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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on provisional application filed on 09/15/2022.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuffs et al (U.S.2009/0252577) and further in view of Dwivedi et al (U.S. 2023/0138603).
1 As per claims 1,11 Tuffs disclosed a system for automatically storing and retrieving loads comprising:
first and a second sets of rails for receiving the loads [Another aspect of the present invention is an automatic unloader for automated material handling systems of the type which moves loads between various workstations on transport vehicles. The automatic unloader includes a base configured for mounting on a stationary support surface, and includes a pair of longitudinally extending, laterally spaced apart rails disposed in a generally parallel relationship] (Paragraph. 0005);
one or more automatically guided vehicles (AGV) comprising a raisable and yet lowerable platform for picking up or unloading the loads, the AGV being configured to: autonomously move in any directions under the first and second sets of rails when unloaded [A lift drive is operably connected with at least one of the coupler, the carriage, and the conveyor, and automatically shifts the conveyor between the lowered and raised positions. A controller is operably connected with the carriage drive, the conveyor drive and the lift drive, and sequentially activates the same to unload loads from an associated transport vehicle by shifting the carriage from the retracted position to the extended position in general vertical alignment with and below the loads disposed on the associated transport vehicle, shifting the conveyor from the lowered position to the raised position to lift the loads off of the associated transfer vehicle and onto the conveyor elements, and shifting the conveyor elements toward the inboard end of the conveyor to move the loads out of vertical alignment with and away from the associated transport vehicle] (Paragraph. 0005); and
However, Tuffs did not explicitly disclose autonomously move toward coordinates of an empty storage area in a direction substantially parallel to the first or second sets of rails when loaded.
Dwivedi disclosed, “In one embodiment, items can be picked to totes, and the totes or individual items can be loaded onto shuttles. Individual shuttles may merge on to a shuttle highway (e.g., the track, etc.). The track may include multiple merges and diverts for different induction stations and sortation systems. The controller of the system may determine optimal paths and manage shuttle traffic. Once the shuttle reaches the destination sortation system, a lift or container elevator as described herein may move the shuttle vertically to the destination level. The shuttle can then traverse through a central spine of the sortation system to a destination container and can drop the item using an onboard conveyor. Full containers may be removed from the sortation system using a shuttle and sent downstream for packing. Empty containers can be used to replace removed full containers” (Paragraph. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated in one embodiment, items can be picked to totes, and the totes or individual items can be loaded onto shuttles. Individual shuttles may merge on to a shuttle highway (e.g., the track, etc.). The track may include multiple merges and diverts for different induction stations and sortation systems. The controller of the system may determine optimal paths and manage shuttle traffic. Once the shuttle reaches the destination sortation system, a lift or container elevator as described herein may move the shuttle vertically to the destination level. The shuttle can then traverse through a central spine of the sortation system to a destination container and can drop the item using an onboard conveyor. Full containers may be removed from the sortation system using a shuttle and sent downstream for packing. Empty containers can be used to replace removed full containers as taught by Dwivedi in the method and system of Tuffs to improve the handling of the objects more efficient.
2. As per claims 2,16 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed further comprising a controller in data communication with the AGV, the controller being configured to send to the AGV data relating to empty storage areas on the second set of rails (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0075).
3. As per claim 3 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed wherein the AGV comprises omnidirectional wheels (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0060).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuffs et al (U.S.2009/0252577), Dwivedi et al (U.S. 2023/0138603) and further in view of Bergman et al (U.S. 2022/0308586).
As per claims 4,13 Tuff-Dwivedi did not explicitly disclose wherein the first or second sets of rails comprise one or more identification codes and wherein the AGV comprises a scanner for reading the identification codes.
In the same field of endeavor Bergman disclosed, “In certain embodiments, the delivery items are loaded onto the delivery robot at a warehouse. In such embodiments, each delivery robot can be pre-programmed with a delivery pathway and a delivery location corresponding to a dwelling to which the items are to be delivered. The delivery robot can then be loaded onto a delivery vehicle. Alternatively, the delivery items can be loaded into a delivery vehicle separate from the delivery robot. In such embodiments, the delivery items can include addresses, such as packing slips, typically used for mailing items, or computer readable codes, such as barcodes, two-dimensional bar codes, QR codes, an RFID, or the like, or other identifiers that identify the location of the dwelling in which the delivery items are to be delivered. The delivery robot can be capable of reading the identifiers using a scanner or reader, or otherwise be suited to have an identifier manually entered into the delivery robot, for example, using a user interface. The input can occur when the delivery items are loaded into the receptacle of the delivery robot by delivery personnel. The delivery vehicle can drive to a delivery robot drop-off location, open a cargo door, and lower a ramp, so the delivery robot can deploy from the delivery vehicle and drive to a respective dwelling (Paragraph. 0108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated in certain embodiments, the delivery items are loaded onto the delivery robot at a warehouse. In such embodiments, each delivery robot can be pre-programmed with a delivery pathway and a delivery location corresponding to a dwelling to which the items are to be delivered. The delivery robot can then be loaded onto a delivery vehicle. Alternatively, the delivery items can be loaded into a delivery vehicle separate from the delivery robot. In such embodiments, the delivery items can include addresses, such as packing slips, typically used for mailing items, or computer readable codes, such as barcodes, two-dimensional bar codes, QR codes, an RFID, or the like, or other identifiers that identify the location of the dwelling in which the delivery items are to be delivered. The delivery robot can be capable of reading the identifiers using a scanner or reader, or otherwise be suited to have an identifier manually entered into the delivery robot, for example, using a user interface. The input can occur when the delivery items are loaded into the receptacle of the delivery robot by delivery personnel. The delivery vehicle can drive to a delivery robot drop-off location, open a cargo door, and lower a ramp, so the delivery robot can deploy from the delivery vehicle and drive to a respective dwelling as taught by Bergman in the method and system of Tuffs-Dwivedi to improve the handling of the object efficient.
4. As per claim 5 Tuffs-Dwivedi-Bergman disclosed wherein the AGV moves towards the empty storage area using the read identification codes (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0075).
5 As per claims 6,14 Tuffs-Dwivedi-Bergman disclosed the identification codes being QR codes (Bergman, Paragraph. 0108). Claims 6,14 has the same motivation as to claim 4.
6 As per claim 7 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the rails comprising beams and support members, the beams being positioned in parallel to one another (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0006).
7 As per claim 8 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the distance between two of the parallel beams being more than a width of the AGV (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0006).
8 As per claim 9 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the AGV being configured to laterally moved with regard to the parallel beams when unloaded (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0006).
9. As per claim 10 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the loads being pan stacks (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0007).
10. As per claim 12 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed further comprising moving the AGV laterally in relation to the first or second sets of rails when unloaded (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0075).
11. As per claim 15 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed comprising the load being picked up from a conveyor by a robot arm and being stored on the first set of rails (Tuffs, Paragraph.0068)
12. As per claim 17 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the raised loaded AGV moving between rails of the second set of rails towards the received empty storage area (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0075).
13. As per claim 18 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the loaded AGV holding position until the controller sends instructions to move (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0076).
14. As per claim 19 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the AGV avoiding obstacles while moving toward the one or more empty storage areas (Dwivedi, Paragraph. 0016). Claim 19 has the same motivation as to claims 1 and 11.
15. As per claim 20 Tuffs-Dwivedi disclosed the unloaded AGV moving in any directions under rails, regardless if the rails are empty or loaded (Tuffs, Paragraph. 0075).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
16. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system, and claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A system for automatically storing and retrieving loads comprising:
first and a second sets of rails for receiving the loads;
one or more automatically guided vehicles (AGV) comprising a raisable and yet lowerable platform for picking up or unloading the loads, the AGV being configured to:
autonomously move in any directions under the first and second sets of rails when unloaded; and
autonomously move toward coordinates of an empty storage area in a direction substantially parallel to the first or second sets of rails when loaded.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “moving …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for automatically storing and retrieving loads comprising:
first and a second sets of rails for receiving the loads;
one or more automatically guided vehicles (AGV) comprising a raisable and yet lowerable platform for picking up or unloading the loads, the AGV being configured to:
autonomously move in any directions under the first and second sets of rails when unloaded; and
autonomously move toward coordinates of an empty storage area in a direction substantially parallel to the first or second sets of rails when loaded.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 11 further recite “A method for automatically retrieving and storing load comprising: an automatically guided vehicle (AGV) having a platform in a lowered position autonomously moving under a first set of rails comprising the load; raising the platform of the AGV between the first set of rails to pick up the load; autonomously moving the AGV with the raised platform in a direction generally parallel to and away from the first set of rails; autonomously moving the AGV toward empty storage areas on a second set of rails; and the AGV unloading the picked-up load on the storage areas of the second set of rails” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “moving the platform configured to be used by the autonomous vehicle under the first and second set of rails” in claim 1 and “moving the platform be used by the autonomous vehicle generally parallel to and away from the set of rails” in claim 11 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle moving the AGV” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “moving the AGV…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-19 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-19 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
18. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
19. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667