DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The previous rejections of claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn because the claims do not appear to positively recite a judicial exception. It is noted that the rejections of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the associating step is not merely a generic computer implementation but rather a specific application in the field of autonomous mobile robot control that interfaces with and controls physical hardware components (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 19), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The associating step is generically recited and is not explicitly disclosed. The Applicant references paragraph 73 and figure 4 (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 20-21) to support associating the variable parameter with the plurality of core material flow elements, however, no details are provided indicating how the associating is performed. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, and when interpreted in light of the specification, the associating step appears to merely require identifying relationships between data. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that associating the variable parameter with the plurality of core material flow elements to characterize each element according to its status does not involve circular reasoning (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 20-21), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the claims, the second input includes a variable parameter that includes a status of each of the core material flow elements, therefore, in order to generate the second input, the variable parameter must already be associated with each of the core material flow elements. It is unclear how, after receiving the second input, the variable parameter is associated with the plurality of core material flow elements, because they are already associated prior to receiving them. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beth's compatibility check that takes place after a mission has begun does not teach or suggest the claimed associating step that characterizes each core material flow element according to its status because it is directed to determining whether a vehicle is available or has sufficient capacity, which is fundamentally different from associating variable parameters with core material flow elements to characterize each element according to its status (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 21-22), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the associating step appears to merely require identifying relationships between data. The Applicant’s specification discloses, in paragraph 41, that core material flow elements include pick, drop, location, and route. Beth discloses, in paragraphs 68-69 and figure 4, an initial compatibility check is performed before assigning a mission task and outputting routing data, and comprises determining the vehicle’s status, i.e., if the vehicle is capable of performing the mission task and available. Beth further discloses, in paragraphs 59-60, that a mission may comprise routing data, a pickup, and a delivery to another location. Therefore, before a mission is started, Beth discloses associating vehicle status with mission tasks that appear analogous with Applicant’s core material flow elements. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beth’s general disclosure of communicating routing data does not teach or suggest the specific claimed limitation of controlling physical movement by transmitting navigation instructions to a drive control subsystem based on composable material flow logic patterns (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 22), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s specification, in paragraph 59, discloses the navigation module of the AMR can communicate instructions to the drive control subsystem to cause the AMR to navigate its route. Beth, in figure 28 and paragraphs 113 and 120, discloses the autonomous vehicles include a navigation and path planning neural network that continuously plans and optimizes routes based on the mission request from the cloud platform to facilitate autonomous operation of the vehicle and its component systems, which include robot 2810. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beth's system uses predetermined missions and compatibility checks (Beth, paragraphs [0064], [0069]-[0070]), which is fundamentally different from the claimed composable material flow logic patterns that are determined from the application of variable parameters to core material flow elements (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 22-23), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s specification discloses, in paragraph 41, that core material flow elements include pick, drop, location, and route, that are composed (i.e., sequenced) into repeatable material flow patterns based on their status. Beth, in paragraphs 65-67, discloses composing a plurality of available workflows from mission parts that include, as discussed above, routing data, a pickup, and a delivery to another location. Beth further discloses, in paragraph 67, that during mission planning, the mission parts and vehicles that are available for composing the mission are dynamically changed, based on their status indicated by the compatibility checks. See rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in paragraphs 2-3 of 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/12/2025.
The drawings are objected to because the text of figure 4 is grainy and difficult to read which makes it challenging to understand the workflow. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 10-16, line 1, “The computer readable medium” should read “The non-transitory computer readable medium” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the dependent claims.
In claim 17, line 2, “computer executable instructions by at least one processor” should read “computer instructions executable by at least one processor”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 18-20, line 1, “The computer program product” should read “The non-transitory computer readable medium” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the dependent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 11/12/2025.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 71, lines 8-9, the meaning of the phrase “inquire as to what kind of each of the core elements is happening” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The examiner suggests the phrase should read “determine which of the core elements are performed at the site”.
In paragraph 71, lines 9-10, “what each core elements is based on” should read “what each core element is based on”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 72, lines 8-9, it is unclear how the location is not known in advance with respect to the operator when, in line 4, the operator selects the location.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, lines 6-7 and 9-10, respectively, the limitation “associating the variable parameter with the plurality of core material flow elements to characterize each element according to its status” renders the claim indefinite because it appears to use circular reasoning. Prior to associating it with the core material flow elements, the variable parameter is received in the second input, however, the second input’s variable parameter already includes the status of each of the core material flow elements. Because the second input contains the status of each of the core material flow elements, the status must be associated with each core material flow element before it can be received. It is unclear how the second input can be associated with the plurality of core material flow elements when it appears to also depend on the core material flow elements. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the second input merely comprises a variable parameter that includes a status.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claim 18 is 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 18, as best understood, is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 18 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Dependent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 18, including the limitations of parent claim 17, recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions by at least one processor to model a material flow using a pattern language, comprising:
four core material flow elements, including pick data, drop data, location data, and route data of a material flow machine; and
a variable parameter including a status of at least one of the four core material flow elements,
wherein the computer executable instructions cause the at least one processor to transmit navigation commands to a drive control subsystem of an autonomous mobile robot based on the modeled material flow;
wherein the pattern language determines one or more composable material flow logic patterns, and a material flow for repeatable patterns of movement by a vehicle is determined according to the pattern language [mental process/step].
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, “…a material flow … is determined…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting a series of tasks from a list of operations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions by at least one processor to model a material flow using a pattern language, comprising:
four core material flow elements, including pick data, drop data, location data, and route data of a material flow machine [generic data]; and
a variable parameter including a status of at least one of the four core material flow elements [generic data],
wherein the computer executable instructions cause the at least one processor [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component] to transmit navigation commands to a drive control subsystem of an autonomous mobile robot based on the modeled material flow [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)];
wherein the pattern language determines one or more composable material flow logic patterns, and a material flow for repeatable patterns of movement by a vehicle is determined according to the pattern language.
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 limitation(s) of “transmit navigation commands…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. The transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of providing navigation data to the robot), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative dependent claim 18 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 step wherein “…a material flow … is determined…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “transmit navigation commands…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is 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 20, as best understood, is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Dependent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 20, including the limitation of parent claim 17, recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions by at least one processor to model a material flow using a pattern language, comprising:
four core material flow elements, including pick data, drop data, location data, and route data of a material flow machine; and
a variable parameter including a status of at least one of the four core material flow elements,
wherein the computer executable instructions cause the at least one processor to transmit navigation commands to a drive control subsystem of an autonomous mobile robot based on the modeled material flow;
wherein the pattern language includes a collection of workflow templates for material movement which are used for determining a material workflow based on one or more combinations of the core material flow elements [mental process/step].
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, “…determining a material workflow…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting a series of tasks from a list of operations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions by at least one processor to model a material flow using a pattern language, comprising:
four core material flow elements, including pick data, drop data, location data, and route data of a material flow machine [generic data]; and
a variable parameter including a status of at least one of the four core material flow elements [generic data],
wherein the computer executable instructions cause the at least one processor to transmit navigation commands to a drive control subsystem of an autonomous mobile robot based on the modeled material flow [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)];
wherein the pattern language includes a collection of workflow templates for material movement [generic data] which are used for determining a material workflow based on one or more combinations of the core material flow elements.
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 limitation(s) of “…transmit navigation commands”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. The transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of providing data to the robot), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative dependent claim 20 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 “…determining a material workflow…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “…transmit navigation commands” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is 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 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) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beth et al. (US 2022/0156665), hereinafter Beth.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, as best understood, Beth discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions for a material flow planning system that when executed by a processor performs the following steps comprising: receiving a first input (Beth; para. 64: the platform may provide a drop-down menu or other interface for selecting a mission type) of the material flow planning system including a plurality of core material flow elements (Beth; para. 64: a user may select from predetermined missions (collections of tasks) or parts thereof (tasks) supported by the platform 100 given available locations, manned or unmanned vehicles, etc.; para. 59: following the obtaining at 402, a vehicle is identified at 404, e.g., vehicle 102 is identified by the platform due to the coded information scanned and transmitted via the mobile application running on the operator's mobile phone. This may provide for the platform 100 to identify mission part(s) associated with the vehicle 102, as indicated at 406. For example, a predetermined mission may be planned for a manned vehicle, e.g., vehicle 102, on the basis of one or more factors present when the scanned code data is obtained by the platform 100. Non-limiting examples of the one or more factors include time, location, last mission, last mission status, mission imported from an external system, etc. By way of a non-limiting example, for a first mission of the day, manned vehicle 102 may be planned to perform a pickup and delivery of an asset, e.g., container 114, to another part of the location 100, per a business workflow or process from an external system, e.g., remote device 128. In such a scenario, the mission may be identified as having two parts at 406, i.e., a pickup part and a delivery part.; para. 60: routing data may be associated with a mission part, e.g., the picking part of the mission [i.e., the core material flows elements are mission parts associated with a vehicle which include data regarding pickups, drop-offs, locations thereof, and routes therebetween]); receiving a second input of the material flow planning system including a variable parameter that includes a status of each of the core material flow elements (Beth; para. 70: a compatibility check may take place after a mission has begun, e.g., based on subsequent requests received by the vehicle, real-time sensed data such as proximity to other vehicles, fuel capacity, memory or data storage capabilities, requests or offers for vehicle assistance, etc. In an events-based manner, a mission or part thereof may be modified or adjusted, such as creating a modified task or new task or subtask, while the mission is being performed.); associating the variable parameter with the plurality of core material flow elements to characterize each element according to its status (Beth; para. 69: a vehicle compatibility check, as indicated at 410, may take various forms, for example including an initial compatibility determination with respect to the vehicle selected as compared with the user input for a mission task, such as capability to perform a given task, availability to do so, or the ability to adequately communicate with other vehicle(s) that may be involved. One non-limiting example of such a compatibility check is a determination as to whether the vehicle is available, e.g., open in terms of scheduling, has sufficient power or payload capacity, adequate sensors, etc.); determining a plurality of composable material flow logic patterns from the application of the variable parameter to the plurality of core material flow elements (Beth; para. 60: the platform 100 may have access to data indicating a route 116 leading from vehicle 102 to container 114. This routing data may be associated with a mission part, e.g., the picking part of the mission … platform may choose a different or alternative route 126 for the vehicle 102 to complete its mission); and controlling physical movement of a vehicle through the environment by transmitting navigation instructions to a drive control subsystem of the vehicle based on the determined composable material flow logic patterns (Beth; para. 72: The platform 100 may communicate the routing data and other mission data to the unmanned vehicles).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, as best understood, Beth discloses the core material flow elements include data regarding a pick, drop, location, and route of the vehicle (Beth; paras. 59-60: for a first mission of the day, manned vehicle 102 may be planned to perform a pickup and delivery of an asset, e.g., container 114, to another part of the location 100 … the mission may be identified as having two parts at 406, i.e., a pickup part and a delivery part… the platform 100 may have access to data indicating a route 116 leading from vehicle 102 to container 114. This routing data may be associated with a mission part, e.g., the picking part of the mission).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, as best understood, Beth discloses the vehicle is an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (Beth; para. 6: embodiments herein are applicable to any application involving coordination of autonomous and/or manned vehicles. Example and non-limiting embodiments include one or more of: industrial equipment; robotic systems (including at least mobile robots, autonomous vehicle systems, and/or industrial robots)).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, as best understood, Beth discloses the core material flow elements and the variable parameter are arranged as a pattern language for determining the composable material flow logic patterns (Beth; para. 64: the platform 100 may provide a user interface, e.g., as a web application graphical user interface (GUI) provided in an internet browser, to permit a user to build a workflow or streamline together multiple tasks for multiple agents for a mission into a template (“workflow”, “maneuver” and/or “mission”).), and wherein the steps further comprise: modeling a material flow for repeatable patterns of movement by the vehicle according to the pattern language (Beth; para. 65: The missions may be predetermined or preloaded into the system, e.g., using templates, which may be customized by end users (e.g., selecting different vehicles, mission tasks, etc.).).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19, as best understood, Beth discloses the pattern language is based on at least one indoor flow pattern of a factory or warehouse (Beth; para. 7: certain embodiments of the system provide an interface for accessing mapping, routing and scheduling data, including for use indoors; para. 183: Certain embodiments of the present disclosure may provide for optimization and automation of existing facilities, e.g., industrial ports, warehouses, etc.).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, as best understood, Beth discloses the pattern language includes a collection of workflow templates for material movement which are used for determining a material workflow based on one or more combinations of the core material flow elements (Beth; para. 65: Beth; para. 65: The missions may be predetermined or preloaded into the system, e.g., using templates, which may be customized by end users (e.g., selecting different vehicles, mission tasks, etc.).).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, as best understood, Beth discloses applying the composable material flow logic patterns includes dynamically selecting one of a plurality of possible routes when a route is unknown, the one of the possible routes including a combination of the plurality of core material flow elements (Beth; para. 60: the platform 100 may have access to data indicating a route 116 leading from vehicle 102 to container 114. This routing data may be associated with a mission part, e.g., the picking part of the mission … platform may choose a different or alternative route 126 for the vehicle 102 to complete its mission so as to avoid other vehicles, e.g., vehicle 106, and zones that are prohibited, e.g., 118, 120. The platform 100 may then generate the routing data at 416 for the mission.; para. 59: the mission may be identified as having two parts at 406, i.e., a pickup part and a delivery part).
Regarding claim 17, Beth discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer executable instructions by at least one processor to model a material flow using a pattern language (Beth; para. 64: the platform 100 may provide a user interface, e.g., as a web application graphical user interface (GUI) provided in an internet browser, to permit a user to build a workflow or streamline together multiple tasks for multiple agents for a mission into a template (“workflow”, “maneuver” and/or “mission”).), comprising: four core material flow elements, including pick data, drop data, location data, and route data of a material flow machine Beth; para. 64: a user may select from predetermined missions (collections of tasks) or parts thereof (tasks) supported by the platform 100 given available locations, manned or unmanned vehicles, etc.; para. 59: following the obtaining at 402, a vehicle is identified at 404, e.g., vehicle 102 is identified by the platform due to the coded information scanned and transmitted via the mobile application running on the operator's mobile phone. This may provide for the platform 100 to identify mission part(s) associated with the vehicle 102, as indicated at 406. For example, a predetermined mission may be planned for a manned vehicle, e.g., vehicle 102, on the basis of one or more factors present when the scanned code data is obtained by the platform 100. Non-limiting examples of the one or more factors include time, location, last mission, last mission status, mission imported from an external system, etc. By way of a non-limiting example, for a first mission of the day, manned vehicle 102 may be planned to perform a pickup and delivery of an asset, e.g., container 114, to another part of the location 100, per a business workflow or process from an external system, e.g., remote device 128. In such a scenario, the mission may be identified as having two parts at 406, i.e., a pickup part and a delivery part.; para. 60: routing data may be associated with a mission part, e.g., the picking part of the mission [i.e., the core material flows elements are mission parts associated with a vehicle which include data regarding pickups, drop-offs, locations thereof, and routes therebetween]); and a variable parameter including a status of at least one of the four core material flow elements (Beth; para. 70: a compatibility check may take place after a mission has begun, e.g., based on subsequent requests received by the vehicle, real-time sensed data such as proximity to other vehicles, fuel capacity, memory or data storage capabilities, requests or offers for vehicle assistance, etc. In an events-based manner, a mission or part thereof may be modified or adjusted, such as creating a modified task or new task or subtask, while the mission is being performed.), wherein the computer executable instructions cause the at least one processor to transmit navigation commands to a drive control subsystem of an autonomous mobile robot based on the modeled material flow (Beth; para. 72: The platform 100 may communicate the routing data and other mission data to the unmanned vehicles).
Regarding claim 18, Beth discloses the pattern language determines one or more composable material flow logic patterns (Beth; para. 64: the platform 100 may provide a user interface, e.g., as a web application graphical user interface (GUI) provided in an internet browser, to permit a user to build a workflow or streamline together multiple tasks for multiple agents for a mission into a template (“workflow”, “maneuver” and/or “mission”).), and a material flow for repeatable patterns of movement by a vehicle is determined according to the pattern language (Beth; para. 65: The missions may be predetermined or preloaded into the system, e.g., using templates, which may be customized by end users (e.g., selecting different vehicles, mission tasks, 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 (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 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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth in view of Eberlein (US 2017/0228847).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, as best understood, Beth discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Beth does not appear to explicitly disclose the variable parameter includes a status of whether the core material flow elements are known or unknown.
Eberlein, in the same field of endeavor (logistics services), discloses a variable parameter includes a status of whether core material flow elements are known or unknown (Eberlein; para. 203: In order to map the respective status of use as well as application mistakes and fault correction to a software, it is sensible to differentiate between … a transportation means having a known status of use and a transportation means having an unknown status of use.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the vehicle availability status of Beth to include a variable indicating whether the vehicle’s status is known or unknown, as disclosed by Eberlein, to yield the predictable result of preventing assigning tasks to a vehicle that is unavailable.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665