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 communication received on 12/27/2023. The claims 1- 21 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 11, & 21 is/are in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, & 21, they recite an acronym “AGV” (see line 9 in claim 1) without stating the full forms in the claims. Thus, at least first recitation of “AGV” should be written as “Automatic/autonomous guided vehicle (AGV)”.
Claims 2- 10 & 12- 20 are also objected to because they also carry the same deficiency of the independent claims 1, 11, & 21 because of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
I) Claims 1 & 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 (1 +6+7+ 8+9) & 18 (10+15+16+17+18) of U.S. Patent No. US 12265400 in view of Jarvis (US 11124401 B1).
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application: 18/397905
Patent: US 12265400 B1
1. A facility comprising:
1. A facility for distributing finished products, the facility comprising:
a production line including an exit conveyor for providing finished products produced on the production line;
7. The facility of claim 6, further comprising a production line including an exit conveyor for providing finished products produced on the production line;
an intermediary storage area where the finished products are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor;
an intermediary storage area where the finished products are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor
a loading dock having a plurality of dock doors to accommodate vehicles for loading the finished products after being removed from the intermediary storage area; and
1. facility further including a loading dock having a plurality of dock doors to accommodate vehicles for loading the finished products
a transition area between and including the production line and the intermediary storage area,
wherein the transition area includes an AGV dedicated to moving within the transition area to remove the finished products from the exit conveyor of the production line and place them into the intermediary storage area,
7. a transition area between and including the production line and the intermediary storage area, wherein the third designated area is the transition area.
8. The facility of claim 7, wherein the control server provides instructions to the third AGV to move within the transition area to remove the finished products from the exit conveyor of the production line and place them into the intermediary storage area.
wherein the AGV is
8. third AGV to move within the transition area to remove the finished products
The claim 9 of the US Patent: 12265400 B1 may not explicitly teach the AGV in alignment with exit conveyor when the AGV is idle although the claim states AGV is idle in third home position and when the third AGV removes the finished products from the exit conveyor.
However, Jarvis teaches a facility includes an exit conveyor [“conveyor mechanisms 108,”] for providing finished products and an AGV [“the cart loading zone 132 may be an area associated with a door dock 110 and to which a cart filling AGV 102a may transport items to place the items on a mobile cart 116 located in the cart loading zone 132”] dedicated to moving within the transition area to remove the finished products from the exit conveyor of the production line and place them into the intermediary storage area [“cart loading zone 132”] and wherein the AGV is positioned in alignment [“In some implementations, the AGV 102 may follow a track, series of guidance system markers (e.g., QR codes, RFID tags, etc.)”, “an AGV 102 may be fed by a conveyor mechanism 108, human worker, or another AGV 102, etc.”. During Fed by a conveyor, PHOSITA knows that AGV is in idle state/not moving and faced towards the conveyor 108] with the exit conveyer when the AGV is idle (Fig. 1, Col 4, lines 45- 50, Col 5 lines 35- 40, Col 21 lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Jarvis and claim 9 of the US 12265400 because they both related to using of AGVs to transfer finished products from a conveyor to the intermediary storage and (2) modify the third AGV of claim 9 of US 12265400 aligned with the exit conveyor. Doing so would allow finished products to be quickly fed from the conveyor to the third AGV when the AGV arrives using the track at the conveyor location and stops. Accordingly, the claim 1 is not patentable over US 12265400 in view of Jarvis.
Regarding claim 11, the claim 18 of US 12265400 in view of Jarvis teaches/suggests invention of this claim for the similar reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
II) Claims 1 & 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 121 (claim 30+ claim 12) of copending Application No. 18/397912 in view of Jarvis (US 11124401 B1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1:
Instant Application: 18/397905
Co-Pending Application: 18/397912
1. A facility comprising:
30, A facility for distributing finished products, the facility comprising:
a production line including an exit conveyor for providing finished products produced on the production line;
12. The facility of claim 30, further comprising a production line
including an exit conveyor for providing the finished products produced on the production line,
an intermediary storage area where the finished products are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor;
an intermediary storage area where the finished products are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor
a loading dock having a plurality of dock doors to accommodate vehicles for loading the finished products after being removed from the intermediary storage area; and
30. a loading dock having a plurality of dock doors to accommodate vehicles for loading the finished products
a transition area between and including the production line and the intermediary storage area, wherein the transition area includes an AGV dedicated to moving within the transition area to remove the finished products from the exit conveyor of the production line and place them into the intermediary storage area,
12. wherein the second AGV
is dedicated when in the in-service condition to moving in a transition area between and including the production line and the intermediary storage area, and wherein the second home position and the second charger are located in the transition area.
wherein the AGV is positioned in alignment with the exit conveyer when the AGV is idle.
The co-pending application’s claim 12 fails to teach but Jarvis teaches a facility comprising:
wherein the AGV is positioned in alignment with the exit conveyer when the AGV is idle.
However, Jarvis teaches a facility with an AGV, wherein the AGV is positioned in alignment [an AGV 102 may be fed by a conveyor mechanism 108”] with the exit conveyer when the AGV is idle (Col 21 lines 35-68).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Jarvis and claim 12 of the Application Number: 18/397912 because they both related to using of AGVs to transfer finished products from a conveyor to the intermediary storage and (2) modify the AGV of claim 12 of Application Number 18/397912 aligned with the exit conveyor as in Jarvis. Doing so would allow finished products to be quickly fed from the conveyor to the second AGV when this AGV arrives using the track at the conveyor location and stops. Accordingly, the claim 1 is not patentable over claim 12 of Application Number 18/397912 in view of Jarvis.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is also not patentable over the claim 12 of the co-pending application 18/397912’s in view of Jarvis since method claim are obvious variants of the system claims when they recite similar subject matter as in this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 8- 9, the meaning of the limitation (“a transition area between and including the production line and the intermediary storage area”) is unclear. Here, the limitation fails to clarify whether a transition area includes the production line and the intermediary storage area both or the transition area is located between the production line and the intermediary storage area or something else. Specifically, it is unclear how the transition area can be (located) between the production line and intermediary storage area as part of “a transition area between”.
Examiner notes as to the claimed limitation, the para. 015 states:
[015] With reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the facility 10 includes warehouse AGVs 50
dedicated to moving between the production line 18
...
The area between and including the production line 18 and the staging area is referred to as the transition area. The transition area likewise encompasses the area between and including the production line and an intermediary storage area. The transition area is a designated area within the facility 10 for allowing the travel of warehouse AGV s 50.
If the transition area includes both the production line and the intermediary storage area, it will not be possible for it to be (located) between very same items that are included within it. For an analogy, if a driveway is located between a home and a side road, the driveway cannot also include the home and the side road both. The this limitation calls for similar scenario.
Note: For the examination purpose, the transition area (Area A +Area B) is interpreted as an area covering both the production line area (Area A) and the intermediary storage area (Area B) upon which AGVs can travel as shown below in the art rejection section.
Regarding claims 11 & 21, the scope of the claim limitations “a transition area between and including the production line and an intermediary storage area” and “a transition area between and including the production line and the intermediary storage
area” respectively are also confusing for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-10 & 12- 19, they are also rejected because of their dependency with rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is a method claim but drafted as being depended on a system claim 8. Furthermore, the claim 19 recites “The method of claim 8” in line 1; however, the clam 8 recites “The facility of claim 7”. Hence, it is not clear to which claim the claim 19 should depend on thereby rending the scope of the claim indefinite.
For the examination purpose, this claim 19 is interpreted as being depended on the claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) in view of Gauli (US 20200254500 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 items supply 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
[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 [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] between and including the part generating line and the intermediary storage area, wherein the transition area includes an AGV [Fig. 8, “cart filling AGV 102a to place the items on a mobile cart 116”] dedicated to moving within the transition area to remove the finished products 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”. In order to an AGV 102a to fed by a conveyor 102a, it can be understood as being aligned and not moving/idle state. Furthermore, if the “follow a track” is a straight line to reduce the moving distance, the AGV 102 can be in aligned even when it is home position, see MPEP 2144.01] with the exit conveyer when the AGV is idle [not moving to receive items of the conveyor] (Col 21 lines 35-68).
Jarvis teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
600
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jarvis fails to teach how its “the items to place them in the determined locations on a mobile cart 116” are being supplied so that they are being transported via an exit conveyor 108 to be picked up by the an AGV (“a cart filling AGV 102a”) although it teaches that “conveyor mechanisms 108 configured to bring items to the loading bay 106” (Col 5 lines 20-25). That is, the line that feds items to the conveyor 108 may not necessarily be “a production line” as claimed and shown above with strikethrough emphasis.
Gauli teaches a facility including a production line that produces finished products and transports them to a conveyor and uses end robots to manipulate the carried products (Fig. 2). Specifically, Gauli teaches a facility [area where the system of fig. 2 is installed] comprising:
a production line [“a roller conveyor 5 of the production line 2.”] including an exit conveyor [Fig. 2, “a roller conveyor 5”, analogous to Jarvis’s conveyor 108] for providing finished products produced on the production line; a transition area includes an AGV [“a final robot 14 removes the finished parts 10 from the roller conveyor 5 and, for example, stacks these for shipping.”] dedicated to moving within the transition area to remove the finished products from the exit conveyor of the production line ([027- 031, 040]).
Gauli and Jarvis are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, namely using automated vehicles to unload finished products carried in an exit conveyor for further processing at a facility. 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 to have its facility to include a production line locally to couple with its conveyor as in Gauli and arrive at the claimed invention. Gauli teaches missing detail for Jarvis about how and where its conveyor system receives finished products to transport to its AGV. Additionally, the suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to further increase the efficiency of storage or retrieval of items in a delivery vehicle 104 by locally producing items in the same facility (Jarvis Col 4 lines 10- 15). Therefore, Jarvis and Gauli teaches each limitation of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Jarvis in view of Gauli 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).
Regarding claim 11, Jarvis teaches a method of operating a plant, the method comprising:
producing finished products [“the delivery vehicles 104 with items to be delivered”] on a items supply line (Col 5 lines 15- 25);
providing the finished products [“an AGV 102 may be fed by a conveyor mechanism 108”] on an exit conveyor [“the loading environment 100 may include a conveyor mechanism 108 for bringing items to the loading bay 106”] of the items supply line
accommodating vehicles [“transporting items to a mobile cart 116, transporting mobile carts 116 into delivery vehicles 104”] at a plurality of dock doors at a loading dock (Figs. 1, 8, Col 18 lines 1-5);
loading [“he storage area 124 of the delivery vehicle 104 may include one or more designated locations for one or more mobile carts 116, which may be adapted to hold multiple items”] the finished products onto the vehicles (Col 6 lines 41- 50);
moving an AGV [“cart filling AGV 102a may automatically place items on a mobile cart 116 based on the specific door that is used during delivery, as described in further detail in reference to FIG. 7.”] within a transition area between and including the production line and an intermediary storage area [“the loading bay 106”] (Col 6 lines 25- 35, fig. 1);
removing the finished products from the exit conveyor with the AGV; placing the finished products into the intermediary storage area; and positioning the AGV in alignment [“an AGV 102 may be fed by a conveyor mechanism 108”] with the exit conveyor when the AGV is idle (Col 21 lines 35- 68, Figs. 1,8).
Jarvis may not teach its parts are produced at a production line as shown above with strikethrough emphasis.
Gauli, in the same field of endeavor of transporting parts in a conveyor and using robots, teaches a method of operating a plant, the method comprising: producing finished products on a production line [“a production line 2”] and providing the finished products on an exit conveyor [“roller conveyor 5”, analogous to Jarvis’ conveyor 108] of the production line ([026-030], fig. 2).
Gauli and Jarvis are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, namely using automated vehicles to unload finished products carried in an exit conveyor for further processing at a facility. 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 method for producing finished products on a production line as in Gauli. Gauli teaches missing detail for Jarvis about how and where its conveyor system receives finished products to transport to its AGV. Additionally, the suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to further increase the efficiency of storage or retrieval of items in a delivery vehicle 104 by locally producing items in the same facility (Jarvis Col 4 lines 10- 15). Therefore, Jarvis and Gauli teaches each limitation of the claim 11 and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA..
Regarding claim 12, Jarvis in view of Gauli teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising positioning a charger proximate to the exit conveyor (Jarvis, Col 10 lines 10- 40).
Claim(s) 3- 10 & 13- 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Gauli, and further in view of Mutua (US 20220363472 A1). The combination of Jarvis, Gauli, and Mutua are referred as JGM hereinafter.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Jarvis teaches a facility comprising:
a items supply 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 items supply 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 are stored within the facility after being removed from the exit conveyor (Fig. 1);
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] between and including the items supply line and the intermediary storage area, wherein transition area includes an AGV [“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 within the transition area to remove the finished products from the exit conveyor of the production line and place them into the intermediary storage area, wherein the AGV is positioned in alignment an [“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 line 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. Gauli teaches a facility comprising a production line including an exit conveyor for providing finished products produced on the production line ([027-028], fig. 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 combine Gauli and Jarvis for the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Gauli and Jarvis still fails to cure remaining limitations that are missing in Jarvis as shown above with strikethrough emphasis but they 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 Gauli. 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 2regardless 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 Gauli 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 Gauli 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 Gauli depending on user’s choice and make the charging of the battery of the AGV easier (Mutua, [047]). The combined teachings of Jarvis, Gauli, and Mutua discloses each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 3, Jarvis in view of Gauli 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 Gauli. 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 Gauli 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 Gauli 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 Gauli depending on user’s choice and make the charging of the battery of the AGV much simpler (Mutua, [047]). The combined teachings of Jarvis, Gauli, and Mutua (JGM) discloses each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 3, JGM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 2, wherein the AGV is positioned in a home position when idle, and the charger is located at the home position (Mutua, [042]).
Regarding claim 4, JGM 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, JGM 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, JGM 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, JGM 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, JGM 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, JGM 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).
Regarding claim 10, JGM teaches/suggests the facility of claim 8, wherein the AGV also removes the finished products from the intermediary storage area (Jarvis Fig. 8A, Col 23 lines 55- 65).
Regarding claim 13-20, JGM teaches/suggests the inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 3- 10 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Velten (US 20190333006 A1) teaches sorting control device transmits a notification to an autonomous guided vehicle (AGV) ([013]).
2) Sanghai Kenov Door inc., teaches an youtube video explaining elements that are included in a typical production facility such as a production line, loading dock, and an transition area (see attached NPL, Pages 1- 2 that show some portion of the video in screenshots).
3) Harmon (US 20230391217 A1) teaches an AGV [mobile rover] configured to move between a stowed state within a docking space of the beacon dock and a charging alignment state in which the mobile rover is aligned to a vehicle receiver module for wirelessly transferring power ([003]).
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 See claims filed during the preliminary amendment filed on 10-28-2024 for the Co-pending application Number: 18/397,912
2 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”.