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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 06/19/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-18 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Note: the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). The applicant is encouraged to include the status of each claim in the claim listing document.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 10 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
The limitations of claims 1, 10:
Claim 1“; Claim 10 “;
accept input related to a material flow location and material flow activity at the location
to store the input as a template for a material flow process;
in response to activation of the trigger, direct the AMR to a target region to perform a physical activity comprising at least one of pick, drop, or place.
Claim(s) 1, 10 disclose(s) an abstract idea of managing storage allocation in a warehouse, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. More specifically, the claims limitations A-B listed above have concepts related to: receiving data (A) and storing data (B) related to material flow, and transmitting data (C) related to material flow, and thus are considered commercial and fundamental economic activities known in the retail and warehouse industry.
Claims 1-18 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The identified additional elements are:
Claims 1, 10: a user interface; and a processor configured to”, “AMR”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered merely data gathering, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitation B is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more data being stored claimed at a high level of generality; the additional elements that perform limitation C is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than transmitting data to use a existent technology (AMR) without the recitation of a technology or technical improvement; and thus is considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1, 10 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1-18 are not including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus are not significant more than the abstracted idea.
In addition, Examiner takes official notices that is old and well known in the art to have AMR’s being used in a warehouse to perform jobs.
In addition, the courts have found computer functions claimed at high level of generality as not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 20220048186 A1, hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10, 19, Sharma discloses:
Claims 1 and 19 “A material flow management system, comprising”, Claim 10: “A material flow management method, comprising:” Claim 19: “An AMR: (para. 43 - a system 100 for dynamically generating solutions for updating plans and task allocation strategies; para. 46 “dynamic or runtime updation of plans and task allocation strategies on plurality of heterogeneous devices, for example heterogeneous autonomous mobile robots (AMR), like forklifts, AGVs, gripper, pick assist AMR, drones”, para. 45-48 - generate solutions in a warehouse using AMR’s; pickanddrop task plan; para. 53, 57, 62, 78, 81, 91; Figures 1-6)
a user interface; and a processor configured to: (Figure 2 user interface 206)
accept input related to location and activity at the location through the user interface, including a trigger and at least one step including a location- related element and an activity-related element to be carried out by an AMR; and to store the input as a template for a process. and in response to activation of the trigger, direct the AMR to a target region to perform a physical activity comprising at least one of pick, drop, or place. (para. 77 “the developer or the user imports a plan or uses a user interface to define a plan, wherein para. 88 “A user input is received to map one or more exposed variables and tasks of the new plan and the deployed plan (505). The exposed variable names are mapped in order to allow the plan execution engine executing the deployed plan to retrieve variable values of the robot execution plan corresponding to the exposed variable of the new plan.”; para. 57 (trigger) “The variable ‘deploymentTarget’ is of type ‘list’ and indicates the different type of devices on which the task allocation strategy can be deployed. In the said example, the value [“RR.DEPLOYTARGET.Cloud”] indicates that the task allocation strategy may be executed by the cloud device system and the DR module of the cloud device system may instruct the agents or robots to perform the results of executing the task allocation strategy. The value [“RR.DEPLOYTARGET.Agent”] means that this is a light weight task allocation strategy which can be executed on the robots and doesn't necessarily need the cloud device system for execution. When the value [“RR.DEPLOYTARGET.Cloud”, “RR.DEPLOYTARGET.Agent”] is assigned, then, the task allocation strategy may be compatible with executing on cloud, robot, and both. For this value, the DR module takes the decision on whether the task allocation strategy may be executed on cloud, robot, or both. If the task allocation strategy has to be executed on the cloud node, the variable ‘cloudNodeExePath’ includes the URL of the source code of the task allocation strategy. If the task allocation strategy has to run on the robot, then the variable ‘agentSummandsExePath’ includes the URL of the respective source code of the task allocation strategy for running on the robot. Now, when the task allocation strategy has to be deployed, the DR module takes the decision on where the task allocation strategy has to be run.”; para. 62 “ the plan may be a ‘PickAndDrop’ plan with variables: picklocation, dripolocation, name: movetopickup, name: pickup, para.89-90 “Next the new plan is mapped to the sensor and execution data store (506). A plan execution engine is then invoked for executing the deployed plan (507). The new plan execution engine is deployed at one of the cloud device management systems and the autonomous mobile robots (508). In one embodiment, the new plan execution engine is deployed at one of the cloud device management systems and the autonomous robot based on the definition of the plan”, “In one embodiment, the plan execution engine executing the existing plan retrieves the data corresponding to the exposed variables of the new plan (509). In one embodiment, the plan execution engine executing the deployed plan retrieves the data corresponding to the exposed variables of the new plan based on the mapping of the deployed plan and the new plan. Finally, based on the retrieved plan data, the plan execution engine executes the new plan (510).”; para. 77 “The system may receive a request to deploy one or more plans from the catalog store. The plan includes tasks depending on the scenarios where the device (e.g. AMR) is being installed. e.g. in an autonomous warehouse, typical tasks may be related to navigation like LiDAR navigation, Vision based navigation, picking and dropping inventory items, sorting, gripping objects etc. After the request is received, the platform deploys the plans and task allocation strategy to be executed on the fleet of AMRs. The existing plans are then executed on one or more of the cloud device systems and the AMR””see para. 53-62 and 77-90; Please note: The task allocation strategy with the task plan is deployed and executed by the AMR and the variable points out if the AMR, cloud or both can execute the tasks; para. 62“When the plan is executed, the AMR looks for the data stored in the pick and drop locations variable”; para. 81 “Consider that earlier AGV was able to do pick and drop”; [0043] The three catalogs—plan catalog 111, task allocation catalog 112, and agent catalog 113 are the entities that expose variables, stores and maintain metadata, used by DR module 102; see para. 55; para. 43 and Figures 1 and 2 catalogs database)
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Sharma discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to present the template to a user when a user prompts the management system through the user interface. ([0077] the developer or the user imports a plan or uses a user interface to define a plan” and Figures 1-2);
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 12, Sharma discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to present a template and respond to user input including the destination of an AMR and the activity an AMR is to carry out once it arrives at the destination. (para. 77 “the developer or the user imports a plan or uses a user interface to define a plan, wherein para. 88 “A user input is received to map one or more exposed variables and tasks of the new plan and the deployed plan (505). The exposed variable names are mapped in order to allow the plan execution engine executing the deployed plan to retrieve variable values of the robot execution plan corresponding to the exposed variable of the new plan.”; para. 62 “ the plan may be a ‘PickAndDrop’ plan with variables: picklocation, droplocation, name: movetopickup, name: pickup, para. 89-90; see para. 53-62 and 77-90);
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 13, Sharma discloses:
wherein the destination may be a group of locations and the processor is configured to accept input from a user that indicates an entity that is to determine the specific location from the group of locations that is to be the AMR destination. (para. 77 “the developer or the user imports a plan or uses a user interface to define a plan, where in para. 88 “A user input is received to map one or more exposed variables and tasks of the new plan and the deployed plan (505). The exposed variable names are mapped in order to allow the plan execution engine executing the deployed plan to retrieve variable values of the robot execution plan corresponding to the exposed variable of the new plan.”; para. 62 “the plan may be a ‘PickAndDrop’ plan with variables: picklocation, droplocation, name: movetopickup, name: pickup, para.89-90; see para. 53-62 and 77-90; para. 61-62 author” : “plan_writer@domain.com; para. 57 “The first variable ‘id’ indicates a unique identifier and ‘author’ may be the application owner or a developer”);
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 15, Sharma discloses:
wherein the locations within the group of locations are organized according to type of locations. (para. 61-62 picklocation, droplocation; see para. 53-62 and 77-90);
Regarding claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17, Sharma discloses: wherein the entity that is to determine the specific location is an operator, wherein the entity that is to determine the specific location is PLC (para. 32 terms like ‘users’, ‘developers’, ‘designer’, ‘third parties’, ‘warehouse owner’, ‘robotics solutions provider’ etc.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20220048186 A1, hereinafter Sharma) in view of Shi et al. (US 20230400860 A1, hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 14, Sharma discloses:
wherein the locations within the group of locations are organized. (para. 61-62 picklocation, droplocation; see para. 53-62 and 77-90);
Sharma does not disclose according to physical proximity
Shi discloses: ([0040][0053] shortest path which has the shortest total travel distance or least cost elect an optimization method, nearest next destination, preferred path, or shortest path;);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sharma to include the above limitations as taught by Shi, in order to enable a mobile robot with the capability of executing and completing a mission without a human's involvement, see Shi para. 2.
Claim(s) 9, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20220048186 A1, hereinafter Sharma) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20200192337 A1, hereinafter Hoffman).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 18, Sharma discloses:
wherein the system is configured to accept the specification of a location from within a location group from entity that is to determine the specific location during or after the time the preconfigured job is requested. (para. 77 “the developer or the user imports a plan or uses a user interface to define a plan, wherein para. 88 “A user input is received to map one or more exposed variables and tasks of the new plan and the deployed plan (505). The exposed variable names are mapped in order to allow the plan execution engine executing the deployed plan to retrieve variable values of the robot execution plan corresponding to the exposed variable of the new plan.”; para. 62 “ the plan may be a ‘PickAndDrop’ plan with variables: picklocation, droplocation, name: movetopickup, name: pickup, para.89-90; see para. 53-62 and 77-90; para. 61-62 author” : plan_writer@domain.com; para. 57 “The first variable ‘id’ indicates a unique identifier and ‘author’ may be the application owner or a developer; para. 32 terms like ‘users’, ‘developers’, ‘designer’, ‘third parties’, ‘warehouse owner’, ‘robotics solutions provider’ etc.));
Shama does not disclose “during or after the time the preconfigured job is requested”
Hoffman discloses: [0141] a pick path by comparing distance from a location to destination selected from a group of locations with a common configuration and/or group of zones with a selection priority; [0104] the AGV PLC and AGV management software confirm location and pick points; [0096], AGV PLC is used to confirm material location and pick and drop point; Paragraph 113, upon arrival of a container entity/ AGV PLC determines location of pickup;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shama to include the above limitations as taught by Hoffman, in order to ensure that the highest priority and oldest tasks are assigned, see Hoffman para. 132.
Regarding claim(s) 20, Shama discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to present the template to a user when called…a material flow process that includes at least one trigger and at least one step (para. 77 “a process to deploy updated plans and task allocation strategy for execution, according to an embodiment. Initially, the developer or the user imports a plan or uses a user interface to define a plan”)
Shama does not disclose and to step the user through the configuration.
Hoffman discloses: [0098] “The AMSA software will use a pre-set trigger quantity as a manual confirmation of current cell inventory. When this trigger quantity is met it will require the operator to manually count and confirm the quantity matches. This is communicated from the AMSA to the manufacturing cell PLC 44 and tablet. If the actual quantity does match, the operator will indicate “Yes” on the work station interface tablet. If the quantity does not match the operator will indicate this by pressing “No” on the work cell interface tablet. After this step, the AMSA software will require the operator to enter the correct current quantity and press “Enter” on the work cell interface tablet.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sharma to include the above limitations as taught by Hoffman, in order to ensure that the highest priority and oldest tasks are assigned, see Hoffman para. 132.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claimed language “satisfy the requirements for patentable subject matter eligibility under Step 2A Prong One of Alice”, see Remarks page 7. Paragraph 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to receive and storing data including a trigger and location data, if the trigger is activated (see specification para. 98 “appropriate inputs to determine when a trigger condition has been met”, para. 106 user interface or PLC) the AMR will receive the data to perform the job (see specification para. 105 “Go Here” and “Do This.”). Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of creating a job with a trigger, step, and location, and storing it, and receiving input, and transmitting data.
Applicant argues that “the claims are patent eligible through Prong Two of revised Step 2A”, see Remarks page 7. Paragraph 3. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to receiving and storing data including a trigger, a step, and location data; if the trigger is activated (see specification para. 95 “appropriate inputs to determine when a trigger condition has been met”), job data will be sent to the AMR to perform the job (see specification para. 102 “Go Here” and “Do This.”). Thus, are not considered a transformation of a physical machine to a different state or thing, instead it is sending data to have an existent technology to perform what the existent technology does. Further, the AMR is not positively recited on claims 1 and 10. Examiner suggests applicant representative to positively recite the AMR on claims 1 and 10 in order to put weight into the amended limitations “in response to activation of the trigger, direct the AMR to a target region to perform a physical activity comprising at least one of pick, drop, or place.”. Therefore, the claimed invention is not directed to a transformation of a physical machine, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that “the claims are patent eligible through path C at Step 2B”, see Remarks page 2. Paragraph 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to the user interface and the processor receiving, storing, and transmitting data, and examiner do not see “ an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception”. Examiner suggests applicant’s representative to positively recite the AMR in claims 1 and 10 to add weight to the amended limitations “in response to activation of the trigger, direct the AMR to a target region to perform a physical activity comprising at least one of pick, drop, or place.”. Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial execution without significantly more.
Therefore, the rejection under the 35 USC 101 is maintained for claims 1-18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights