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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0029] [00112] and [00122] recite the limitations “in communication with the PLS” wherein the examiner believes this is a typo, and the intended meaning was to recite “in communication with the PLCs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of industrial controllers coupled to and/or in communication with the at least one presence detector is configured” while examiner believes it should be “… with the at least one presence detector are configured” for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to for the following informalities: the claims recite the limitation “in communication with the PLS” wherein the examiner believes this is a typo, and the intended meaning was to recite “in communication with the PLCs”. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes PLS will be interpreted as PLCs.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“at least one presence detector configured to detect a state” in claim 1 wherein the management system is interpreted as one or more cameras, LiDAR, pressure sensors, vibration sensors, motion detectors, and/or a combination of the above from specification [0076]
“a management system configured to register” in claim 1 wherein the management system is interpreted as at least a processor and a memory as a supervisor from specification [0076]
“the management system is further configured to deny access” in claim 3 wherein the management system is interpreted as at least a processor and a memory as a supervisor from specification [0076]
“a plurality of detectors configured to monitor a plurality of uniquely identified entities” in claim 6 wherein the management system is interpreted as one or more cameras, LiDAR, pressure sensors, vibration sensors, motion detectors, and/or a combination of the above from specification [0076]
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wurman et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2007/0293978 A1 hereinafter “Wurman”).
Regarding claim 17 Wurman discloses:
A method, comprising: for each of a plurality of entities within an environment, an industrial controller in combination with at least one presence detector determining a state of availability of an entity and communicating the state of availability of the entity (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot) to a management system; (Wurman [0160] wherein the a resource scheduling module determines states of the environment and robots moving to help plan a reserved path or other actions to take) and the management system registering the state of each entity and selectively granting (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system allows robots to request and use a portion of the environment i.e. entity during operation when available) or denying temporary, exclusive access of a requested entity (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system determines when to reserve or hold cells for a specific robot to use on a path) to an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) based on a state of the requested entity. (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system allows robots to request and use a portion of the environment i.e. entity during operation when available).
Regarding claim 18 Wurman discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the environment is a warehouse environment (Wurman [0035-0036] wherein the robots work in a warehouse) and the plurality of entities includes a location, (Wurman [0062] [0067] [0220] wherein the system includes robot request based on locations of the robots and holders) a space, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the reservation includes a space to use on a path) equipment, (Wurman [0196] [0203] [0047] wherein the reservation and path planning section includes priority for those with tasks and moving inventory) or other resource usable (Wurman [0057] wherein the system determines a use of a resource such as a repair or charging resource to schedule for the robot to use) and requestable by the plurality of AMRs to perform a task. (Wurman [0030] [0032] wherein the system determines tasks for the robot to follow, and communicates with a management system to determine the operations of the robots).
Regarding claim 19 Wurman discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein at least one industrial controller is coupled to only one presence detector. (Wurman [0054] [0062] [0067] [0072-0073] wherein the robots and controllers for the robots are connected to one or more sensor i.e. a single presence detector like a camera).
Regarding claim 20 Wurman discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein at least one industrial controller is coupled to a plurality of presence detectors. (Wurman [0054] [0062] [0067] [0072-0073] wherein the robots and controllers for the robots are connected to one or more sensor i.e. a plurality of presence detectors).
Regarding claim 21 Wurman discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 17, further comprising each industrial controller sending a change of state message to the management system in real-time in response to an AMR commencing user or completing use of an entity. (Wurman [0029-0030] [0072-0073] [0108] [0096-0098] wherein the controllers communicate states of the environment and robots in the environment to determine what paths or cells are available, see also [0090] [0093] [0190]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2007/0293978 A1 hereinafter “Wurman”) in view of Denenberg et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2021/0339396 A1 hereinafter “Denenberg”).
Regarding claim 1 Wurman discloses:
A system, comprising: a plurality of industrial controllers each coupled to at least one presence detector configured to detect a state of availability of an entity from a plurality of entities; (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0073] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot) and a management system configured to register a state of availability of each entity in an environment (Wurman [0160] wherein the a resource scheduling module determines states of the environment and robots moving to help plan a reserved path or other actions to take) and to selectively grant temporary, exclusive access of an entity to an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) based on the state of availability of the entity, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system allows robots to request and use a portion of the environment i.e. entity during operation when available) wherein the entity comprises a space, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the reservation includes a space to use on a path) a location, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the reservation includes a location of the robot on the path, and free areas around the robots) equipment, (Wurman [0196] [0203] [0047] wherein the reservation and path planning section includes priority for those with tasks and moving inventory) and/or a resource, (Wurman [0057] wherein the system determines a use of a resource such as a repair or charging resource to schedule for the robot to use) and wherein the plurality of industrial controllers includes a plurality of program logic controllers (PLCs). (Wurman [0055] wherein the system includes application specific circuits or other forms of processors to operate).
Wurman does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of “a plurality of program logic controllers (PLCs).”
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Denenberg discloses:
“a plurality of program logic controllers (PLCs).” (Denenberg [0119] [0010] wherein the robotic system uses programmable logic con trolls to supervise and analyze information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the program logic controller of Denenberg with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a variety of controller styles to operate the autonomous vehicles and monitoring system as other specific or general purpose processors could complete the same or similar functions (see Wurman [0055], Denenberg [0050] [0119]).
Regarding claim 2 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein an industrial controller is configured to communicate a state of availability of monitored entity to the management system in response to a change in state of the monitored entity. (Wurman [0029-0030] [0072-0073] [0108] [0096-0098] wherein the controllers communicate states of the environment and robots in the environment to determine what paths or cells are available).
Regarding claim 3 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the management system is further configured to deny access by other AMRs to the entity, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system determines when to reserve or hold cells for a specific robot to use on a path) when an industrial controller registered in association with the entity communicates to the management system that the entity is occupied (Wurman [0072-0073] [0171-0178] wherein the held cells are cells that are in use or reserved, avoiding collisions of the robots) and/or unavailable. (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the held cells are cells that are in use or reserved, avoiding collisions of the robots).
Regarding claim 4 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein, when the AMR completes use of the entity, an industrial controller registered in association with the entity is configured to send a change of state message to the management system indicating that the entity is available (Wurman [0072-0073] [0090] [0102] wherein the system determines when segments are reserved, and the cell reserved spots are terminated or freed up based on the robot movements i.e. the state of the cells is changed and available to reserve) and/or unoccupied and releases the temporary, exclusive access of the AMR. (Wurman [0090] [0102] wherein the system determines when segments are reserved, and the cell reserved spots are terminated or freed up based on the robot movements i.e. the state of the cells is changed and available to reserve).
Regarding claim 7 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of industrial controllers coupled to and/or in communication with the at least one presence detector (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0073] [0115] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot, wherein the segment reservation system further determines which specific cells to reserve i.e. a unique identified entity) is configured to detect and register the state of availability of the at least one entity in real time. (Wurman [0090] [0093] [0190] wherein the system determines conditions of a segment of a path or cell based on time of reservation, concentration of the robots, and other objects in the path).
Regarding claim 8 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the industrial controllers include program logic controllers (PLCs), (Wurman [0055] [0072-0073] wherein the system includes application specific circuits or other forms of processors to operate) the entities include locations, (Wurman [0062] [0067] [0220] wherein the system includes robot request based on locations of the robots and holders) the environment is a warehouse, (Wurman [0035-0036] wherein the robots work in a warehouse) the AMRs include material transport AMRs, (Wurman [0219] [0229] wherein the robots are capable of moving items and move themselves) and the management system includes access control functionality in communication with the PLS, (Wurman [0030] [0032] wherein the system determines tasks for the robot to follow, and communicates with a management system to determine the operations of the robots) and fleet management functionality in communication with the AMRs. (Wurman [0051] wherein the system operates multiple robots or mobile drive units to control reservations of the cells).
Wurman does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of “program logic controllers (PLCs) … with the PLCs.”
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Denenberg discloses:
“program logic controllers (PLCs) … with the PLCs.” (Denenberg [0119] [0010] wherein the robotic system uses programmable logic con trolls to supervise and analyze information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the program logic controller of Denenberg with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a variety of controller styles to operate the autonomous vehicles and monitoring system as other specific or general purpose processors could complete the same or similar functions (see Wurman [0055], Denenberg [0050] [0119]).
Regarding claim 9 Wurman discloses:
A method, comprising: using a plurality of industrial controllers each coupled to at least one presence detector, detecting a state of availability of an entity from a plurality of entities; (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0073] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot) and registering a state of availability of each entity of an environment in a management system (Wurman [0160] wherein the a resource scheduling module determines states of the environment and robots moving to help plan a reserved path or other actions to take) and selectively granting temporary, exclusive access of an entity to an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) based on the state of availability of the entity, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system allows robots to request and use a portion of the environment i.e. entity during operation when available) wherein the entity comprises a space, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the reservation includes a space to use on a path) a location, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the reservation includes a location of the robot on the path, and free areas around the robots) equipment, (Wurman [0196] [0203] [0047] wherein the reservation and path planning section includes priority for those with tasks and moving inventory) and/or a resource, (Wurman [0057] wherein the system determines a use of a resource such as a repair or charging resource to schedule for the robot to use) and wherein the plurality of industrial controllers includes a plurality of program logic controllers (PLCs). (Wurman [0055] wherein the system includes application specific circuits or other forms of processors to operate).
Wurman does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of “a plurality of program logic controllers (PLCs).”
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Denenberg discloses:
“a plurality of program logic controllers (PLCs).” (Denenberg [0119] [0010] wherein the robotic system uses programmable logic con trolls to supervise and analyze information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the program logic controller of Denenberg with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a variety of controller styles to operate the autonomous vehicles and monitoring system as other specific or general purpose processors could complete the same or similar functions (see Wurman [0055], Denenberg [0050] [0119]).
Regarding claim 10 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising the industrial controller communicating a state of availability of monitored entity to the management system in response to a change in state of the monitored entity. (Wurman [0029-0030] [0072-0073] [0108] [0096-0098] wherein the controllers communicate states of the environment and robots in the environment to determine what paths or cells are available).
Regarding claim 11 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising the management system denying access by other AMRs to the entity, (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the system determines when to reserve or hold cells for a specific robot to use on a path) when an industrial controller registered in association with the entity communicates to the management system that the entity is occupied (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the held cells are cells that are in use or reserved, avoiding collisions of the robots) and/or unavailable. (Wurman [0171-0178] wherein the held cells are cells that are in use or reserved, avoiding collisions of the robots).
Regarding claim 12 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising, when the AMR completes use of the entity, an industrial controller registered in association with the entity sending a change of state message to the management system indicating that the entity is available (Wurman [0072-0073] [0090] [0102] wherein the system determines when segments are reserved, and the cell reserved spots are terminated or freed up based on the robot movements i.e. the state of the cells is changed and available to reserve) and/or unoccupied and releasing the temporary, exclusive access of the AMR. (Wurman [0090] [0102] wherein the system determines when segments are reserved, and the cell reserved spots are terminated or freed up based on the robot movements i.e. the state of the cells is changed and available to reserve).
Regarding claim 15 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising the plurality of industrial controllers coupled to and/or in communication with the at least one presence detector (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0073] [0115] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot, wherein the segment reservation system further determines which specific cells to reserve i.e. a unique identified entity) detecting and registering the state of availability of the at least one entity in real time. (Wurman [0090] [0093] [0190] wherein the system determines conditions of a segment of a path or cell based on time of reservation, concentration of the robots, and other objects in the path).
Regarding claim 16 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein the industrial controllers include program logic controllers (PLCs), (Wurman [0055] [0072-0073] wherein the system includes application specific circuits or other forms of processors to operate) the entities include locations, (Wurman [0062] [0067] [0220] wherein the system includes robot request based on locations of the robots and holders) the environment is a warehouse, (Wurman [0035-0036] wherein the robots work in a warehouse) the AMRs include material transport AMRs, (Wurman [0219] [0229] wherein the robots are capable of moving items and move themselves) and the management system includes access control functionality in communication with the PLS, (Wurman [0030] [0032] wherein the system determines tasks for the robot to follow, and communicates with a management system to determine the operations of the robots) and fleet management functionality in communication with the AMRs. (Wurman [0051] wherein the system operates multiple robots or mobile drive units to control reservations of the cells).
Wurman does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of “program logic controllers (PLCs) … with the PLCs.”
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Denenberg discloses:
“program logic controllers (PLCs) … with the PLCs.” (Denenberg [0119] [0010] wherein the robotic system uses programmable logic con trolls to supervise and analyze information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the program logic controller of Denenberg with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a variety of controller styles to operate the autonomous vehicles and monitoring system as other specific or general purpose processors could complete the same or similar functions (see Wurman [0055], Denenberg [0050] [0119]).
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman and Denenberg as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Worsley (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2014/0214234 A1 hereinafter “Worsley”).
Regarding claim 5 Wurman in view of Denenberg disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of industrial controllers and a plurality of entities, (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0073] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot) each industrial controller in communication with at least one detector configured to monitor at least one uniquely identified entity. (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0115] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot, wherein the segment reservation system further determines which specific cells to reserve i.e. a unique identified entity).
Additionally and as an alternative, should applicant disagree with the interpretation of Wurman with regard to the “uniquely identified entity” in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Worsley discloses:
“monitor at least one uniquely identified entity” (Worsley [0034] wherein unique identifiers for the drive units and inventory holders are used to determine if the right robot is grabbing the right items).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unique entities of Worsley with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the right items are being manipulated by the robots, or to update the right location of the entities when an unexpected error occurs (Worsley [0034]).
Regarding claim 6 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Wurman further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein an industrial controller is in communication with a plurality of detectors configured to monitor a plurality of uniquely identified entities and the industrial controller is configured to register a state of each uniquely identified entity individually. (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0023] [0115] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot, wherein the segment reservation system further determines which specific cells to reserve i.e. a unique identified entity)
Additionally and as an alternative, should the applicant disagree with the interpretation of Wurman with regard to the unique entities and registration of said entities, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Worsley discloses:
“wherein an industrial controller is in communication with a plurality of detectors configured to monitor a plurality of uniquely identified entities (Worsley [0034] wherein unique identifiers for the drive units and inventory holders are used to determine if the right robot is grabbing the right items) and the industrial controller is configured to register a state of each uniquely identified entity individually.” (Worsley [0220] wherein the system determines which unique individual cells to reserve, and request their reservation when appropriate).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unique entities of Worsley with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the right items are being manipulated by the robots, or to update the right location of the entities when an unexpected error occurs (Worsley [0034]).
Regarding claim 13 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of industrial controllers and a plurality of entities, (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0073] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot) each industrial controller in communication with at least one detector configured to monitor at least one uniquely identified entity. (Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0115] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot, wherein the segment reservation system further determines which specific cells to reserve i.e. a unique identified entity).
Additionally and as an alternative, should applicant disagree with the interpretation of Wurman with regard to the “uniquely identified entity” in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Worsley discloses:
“monitor at least one uniquely identified entity” (Worsley [0034] wherein unique identifiers for the drive units and inventory holders are used to determine if the right robot is grabbing the right items).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unique entities of Worsley with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the right items are being manipulated by the robots, or to update the right location of the entities when an unexpected error occurs (Worsley [0034]).
Regarding claim 14 Wurman in view of Denenberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Wurman further discloses:
(Wurman [0055-0056] [0062] [0072-0023] [0115] [0125-0126] wherein the system includes processors, microprocessors, or other devices working with sensors to determine information about the environment and status of the robot, wherein the segment reservation system further determines which specific cells to reserve i.e. a unique identified entity)
Additionally and as an alternative, should the applicant disagree with the interpretation of Wurman with regard to the unique entities and registration of said entities, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Worsley discloses:
“wherein an industrial controller is in communication with a plurality of detectors configured to monitor a plurality of uniquely identified entities (Worsley [0034] wherein unique identifiers for the drive units and inventory holders are used to determine if the right robot is grabbing the right items) and the industrial controller is configured to register a state of each uniquely identified entity individually.” (Worsley [0220] wherein the system determines which unique individual cells to reserve, and request their reservation when appropriate).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unique entities of Worsley with the system of Wurman with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the right items are being manipulated by the robots, or to update the right location of the entities when an unexpected error occurs (Worsley [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0231381 A1 discloses a system for presenting a user information about moving bodies in a workspace and predicted motion for the moving bodies
US 20220197306 A1 discloses a system for a robot fleet management based on job requests and the robots available to complete the tasks
US 2019/0236948 A1 discloses a system for a robot or autonomous vehicle to determine space available to use, and when collisions are likely
US 2019/0033882 A1 discloses a system for navigating vehicles in a warehouse following road rules and obstacle data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656