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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 13 have been newly amended. Claims 25 and 26 have been newly added. No claims have been newly canceled. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13, specifically with respect to whether Collett discloses the newly added limitation of “wherein the first agent is trained using a training-by-demonstration” 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.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the previously applied prior art fails to teach every limitation of newly amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant asserts that Collett fails to teach or suggest "an autonomous first agent trained with intersection behaviors and to travel along a first path through an intersection." Applicant argues that "[w]hile Collett may recite the word 'autonomous,' the term is used in a fundamentally different sense than in claims 1 and 13. As defined in the Specification, the claimed 'autonomous' agent is one that self-navigates along a path it has learned and stored through training-by-demonstration, executing internally stored intersection behaviors—including entrance and exit behaviors—without reliance on external road-rule logic or server control… [b]y contrast, in Collett, the 'autonomous or semi-autonomous' materials-handling vehicles do not learn behaviors or follow trained paths; they merely detect a pre-commissioned intersection zone and execute a centralized traffic-management protocol, requesting permission, waiting for remote clearance, and proceeding only when a server—using pre-positioned warehouse object data, preset road rules, and obstacle data—authorizes movement… Collet's vehicles, therefore, remain wholly dependent on externally defined maps and server-mediated intersection control, not learned intersection behaviors or path-specific stored behaviors at the vehicle level." Further, Applicant argues that "Collett fails to disclose 'an autonomous first agent trained with intersection behaviors' because nothing in Collett teaches an agent that acquires its behaviors through any training process, let alone training-by-demonstration. In the present application, the first agent is autonomous because it learns and internally stores its intersection entrance and exit behaviors, path information, and travel characteristics through an operator-led training-by-demonstration process, forming dynamic, behavior-level objects… By contrast, Collett's so called 'intersection behaviors' are not learned behaviors at all; they are static, pre-encoded rules and warehouse-object data loaded into zone maps during a manual commissioning phase, with no disclosure of a robot learning behaviors by being demonstrated a path… Because Collett's vehicles merely follow predefined, server-controlled protocols rather than executing behaviors they learned from demonstration, Collett cannot disclose an autonomous agent that is trained [sic] with intersection behaviors in the manner required by independent claims 1 and 13, which now expressly recite 'wherein the first agent is trained using a training-by-demonstration.'" Lastly, Applicant argues that the examiner's arguments regarding "a processor configured to selectively grant or deny the second agent access to the intersection based, at least in part, on the first agent's travel relative to the intersection" were unpersuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that "Collett discloses only a remote or local traffic-management server that grants permission to proceed based strictly on the sequence of prior submitted entrance requests and corresponding exit notifications… Collett's server does not evaluate, consider, or utilize the first agent's travel relative to the intersection, nor does it assess any path-specific or behavior-specific information about the requesting or occupying vehicle. In contrast, the claimed processor may determine access based at least in part on the first agent's travel, including factors such as the agent's path, direction of travel, and type of travel through the intersection… The claimed processor, therefore, does not rely solely on prior requests and exit notifications but can incorporate dynamic, behavior-level information unavailable in Collett's system. Because Collett performs only a binary queue-clearance check and lacks any disclosure of a processor evaluating the first agent's actual travel or movement relative to the intersection, Collett fails to disclose 'at least one processor configured to selectively grant or deny the second agent access to the intersection based, at least in part, on the first agent's travel relative to the intersection' as required by independent claims 1 and 13." The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Collett fails to teach "an autonomous first agent trained with intersection behaviors and to travel along a first path through an intersection," the examiner notes that no portion of claim 1 requires that the first agent be one that "self-navigates along a path it has learned and stored through training-by-demonstration." Rather, claim 1 only requires that the autonomous first agent be "trained with intersection behaviors" and (i.e., separately) "travel along a first path through an intersection." There is no requirement in claim 1 that the first agent "execute internally stored intersection behaviors … without reliance on external road-rule logic or server control."
Regarding Applicant's argument that Collett fails to disclose "an autonomous first agent trained with intersection behaviors" because "nothing in Collett teaches an agent that acquires its behaviors through any training process," the examiner notes that the term "trained" is very broad, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, includes merely providing a robot a set of rules to follow (e.g., the "road rules" of Collett). There is no particular requirement, as claimed, that the "training" be related to a machine learning system, neural network, AI system, or otherwise.
Lastly, regarding Applicant's argument that the examiner's previous arguments regarding "a processor configured to selectively grant or deny the second agent access to the intersection based, at least in part, on the first agent's travel relative to the intersection" were unpersuasive, the examiner notes that at claimed, the only requirement for the "processor to grant or deny the second agent access to the intersection" is that the grant[ing] or deny[ing] is based in part on the first agent's travel relative to the intersection. The "exit notification" of Collett, as such, indicates that the first agent has left the intersection, i.e., has traveled out of the intersection, which reasonably constitutes the "first agent's travel relative to the intersection." Hence, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett (US 20190033882 A1), hereafter Collett, in view of Passot (US 20170329333 A1), hereafter Passot.
Regarding claim 1, Collett discloses a system, comprising:
An autonomous first agent trained with intersection behaviors and to travel along a first path through an intersection (0110, materials handling vehicle 412 approaching intersection, see also Fig. 4K, 0053-0055, if the server has received prior requests from another materials handling vehicle, the server system determines whether each prior request has a corresponding exit notification, 0047, When an autonomous or semi-autonomous materials handling vehicle approaches an intersection, the materials handling vehicle may announce that approach to the server via a reference to the unique identifier associated with the intersection. The materials handling vehicle may request permission to enter the intersection from the server. If no other materials handling vehicle is in the intersection, the server will grant permission, and other materials handling vehicles will be denied and requested to wait until the current materials handling vehicle leaves the intersection. The materials handling vehicle will enter and proceed through the intersection and notify the server when the materials handling vehicle, including any associated components such as attached carts, is clear of the intersection, Examiner’s note: the examiner is interpreting the materials handling vehicle requesting access prior to entering the intersection and sending an exit notification to the server as “intersection behaviors”);
An autonomous second agent trained with intersection behaviors and to travel along a second path that overlaps the first path in the intersection (0110, mediated materials handling vehicle 400 may be instructed to wait until the other materials handling vehicle 412 has cleared the intersection, see also Fig. 4K, 0053-0055, if the server has received prior requests from another materials handling vehicle, the server system determines whether each prior request has a corresponding exit notification, if the prior request has a corresponding exit notification, the server grants the materials handling vehicle permission to proceed through the intersection, 0047, When an autonomous or semi-autonomous materials handling vehicle approaches an intersection, the materials handling vehicle may announce that approach to the server via a reference to the unique identifier associated with the intersection. The materials handling vehicle may request permission to enter the intersection from the server. If no other materials handling vehicle is in the intersection, the server will grant permission, and other materials handling vehicles will be denied and requested to wait until the current materials handling vehicle leaves the intersection. The materials handling vehicle will enter and proceed through the intersection and notify the server when the materials handling vehicle, including any associated components such as attached carts, is clear of the intersection, Examiner’s note: the examiner is interpreting the materials handling vehicle requesting access prior to entering the intersection and sending an exit notification to the server as “intersection behaviors”); and
At least one processor configured to selectively grant or deny the second agent access to the intersection based, at least in part, on the first agent's travel relative to the intersection (0045, traffic management system comprises a remote or local traffic management server configured to grant permission to submitted vehicle requests to proceed through an intersection based on clearance of prior submitted requests and corresponding exit notifications).
Collett fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the first agent is trained using a training-by-demonstration.
Passot, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein a first agent is trained using a training by demonstration (0086, As previously mentioned, as user 904 demonstrates route 116, user 904 can perform one or more actions that can be also demonstrated to and learned by robot 102 as robot 102 learns to navigate. These actions can include any actions that robot 102 may perform, such as turning, turning on/off water, spraying water, turning on/off vacuums, moving vacuum hose positions, gesticulating an arm, raising/lowering a lift, moving a sensor, turning on/off a sensor, etc. For example, user 904 can turn on and off the cleaning system of robot 102 in order to train robot 102 where to clean along route 116 (and subsequently where to clean when robot 102 autonomously cleans routes 106, 126) and/or in what trajectories. Robot 102 can record these actions in memory 302 (later described in FIG. 3A) and later perform them when autonomously navigating. For example, in some implementations, robot 102 can associate one or more positions relative to initialization object 150 with the learned actions.).
Collett and Passot are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the training-by-demonstration of Passot in order to provide a means of increasing the flexibility of the robot's navigation systems. The motivation to combine is to allow any operator to train the robot, and to increase the robot's ability to adapt to new or unknown environments (see at least 0073 and 0074 of Passot).
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein at least one of the first agent or the second agent is an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) trained with intersection entrance and exit behaviors (0058, traffic management system utilizes one or more servers responsible for coordinating a fleet of autonomous materials handling vehicles, 0047, When an autonomous or semi-autonomous materials handling vehicle approaches an intersection, the materials handling vehicle may announce that approach to the server via a reference to the unique identifier associated with the intersection. The materials handling vehicle may request permission to enter the intersection from the server. If no other materials handling vehicle is in the intersection, the server will grant permission, and other materials handling vehicles will be denied and requested to wait until the current materials handling vehicle leaves the intersection. The materials handling vehicle will enter and proceed through the intersection and notify the server when the materials handling vehicle, including any associated components such as attached carts, is clear of the intersection, Examiner’s note: the examiner is interpreting the materials handling vehicle requesting access prior to entering the intersection as an “entrance behavior” and sending an exit notification to the server as an “exit behavior”).
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor is in communication with at least one computer storage device comprising an intersection management program code executable by the at least one processor (0045, traffic management system comprises a remote or local traffic management server configured to grant permission to submitted vehicle requests to proceed through an intersection based on clearance of prior submitted requests and corresponding exit notifications).
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant the second agent access to the intersection if the first agent does not and/or will not travel in a reverse direction relative to the intersection (0053-0055, the materials handling vehicle 400 sends a request to proceed through the intersection to a server, system determines if the server has received prior requests, if the server has received prior requests, the system determines whether each prior request has a corresponding exit notification, if the server has received a corresponding exit notification, the server grants the materials handling vehicle permission to proceed through the intersection, Examiner's note: given that the second materials handling vehicle is not allowed to enter into the intersection until it is determined that an exit notification has been received for a prior authorized vehicle, the prior authorized vehicle must move or must have moved in a direction exiting the intersection, meaning that the prior authorized vehicle did not travel in a reverse direction relative to the intersection, as the prior vehicle must have exited the intersection before granting the second materials handling vehicle access to the intersection).
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant the second agent access to the intersection if the first agent does not and/or will not reverse direction relative to the intersection (0053-0055, the materials handling vehicle 400 sends a request to proceed through the intersection to a server, system determines if the server has received prior requests, if the server has received prior requests, the system determines whether each prior request has a corresponding exit notification, if the server has received a corresponding exit notification, the server grants the materials handling vehicle permission to proceed through the intersection, Examiner's note: given that the second materials handling vehicle is not allowed to enter into the intersection until it is determined that an exit notification has been received for a prior authorized vehicle, the prior authorized vehicle must move or must have moved in a direction exiting the intersection, meaning that the prior authorized vehicle did not reverse direction relative to the intersection, as the prior vehicle must have exited the intersection before granting the second materials handling vehicle access to the intersection).
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant the second agent access to the intersection if the first agent does not and/or will not move towards the second agent in the intersection (0110, Fig. 4K, other materials handling vehicle 412 in front of the mediated materials handling vehicle 400, mediated materials handling vehicle 400 instructed to wait until the other materials handling 412 clears the intersection, Examiner's note: if the other materials handling vehicle has provided an exit notification, it is therefore moving away from the intersection in some direction, and has therefore moved away from the second materials handling vehicle in the intersection).
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant the second agent access to the intersection if the first agent is moving and/or will move at least partially in the same direction as the second agent in the intersection (0110, Fig. 4K, other materials handling vehicle 412 in front of the mediated materials handling vehicle 400, mediated materials handling vehicle 400 instructed to wait until the other materials handling 412 clears the intersection, Examiner's note: given that the materials handling vehicles 400 and 412 are entering the intersection from the same direction, the materials handling vehicles are moving in at least partially the same direction, that is, the direction entering the intersection).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor at the first agent configured to communicate with a server configured to grant and deny access to the intersection (0053, materials handling vehicle sends a request to proceed through the intersection to a server, server grants the materials handling vehicle permission to proceed through the intersection based on a determination that the server has not received prior requests.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the intersection comprises a plurality of paths and/or path segments (0114-0122, plurality of intersection types, intersection may include a pair of cross one-way routes, may include multiple two lane routes that intersect).
Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant the second agent access to the intersection if the first path is the same or substantially the same as the second path and the first agent and the second agent are moving and/or will move in the same direction relative to the intersection (0110, mediated materials handling vehicle 400 may be instructed to wait until the other materials handling vehicle 412 has cleared the intersection, see also Fig. 4K, Examiner’s note: given the materials handling vehicles are traveling into the intersection from the same direction, the examiner asserts that the first and second path are substantially the same insofar as they both cause their respective materials handling vehicle to travel into the intersection in the same direction. Further, the examiner asserts that since both materials handling vehicles are entering the intersection from the same direction, they will have moved in the same direction relative to the intersection merely by virtue of entering the intersection from the same direction).
Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 11, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant the second agent access to the intersection if the first path is the same or substantially the same as the second path and the first agent is not moving and/or will not move in a reverse direction relative to a direction the first agent moved to enter the intersection (0110, mediated materials handling vehicle 400 may be instructed to wait until the other materials handling vehicle 412 has cleared the intersection, see also Fig. 4K, Examiner’s note: given the materials handling vehicles are traveling into the intersection from the same direction, the examiner asserts that the first and second path are substantially the same insofar as they both cause their respective materials handling vehicle to travel into the intersection in the same direction. Further, the examiner notes that since the first materials handling vehicle has to exit the intersection before the second materials handling vehicle is allowed to enter the intersection, the first materials handling vehicle has moved in a direction exiting the intersection, that is, did not move in a reverse direction relative to the direction the first materials handling vehicle entered the intersection, since it must have exited the intersection).
Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 12, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the method of claim 13, and Collett further teaches it further comprising the at least one processor selectively granting the second agent access to the intersection if the first agent does not and/or will not move at least partially in the same direction as the second agent in the intersection (0109, Fig. 4J, materials handling vehicles 400 and 410 making left turns through an intersection from opposite directions, mediated materials handling vehicle 400 gives way to the other materials handling vehicle 410, 0053-0055, the materials handling vehicle 400 sends a request to proceed through the intersection to a server, system determines if the server has received prior requests, if the server has received prior requests, the system determines whether each prior request has a corresponding exit notification, if the server has received a corresponding exit notification, the server grants the materials handling vehicle permission to proceed through the intersection, Examiner's note: in the instance that the two materials handling vehicles are making left turns from opposite directions as shown in Fig. 4J, the first materials handling vehicle and the second materials handling vehicle are at no point moving in the same direction).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the method of claim 13, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a server and the method further comprises the second agent requesting intersection access from the server and the server granting and/or denying the second agent access to the intersection based, at least in part, on the path of the first agent through the intersection (0053-0055, if the server has received prior requests from another materials handling vehicle, the server system determines whether each prior request has a corresponding exit notification, if the prior request has a corresponding exit notification, the server grants the materials handling vehicle permission to proceed through the intersection).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 1, and Collett further teaches wherein the intersection behaviors are configured to take into account at least one of the group consisting of an identifier (0047, In a remotely mediated embodiment, a centralized server is used to track the state of contention areas (such as intersections). Each contention area may be associated with a unique identifier. When an autonomous or semi-autonomous materials handling vehicle (such as a truck or forklift) approaches an intersection, the materials handling vehicle may announce that approach to the server via a reference to the unique identifier associated with the intersection.), the first path of the first autonomous agent (0116, Referring to FIG. 5B, a joining paths intersection 502 is illustrated. A single direction joining path enters and joins with a traffic lane that includes existing traffic. A mediated materials handling vehicle 400 (as illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4M, for example) that may be on the joining path and entering the lane with existing traffic is instructed to wait for a clear section of the traffic lane with prior to merging into the traffic lane.), and a type of travel the first autonomous agent is to make through the intersection (0107, FIG. 4D illustrates the application of local road rules where a mediated materials handling vehicle 400 has the right of way R when approaching an intersection with another materials handling vehicle 406 positioned at the intersection in a right approach zone of the intersection, to the right the of mediated materials handling vehicle 400. The other materials handling vehicle 406 may have a heading to cross through, or turn within, the intersection. FIG. 4E sets forth the application of local road rules where a mediated materials handling vehicle 400 has the right of way R when approaching an intersection with an obstacle 408 blocking a field of view of a sensor disposed on the mediated materials handling vehicle 400 with respect to a right approach zone of the intersection. In either scenario of FIGS. 4D-4E, the local road rules may provide that the mediated materials handling vehicle 400 has the right of way R, and the mediated materials handling vehicle 400 is instructed by the system to proceed through and/or turn within the intersection.).
Claim 26 is similar in scope to claim 25, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett in view of Passot, and further in view of Wang (US 20190236948 A1), hereafter Wang.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Collett and Passot teaches the system of claim 2, and Collett further teaches wherein the at least one processor includes a processor configured to selectively grant and deny access to a plurality of AMRs requesting access to the intersection (0045, traffic management system comprises a remote or local traffic management server configured to grant permission to submitted vehicle requests to proceed through an intersection based on clearance of prior submitted requests and corresponding exit notifications, 0123, server may be a computing device 700, computing device 700 includes at least one processor 702).
The combination of Collett and Passot fails to teach, however, wherein the request is a trained entrance behavior that includes at least one from the group of: AMR ID, path, or type of travel through the intersection.
Wang, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the request is a trained entrance behavior that includes at least one from the group of: AMR ID, path, or type of travel through the intersection (0052, A traversing request 214 may include an earliest arrival time to intersection zone 116, a current vehicle speed, a position, an entry lane of intersection 108, a departure lane of intersection 108, a request failure count, and vehicle properties. The vehicle properties may include a vehicle identity number, a width, a length, a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration.).
Collett, Passot, and Wang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous device management systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the traversing request having vehicle properties of Wang in order to allow the management system to better determine whether or allow or deny the request. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the intersection is traversed as safely as possible by all agents.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights