DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-25.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are two missing numbers in the “Cross Reference to Related Applications” section of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 10-12 are 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. Claim 10 recites “the position” without proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0168893).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hamilton discloses a method executable by an autonomous mobile robot (AMR), the method comprising: training the AMR to auto-navigate to a zone where at least one task is to be performed, the zone defining a region as an open area without defined internal locations (see at least paras. 0004, 0046 and 0134); the AMR auto-navigating to the zone and, using one or more sensors, determining a presence of an object at a location within the zone (see at least para. 0075); and if the AMR is tasked with picking a load, removing the object from the location; or if the AMR is tasked with dropping a load, dropping the load at a position proximate to the object (see at least paras. 0135-0139).
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-19, 24 and 25, Hamilton discloses using a set of object of interest sensors to locate the object within the zone, wherein the set of object of interest sensors includes one or more of two dimensional (2D) LiDAR sensors and/or three dimensional (3D) LiDAR sensors (730, 732); using a set of payload presence sensors to determine if the AMR is carrying a load, wherein the set of payload sensors includes one or more of 2D LiDAR sensors and/or physical paddle sensors (730, 732, and see at least para. 0139; determining the presence of the object includes determining the location of the object closest to the AMR and within the zone (see at least paras. 0046 and 0076); training the AMR to auto-navigate to the zone includes processing user inputs received via a user interface device to mark an entrance and/or exit of the zone in an electronic representation of an environment (see at least para. 0083); training the AMR further comprises defining the zone as having a near bound and a far bound that define space within which the load can be dropped or picked (see at least paras. 0091 and 0134); dropping the load includes determining the position to be at a separation distance from the object (see at least para. 0131, “aligns the robot with a side of the container”). using reverse obstruction sensing of the AMR to set a stop distance that maintains the separation distance between the object and the load when dropped at the position (see at least para. 0131, “aligns the robot with a side of the container”); the object is a previously dropped load or a structural element comprising a wall, a column, a table, or a shelving rack (see at least para. 0048); picking the load includes picking the load as the object closest to the AMR within the zone (see at least para. 0076); adjusting sensing by the one or more sensor to remove that load from the zone (see at least para 0139); if the AMR reaches an end of the zone without sensing the object, the AMR aborting the task of picking the load (see at least paras 0141 and 0149); in response to the AMR using an object of interest classification sensor to perform sensing of the object in the zone, attempting to classify the object as an obstruction or a pickable load (see at least para. 0136); and if the AMR classifies the object as an obstruction, the AMR pausing or stopping until the obstruction clears (see at least paras. 0131 and 0143); a lane comprising a plurality of linearly arranged locations (see at least paras. 0134-0138); and training the AMR to navigate the zone by reversing direction to exit the zone after a drop task or a pick task (see at least para. 0139).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 16, and 20-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cesic et al. (US 2022/0121837) discloses a method of training an AMR which includes determining the pose of objects in a zone. Kang et al. (US 2024/0219918) discloses training an AMR to identify landmarks within a zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653