to an AGV 102a to fed by a conveyor 102a and causing to wait, it can be understood as being aligned and not moving the wheels of the AGV. The claim covers various types of idel states, such as including being in home location, not moving the wheels while waiting etc.,] with the exit conveyer [“conveyor mechanism 108 “] when the AGV is idle [not moving the AGV to receive items of the conveyor during being fed by the a coveyor mechanism, “wait at the loading area for a conveyor mechanism108, human worker, or another AGV 102 to place the item”. Hence, when the AGV is being fed by a conveyor, the AGV 102a is in idle (not moving its wheels) state] (Col 21 lines 35-68).
However, Jarvis may not teach the AGV dedicated to moving within the transition area is “moving only within the transition area” as claimed and shown above with the strikethrough emphasis but is curred by Choo.
Choo relates to using and controlling movements of of one or more AGVs in a production facility to improve factory efficiency and maintain high throughput production lines (Abstract, [022]). Specifically, Choo teaches a manufacturing facility comprising: a production line [“production area”] for providing finished products produced on the production line and a transition area, wherein the transition area includes an automatic/autonomous guided vehicle ("AGV") [“the U/L units”, wherein “load/unload (U/L) units comprise automated guided vehicles (AGV) transport and AGV U/L units”] dedicated to moving only [“the U/L units are intended to be employed for localized movement of carriers….threshold of travel for the U/L units may be limited to about 240 meters…threshold distance may depend on operational requirements”. ] within the transition area to remove the finished products ([065-066], claim 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Choo and Jarvis because they both related to controlling operations of AGV(s) inside a production facility and (2) modified the system of Jarvis for automatic/autonomous guided vehicle ("AGV") dedicated to moving only within the transition area to remove the finished products as in Choo to maximize the utilization of the Jarvis’ AGV by minimizing AGV idle and charge times (Choo, para 066). Furthermore, doing so would allow to improve AGVs to lower manufacturing costs and increase manufacturing efficiency ([004, 065-066]). Accordingly, Jarvis in view of Choo teaches each limitation of the claim and render invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Jarvis in view of Choo further teaches/suggests the facility of claim 1, wherein the transition area includes a charger [a charger that provide power to the ‘battery’ of the AGV 202a] located proximate to the exit conveyor (Col 10 lines 10- 40 & Choo [066]).
Regarding claim 11, Jarvis in view of Choo teaches each limitation of this method claim for the similar reasons as set forth above in system claim 1. Please note that Choo is relied on for the limitation of dedicating movement of the AGV to only [U/L with localized movement in production area and the movement area limited to about a threshold distance] the transition area (Choo, paras. [065-066]). Choo is combined with Jarvis for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Jarvis in view of Choo teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising positioning a charger proximate to the exit conveyor (Jarvis, Col 10 lines 10- 40 & Choo [066]).
Claim(s) 3- 10 & 13- 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Choo (US 20130190915 A1) as in claim 1, and further in view of Mutua (US 20220363472 A1, reference of record). The combination of Jarvis, Choo, and Mutua are referred as JCM hereinafter.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Jarvis further teaches a facility [a facility that implements “automated guided vehicle loading environment 100” of fig. 1] comprising:
a production line including an exit conveyor [“the loading environment 100 may include a conveyor mechanism 108 for bringing items to the loading bay 106”] for providing finished products produced on the production line (Fig. 1, Col 8 lines 50-60);
an intermediary storage area [“the loading environment 100 may include a cart loading zone 132 (e.g., in the loading bay 106) in which a mobile cart 116 may be loaded with item”] where the finished products [“loaded with items,”] are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor (Fig. 1, Col 5 lines 30-40);
a loading dock having a plurality of dock doors [“cart loading zone 132 may be capable of serving or being associated with multiple door docks 110, conveyors 108, conveyor locations, etc., for example, by using time sharing among door docks 110 “] to accommodate vehicles for loading the finished products after being removed from the intermediary storage area (Fig. 1, Col 5 lines 60-68); and
a transition area [area where the AGVs travel inside the facility such as area where the conveyor 108 receives items and area where the conveyor 108 unload the items to be loaded to the truck 104] encompassing the production line, the intermediary storage area, and a space therebetween, wherein transition area includes an automatic/autonomous guided vehicle (“AGV”) [cart filling AGV, e.g., “a cart filling AGV 102a may automatically place items on a mobile cart 116 based on the specific door that is used during delivery,”] dedicated to moving AGV 102 may be fed by a conveyor mechanism 108”] with the exit conveyer when the AGV is idle (one of the not moving position) (Fig. 1, Col 6 lines 25- 35, Col 21 lines 35-68),
wherein the transition area includes a charger [any power supply means/lines that provides power to the battery of the AGV 202a] located proximate to the exit conveyor, and the power source may include a battery, a wire, contact track“] server 802] to move from idle, the charger discontinues [it is well-known in art not to charge robots like AGV 102 while moving to avoid accidents/damage to the robots or AGV] charging the rechargeable battery and the AGV drives [“instruct an AGV 102 to retrieve an item from a loading area at the end, or another part, of a conveyor mechanism 108 at a given time”] to pick up at least one of the finished products from the exit conveyor,
Jarvis fails to teach the limitations shown above with strikethrough emphasis. including newly amended “dedicated to moving” of the AGV is “only within the transition area”.
Choo teaches a facility comprising: a production line, a transition area, wherein the transition area includes an automatic/autonomous guided vehicle ("AGV") dedicated to moving only [“localized movement includes intra-bay transfers…the upper distance threshold of travel for the U/L units may be limited to about 240 meters… threshold distance may depend on operational requirements”] within the transition area ([044, 065-066]). Thus, Choo clearly teaches the amended limitation.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Choo and Jarvis because they both related to controlling operations of AGVs inside a production facility and (2) modified the facility of Jarvis for automatic/autonomous guided vehicle ("AGV") dedicated to moving only within the transition area to remove the finished products as in Choo to maximize the utilization of the Jarvis’ AGV (Choo, para 066). Furthermore, doing so would allow to improve AGVs to lower manufacturing costs and increase manufacturing efficiency ([004, 065-066]).
Accordingly, Jarvis in view of Choo teaches each limitation of the claim except:
wherein the AGV is positioned in a home position when idle, and the charger is located at the home position,…
wherein the charger charges the rechargeable battery when the AGV is in the home position and idle regardless of the state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery,
…
and wherein the charger discontinues charging regardless of the state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery as shown above with strikethrough emphasis but are cured by Mutua.
Mutua teaches a battery powered robotic device [fig. 1, “rover 902”] to carry items ([002]) and cures the remaining deficiency of Jarvis in view of Choo. Specifically, Mutua teaches wherein the transition area includes a charger located proximate to a pickup location move a trashcan from a first predetermined location”, analogous to Jarvis’ conveyor when the AGV is fed from the conveyor], and wherein the AGV [“robotic device”] is positioned in a home position [“device 102
will return to the docking home 104 with the empty trash bin 108 and recharge until the next collection day”] when idle, and the charger is located at the home position, and wherein the AGV includes a rechargeable battery, wherein the charger charges [the recharging continues until the charge is full means it can charge the robot even when the battery is above the minimum threshold as can be clear to PHOSITA] the rechargeable battery when the AGV is in the home position and idle 1regardless of the state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery, and wherein when the AGV receives instructions from a control server [“The smartphone app and/or the remote-control device”] to move from idle, the charger discontinues charging the rechargeable battery and the AGV drives to pick up at least one of the finished products from the pickup location
Mutua and Jarvis in view of Choo are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, namely using a battery operating robotic/automatic vehicle to move from a load pickup position to the load destination position. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jarvis in view of Choo by incorporating the missing limitations from Mutua. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow further accurate deployment and precise placement of the AGVs in the facility of Jarvis in view of Choo depending on user’s choice and make the charging of the battery of the AGV(s) even easier (Mutua, [047]). As such, the combined teachings of Jarvis, Choo, and Mutua discloses each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 3, Jarvis in view of Choo teaches The facility of claim 2 as set forth above but fails to teach wherein the AGV is positioned in a home position when idle, and the charger is located at the home position.
Mutua teaches a battery powered robotic device [fig. 1, “rover 902”] to carry items ([002]) and cures the remaining deficiency of Jarvis in view of Choo. Specifically, Mutua teaches wherein the AGV is positioned in a home position [“return to the docking home 104 assembly, and generally repeat the process after the trash has been collected”] when idle, and the charger is located at the home position (Fig. 1 [033-048]).
Mutua and Jarvis in view of Choo are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, namely using a battery operating robotic/automatic vehicle to move from a load pickup position to the load destination position. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jarvis in view of Choo by incorporating the missing limitations from Mutua. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow further accurate deployment and precise placement of the AGV in the facility of Jarvis in view of Choo depending on user’s choice and make the charging of the battery of the AGV much simpler (Mutua, [047]). The combined teachings of Jarvis, Choo, and Mutua (JCM) discloses each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 4, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 3, wherein the AGV includes a rechargeable battery, wherein the charger charges the rechargeable battery when the AGV is in the home position and idle (Jarvis Col 30 lines 65- 68 & Mutua [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 4, wherein the charger charges the rechargeable battery regardless [“recharges until the next collection day”] of the state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery (Jarvis Col 30 lines 65- 68 & Mutua [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 4, wherein when the AGV receives instructions from a control server [“loading coordination server 802”] to move from idle, the charger discontinues [Mutua’s charging is available only in home position means discharging will occurs once the robot leaves the home position regardless of the charging state] charging the rechargeable battery and the AGV drives directly forward to pick up at least one of the finished products from the exit conveyor (Jarvis, Col 29 lines 20-30, Fig. 8 & Mutua [033]).
Regarding claim 7, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 6, wherein the charger discontinues charging regardless of the state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery (Mutua [033]).
Regarding claim 8, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 7, wherein the control server sends instructions to the AGV when at least one of the finished products is available for pickup on the exit conveyor (Jarvis Col 21 lines 50-68).
Regarding claim 9, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 8, wherein the transition area also includes a second AGV [“the cart loading AGV 102b may navigate to the mobile cart 116”] dedicated to moving within the transition area to remove the finished products from the intermediary storage area (Jarvis Fig. 8A, Col 23 lines 55- 65 & Choo [065] --to improve AGV utilization efficiency).
Regarding claim 10, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 8, wherein the AGV also removes [loading to the vehicles from the cart] the finished products from the intermediary storage area (Jarvis Fig. 8A, Col 23 lines 55- 65).
Regarding claim 13-20, JCM teaches/suggests the inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 3- 10 respectively.
Regarding claim 22, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 21, wherein the AGV is idle [in step 408, the AGV(s) are waiting for instructions from server 802 and are not moving their wheels to perform “transport items” yet until reaching at step 410] when awaiting instructions from the control server [server 802] (Jarvis, Figs. 4, 8, Col 18 lines 1- 20—Please note that the claim 22’s “idle” does not have to be same “idle” as that of claim 21. The AGV can be in idle due to not being powered on or also not moving its wheels. The claim 22 also does not require when “awaiting instructions from the control server” the AGV is positioned in alignment with the exit conveyor).
Regarding claim 23, JCM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 6, wherein the AGV is idle when awaiting instructions from the control server (Jarvis, Figs. 4, 8, Col 18 lines 1- 20).
Regarding claim 24, JCM teaches/suggests the method of claim 13, further comprising using a control server [server 802] to provide instructions to the AGV to move [the AGV starting to perform “cart filling AGV 102a, which may be configured to transport items”] from idle, wherein the AGV is idle when awaiting instructions from the control server (Jarvis, Figs. 4, 8, Col 18 lines 1- 20).
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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Applicant’s specification in para. [021] defines this phrase as “The phrase "regardless of
the state of charge" in the in-service condition presumes that the state-of-charge is above the
minimum threshold discussed above that would otherwise place the AGV in an out-of-service
condition”.
Prosecution Insights