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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 01/28/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 3 and 13 have overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112 paragraph (necessitated by amendment).
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-20 has NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13, 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, Is the limitation “the location” in line 5 and “the material flow location” in line 4 the same or different? If they are different, it should read “a location” on line 5, if they are the same it should read “the material flow location” in line 5. The same applies to claims 10 and 19.
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) 1-20 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, 19 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
The limitations of claims 1, 10, 19:
Claim 1“A material flow management system, comprising:”; Claim 10 “A material flow management method, comprising:”; Claim 19: “A material flow management system, comprising:”
Claim 19: “
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;
wherein
Claim(s) 1, 10, 19 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 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The identified additional elements are:
Claims 1, 10, 19 a user interface; and a processor configured to”;
Claims 1, 10, 19 “an AMR”; “carrying out a physical activity”
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered merely data gathering, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitation B are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more data being stored claimed at a high level of generality; the additional elements that perform limitation C are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than data being transmitted without the recitation of a technology or technical improvement; and thus are 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, 19 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1-20 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 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In addition, Examiner takes official notices that is old and well known in the art to have AMR’s in a warehouse.
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 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20230400860 A1, hereinafter Shi) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20200192337 A1, hereinafter Hoffman).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10, 19, Shi discloses:
Claims 1 and 19 “A management system, comprising”, Claim 10: “A management method, comprising:” (Figure 1 - [0029]-[0034] manage robots maps, mission, a pool of robots, mission library, to assign a robot to a mission; [0021] “enable mobile robots to be used in various applications” such as [0020] pick and drop items from warehouse to a destination;)
Claim 19: “An AMR: ([0019] and Figure 1“autonomous mobile robots”)
a user interface; and a processor configured to: (Figure 1 and [0029] “a graphical user interface (GUI) to access and manage the following five function modules:”
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 (Figure 1 - [0029]-[0034] the user uses the graphical user interface to “create new missions by selecting desired destinations from a location-based map and desired tasks at these destinations…The user can select a particular robot to execute a mission”; further see 70-73;);
to store the input as a template for a process. ([0029]-[0034][0044] it is stored in the library and robot);
wherein the AMR can be configured to respond to the processor by carrying out a physical activity. ([0029]-[0034][0058][0070]-[0073][0078] “An autonomous mission requires the robot to trigger the desired tasks when it arrives at a destination… taking a photo may need a target or viewpoint selected.”; “An autonomous mission requires the robot to trigger the desired tasks when it arrives at a destination”;)
Although Shi discloses the robot is developed to function to various applications including picking and dropping items in a warehouse; does not specifically state that the task and mission are set up for a material flow, and that the physical activity is in the material flow process;
Hoffman discloses: Figures 1-2, 8 [0042][0043] discloses a system that monitors products, materials, and the like in or flowing through the facility; [0132][0049]-[0056][0096]-[0099] where tasks are related to AGV management software receives a task relate to material flow from the AMSA; the task is related arriving at the drop location to drop a container to an operator;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shi 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 2 and 11, Shi discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to present the template to a user when a user prompts the management system through the user interface. ([0029] the user can use a graphical user interface (GUI) to access and manage [0041] “existing missions in the library by adding/removing destinations and adding/removing tasks at the destinations”);
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 12, Shi 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. ([0029]-[0034] [0041] the user can use a graphical user interface (GUI) to access and manage missions, tasks, “create new missions by selecting desired destinations from a location-based map and desired tasks at these destinations, and to modify existing missions in the library”; the user can selecta robot, and put a robot in action;);
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 13, Shi discloses:
wherein the destination may be a group of locations and the processor is configured to accept input from a user that is to determine the specific location from the group of locations that is to be the AMR destination. ([0029]-[0034] [0041] the user can use a graphical user interface (GUI) to access and manage missions, tasks, “create new missions by selecting desired destinations from a location-based map and desired tasks at these destinations, and to modify existing missions in the library”; the user can select a robot, and put a robot in action;);
Shi does not disclose: that indicates a entity.
Hoffman discloses: [0096]-[0098] and [0141]-[0142] the task is for AGV to execute;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shi 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) 5 and 14, Shi discloses:
wherein the locations within the group of locations are organized according to physical proximity. ([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;);
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 15, Shi does not disclose: wherein the locations within the group of locations are organized according to type of locations.
Hoffman discloses: [0096]-[0098] AGV first task is at pick up location, then after picked happens AGV goes to a drop off location;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shi 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) 7-8 and 16-17, Shi does not disclose: 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
Hoffman discloses: [0049]-[0053][0096]-[0098] and [0141]-[0142] tasks are executed by operator and executed by an AGV;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shi 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) 9 and 18, Shi 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. ([0029]-[0034] [0041] the user [entity] can use a graphical user interface (GUI) to access and manage missions, tasks, “create new missions by selecting desired destinations from a location-based map and desired tasks at these destinations, and to modify existing missions in the library”; the user can select a robot, and put a robot in action;)
Shi 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 Shi 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, Shi does not disclose: wherein the processor is configured to present the template to a user when called and to step the user through the configuration of a material flow process that includes at least one trigger and at least one step.
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 Shi 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 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
USC 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Shi does not disclose trigger and/or have a different trigger than the claimed invention requires, see Remarks page 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shi discloses the destination as a trigger, see par. 29-34, 70-73. Further, the claimed invention does claim what the trigger is intend for and neither discloses if it is prior or not prior being its path; “1, the trigger is configured to initiate a job, which includes a location-related element and an activity-related element, prior to the AMR beginning its path”; Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); further, Examiner disagrees that The trigger of Shi notably lacks a location-based element, see Remarks page 9. Shi discloses on par. 29-34 – create or modify missions with desired destinations and tasks from a location-based map, select a specific robot to execute the mission, M-Execution puts the selected robot in action; Further, the robot is triggered by arriving at the destination of the mission, see para. 70-73; further, Examiner disagrees that Shi does not store templates, see Remarks page 10; Shi discloses the missions, which are being interpreted as the template, see par. 29-34, 44. Therefore, Shi discloses the argued limitations;
The only element Shi lacks is that the location and the activity are for material flow, and that the physical activity is in the material flow process; but Hoffman discloses: Figures 1-2, 8 [0042][0043] a system that monitors products, materials, and the like in or flowing through the facility; [0132][0049]-[0056][0096]-[0099] where tasks are related to AGV management software that receives a task related to material flow from the AMSA; the task is related to arriving at the drop location to drop a container to an operator with the motivation to ensure that the highest priority and oldest tasks are assigned, see Hoffman para. 132.
Therefore, the rejection under the 35 USC 103 is maintained;
USC 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Step 2A Prong 1, see Remarks pages 6-7, last paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not directed towards the technological choreography of AMR as argued by applicant; instead, it is directed to receive and store data on a template (i.e., storage, file) that AMRs can use. Therefore, the claims fall under the grouping of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and are considered commercial and fundamental economic known in the retail and warehouse industry for material flow. Therefore, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Applicant argues Step 2A Prong 2, see Remarks pages 6-7, last paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not see any transformative nature in the input as argued by applicant; instead, the claimed invention receives data location and activity data for a material flow purpose that is stored in a template (i.e., storage, file) that AMRs can use; thus, are not considered a technology improvement as argued by applicant. Therefore, the claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Applicant argues Step 2B, see Remarks pages 8-9, Last paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not see any unconventional arrangement in the claimed invention. Although, the claimed invention claims the AMRs, the AMRs is not carrying out the template and positively recited carrying physical activities input in the template. Therefore, the claimed invention does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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