DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final office action on the merits in application number 18/735,914. This action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments dated 5/4/26. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19-20 were amended and Claim 14 was cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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
35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts on pages 9-10 of their Remarks dated 5/4/26 that their claims “do not recite a judicial exception” and “are not directed to an abstract idea” because they recite “a plurality of interacting hardware components, including an aisle controller, a shuttle configurable to transport multiple loads, one or more sensors configured to capture retrieval locations of multiple loads, and one or more processors configured to process data and control the physical operation of the shuttle”. Applicant further asserts “The recited sensors are not generic data placeholders but are expressly configured to capture real-world spatial information (i.e., retrieval locations of loads), which forms the basis for subsequent processing and control of the shuttle”. Applicant also asserts on page 9 that their claims do not recite "fundamental economic principles or practices," or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" but Examiner notes that the Office did not assert "fundamental economic principles or practices," or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people".
In the Office Action dated 2/5/26 and herein, Examiner holds that Applicant recites acquiring information relating to two loads ready for pickup including their present location in a warehouse, determining a position on a vehicle where one load can be placed for transport, then picking up that load and placing it in the determined position on the transport. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice to pick up and transport items in a commercial warehouse and transporting an item inherently requires a physical space on any transport entity.
Applicant has amended to now add “one or more sensors” but merely claims that the “aisle controller” communicates with them. Applicant does not positively recite the sensors performing any sensing function or any other function other than communicating. Applicant does not claim “one or more sensors configured to capture retrieval locations of multiple loads” nor claim “capture real-world spatial information” as Applicant asserts on page 10. Applicant further does not appear to disclose or imply the sensors performing these functions in their specification. Applicant describes the sensors in [0061-0062] of the spec as determining the location of the shuttle. Applicant recites in at least [0065-0067] of the spec that the shuttle communicates with the aisle controller and receives pick-up and drop-off locations from the aisle controller computer, not the sensors. Applicant’s current claim language merely claims *using* location information and does not claim obtaining the location information from sensors. Examiner holds that *using* location information is part of the abstract idea. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 10-11 that their claimed invention is integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea “is… applied in a specific technological context” and the claims “apply sensor- derived data, corresponding to retrieval locations of multiple loads, to directly control the physical placement of loads on a shuttle, thereby affecting how the shuttle operates within a warehouse or fulfillment system. This constitutes a meaningful limitation that ties the alleged abstract idea to a particular machine and to a specific improvement in the operation of that machine”.
Examiner holds that Applicant does not recite a “specific technological context”. As discussed, supra, Applicant claims *using* location information but does not claim a sensor performing a sensing function nor performing any function other than communicating with a computer. Applicant only generally claims that the computer communicates with sensors and claims that the computer *uses* “indication” or “location” information, but Applicant does not claim that the “indication” or “location” information comes from the sensors. Applicant does not claim any particular type of sensor nor claim a particular sensor technology used. Applicant does not claim the act of obtaining sensory information by any sensor nor claim any technical detail regarding what sensory information is obtained. Applicant does not claim a particular technical analysis that is performed by a computer on sensor data obtained, nor claim what information is used, nor claim how it is used. Generally obtaining information from sensors does not constitute a “specific technological context”. Further, even if Applicant did claim a sensor actively obtaining item location information and actively providing that information to a system which uses it to determine a particular storage position on a shuttle based on the item location information, Applicant does not recite any specific technical detail or technical function of the sensor beyond the functions of a general purpose sensor. The sensor, even if positively recited, which it presently is not, is not a limiting “additional element” because a sensor obtaining location data is insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) because it performs mere data gathering. Applicant’s claimed determination of a storage position on a shuttle of items to be retrieved merely *uses* location information in creating the determination. The lack of technical detail relating to the sensor and what information is obtained and how the information is used shows that the sensor is not central to the claimed invention.
Further, Applicant does not recite that the sensors “directly control the physical placement of loads on a shuttle” as Applicant asserts, rather, Applicant claims that a general purpose computer (aisle controller) controls the physical placement of loads on a shuttle and *uses* the information that can be provided by sensors. Applicant claims that “the shuttle” “place(s)” a load but does not recite any specific item-handling equipment such as robotic arms or any other equipment physically capable of “placing” a load. Applicant is claiming the general idea of moving and placing items and the information of a particular position on a shuttle and, under any interpretation, the sensors merely provide data and do not “directly control” anything.
Applicant’s use of sensors, as claimed, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, prong II because the sensors are not a limiting “additional element” because they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 11-13 that they claim “significantly more” than the abstract idea because it is a “specific technological solution to a recognized problem in a multi-load shuttle” and “the use of sensors to capture real-world positional data and the subsequent use of such data to control physical load placement introduces a level of specificity and technological integration that goes beyond routine or conventional activity” and “provides an improvement to the technology of the claimed invention”.
MPEP 2106.05(a) outlines the requirements relating to “Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field” and states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” and this section also recites: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. In this case, as discussed above, Applicant’s sensor is not an additional element and is merely insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) because it performs mere data gathering. As discussed above, Applicant does not claim or disclose “a technical explanation” of how to implement the claimed invention but merely recites a conclusion. Further, Applicant asserts that the sensors “control” the physical load placement but, as discussed above, the computer, not the sensors, *uses* the location information to control the placement of the load.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
35 USC 103
Applicant asserts on page 8 of their remarks dated 5/4/26 that Stingel does not teach “determining a first and second loading position” in Claims 1, 8 and 15 but only teaches “a delivery sequence”. Examiner notes that, as discussed on page 10, top, of the Office Action dated 2/5/26, Stingel teaches a first loading position (see at least [0082] “closest to the loading doors of the delivery vehicle”) and further notes that Applicant previously claimed “determining…a first loading position…at least in part on… the first retrieval location and the second retrieval location” (Examiner emphasis) thus [0082], as asserted in the Office Action dated 2/5/26, taught this element as it was then claimed. Applicant has now amended to remove the “at least in part on” and Examiner agrees that Stingel does not teach the currently amended element. As discussed in the 35 USC 103 rejection, infra, and as necessitated by amendment, Examiner now asserts that Stingel in view of Cerutti teaches this element.
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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 recite a method and fall into the process category of invention. Independent Claim 8 and dependent claims 9-13 recite system that includes an aisle controller that is interpreted as a computer and a processor thereby falling into the machine category of invention. Independent Claim 15 and dependent claims 16-20 recite an apparatus containing a processor and a memory thereby falling into the machine category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Independent Claim 8 (and similarly in Claims 1 and 15):
(Currently Amended) A system, comprising: an aisle controller; and a shuttle that is configurable to simultaneously transport a plurality of loads, comprising: one or more sensors; and one or more processors in communication with the aisle controller and the one or more sensors, the one or more processors configured to: receive, from the aisle controller in communication with the one or more sensors, (i) an indication of a first load of the plurality of loads for retrieval by a shuttle that is configurable to simultaneously transport a plurality of loads the shuttle and (ii) an indication of a first retrieval location for the first load; receive, from the aisle controller in communication with the one or more sensors, (a) an indication of a second load of the plurality of loads for retrieval by the shuttle and (b) an indication of a second retrieval location for the second load; determine a first loading position on the shuttle for placing the first load based at least in part on the first retrieval location and the second retrieval location; and cause control the shuttle to place the first load in the first loading position based at least in part on determining determination of the first loading position.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
These elements recite acquiring information relating to two loads ready for pickup including their present location in a warehouse, determining a position on a vehicle where one load can be placed for transport, then picking up that load and placing it in the determined position on the transport. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice to transport items in a commercial warehouse and transporting an item inherently requires a physical space on any transport entity.
Upon further consideration, as discussed, infra, Applicant’s claims also recite an Abstract idea in the category of a Mental Process since a human can know they need to consecutively pick up and carry two items, and when they pick up the first item they can mentally determine that they need to initially pick up and hold the first item in a way that allows them to pick up the second item. In placing consecutive items on a cart or wagon with inside and outside compartments, a human will intuitively know that they should put a first item in the inside compartment to leave room for the next item or, if they know they will need to remove the first item before the second item, they will put the second item somewhere else on the cart so it does not block access to the first item.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 thus recite an abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 16-20 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15. Accordingly Claims 1-13 and 15-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, Claim 8 also recites the following additional elements:
aisle controller – Applicant defines aisle controller in their specification at ([0041] “the term “aisle controller” refers to a computing device that is configurable to perform any one or more of the operations described herein”). Applicant does not make any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The aisle controller is thus a general purpose computer.
processor – Applicant defines processor in in their specification at ([0025] “a shuttle may be equipped with one or more control systems, such as one or more computing devices (e.g., including one or more processors)”) and describes a processor in at least [0057] as a general purpose computer that can take one of many physical forms. Applicant does not make any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The processor is thus a general purpose computer.
shuttle – Applicant defines shuttle in their specification at ([0025] “the term “shuttle” refers to a device or component that transports one or more loads (e.g., items, objects, payloads, products) to one or more locations within a system”). Applicant does not make any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The shuttle is thus a general purpose vehicle.
sensor – Applicant defines sensor in [0061] as one or many possible types including “hardware, software, firmware, and/or a combination thereof, that supports generation, capturing, aggregating, retrieval, and/or receiving of one or more portions of data (such as)… cameras… position sensors, pressure sensors (e.g., weight sensors), speed sensors, accelerometers, image cameras, video cameras, infrared sensors, and/or the like…(or) any of a myriad of sensors conventionally associated with fulfilment systems”. Applicant does not make any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The sensor is thus a general purpose sensor.
Applicant also recites the addition element memory in claim 15:
memory – Applicant defines memory in [0112] as one of many different technologies that stores data as part of a general purpose computer. Applicant does not make any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The memory is thus part of a general purpose computer.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
As discussed, the additional elements aisle controller, processor, shuttle, sensor and memory are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of acquiring information relating to two loads ready for pickup including their present location in a warehouse, determining a position on a vehicle where one load can be placed for transport, then picking up that load and placing it in the determined position on the transport. As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of: aisle controller, processor, shuttle, sensor and memory.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed aisle controller, processor, shuttle, sensor and memory are hardware recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus aisle controller, processor, shuttle, sensor and memory are not significantly more.
The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 2, 9 and 16 further limit the present location in the warehouse and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively. Dependent Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 further limit the loading function and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively. Dependent Claims 6, 7, 13, and 20 further limit shuttle and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 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 (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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0149644 (Stingel) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0179502 (Cerutti) further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0071743 (Lert).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Stingel teaches a load delivery system that loads delivery vehicles by first in-last out (FILO). Stingel teaches: (Claim 8 is used as exemplary) (Currently Amended) A system comprising: an aisle controller; Examiner is interpreting Applicant’s “aisle controller” to be a general purpose computing device. This interpretation is reasonable in view of Applicant’s specification at ([0041] “the term “aisle controller” refers to a computing device that is configurable to perform any one or more of the operations described herein”). Stingel teaches: ([0048] “a product release processor (PRP) 110” and [0053] “PRP 110 can determine pallet configuration data specifying arrangements of cases for placement on one or more pallets. By determining pallet configuration data, the control system 105 provides direction to the automated material handling machinery 115. The pallet configuration data can specify the case release sequence and routing of pallets and cases throughout the material handling machinery 115 when the pallet is physically constructed. More particularly, the pallet configuration data can specify the order in which cases are to be released from various storage locations, which storage locations are to release cases, the routing of cases throughout the material handling system 115, as well as the manner and order in which cases are to be added and placed onto pallets”).
a shuttle that is configurable to simultaneously transport a plurality of loads, ([0015] “delivery vehicle”).
and one or more processors in communication with the aisle controller, ([0068] “robots 220 can add cases to pallets in a case by case manner using case attributes such as the dimensions of cases” and [0065] “The automated material handling system 200 can include various material handling machinery components and/or systems such as… robots 220”).
the one or more processors configured to: receive, from the aisle controller… (i) an indication of a first load of the plurality of loads for retrieval by the shuttle and (ii) an indication of a first retrieval location for the first load; receive, from the aisle controller… (a) an indication of a second load of the plurality of loads for retrieval by the shuttle and (b) an indication of a second retrieval location for the second load; ([0070] “pallets can be provided to the appropriate loading dock in sequential order for loading on an assigned delivery vehicle. The pallets can be provided to the loading dock in "first in last out" (FILO) fashion for efficiently servicing delivery stops of the delivery routes”).
control the shuttle to place the first load in the first loading position based on determination of the first loading position. ([0082] “the loading sequence for loading the pallets onto the delivery vehicles also can be determined… product can be loaded in FILO fashion so that products designated for customers positioned at the beginning of a delivery route can be located closest to the loading doors of the delivery vehicle”).
While Stingel also teaches placing items in the delivery vehicle in a sequence based on receiving them from a specific retrieval location ([0070] “the appropriate loading dock”). Stingel does not specifically teach placing one item in a position on a delivery vehicle based on the physical pickup location of both that item and the pickup location of a different item. Stingel does not specifically teach: determine a first loading position on the shuttle for placing the first load based on the first retrieval location and the second retrieval location.
Cerutti teaches a system that identifies an item to be transported which is currently located at a particular physical location (induction station) that is on a particular side (right or left) of the route of a transport vehicle (see at least [0037]). The system “books” (reserves) a specific position (cell) able to contain the item on the side of a specific two-sided transport vehicle on which the item is already located (see at least [0051] “blind loading process”). (i.e. if the retrieval location is on the left then the system will select the first loading position on the left side of the transport vehicle). Cerutti thus teaches determine a first loading position on the shuttle for placing the first load based on the first retrieval location. Cerutti also teaches that the system identifies other items that will be picked up subsequently to the specific item at later induction stations along the route and, depending on the location of those induction stations, the system will book (reserve) certain other cells on the same side as the first item to ensure space for both the first and subsequent items and to ensure that the first item is not blocked from exiting by the subsequently loaded items. (see at least [0060] “process 500 is operable to load items from induction stations at either side of the conveying path onto an approaching transport unit if the cell or cells of the transport unit are empty and not reserved or booked by a downstream induction station along the same side of the conveying path. Also, where there are more than one set of induction stations, the system control may be operable to leave a number of free cells or transport units between loaded cells at each induction station which is equal to the number of downstream induction stations along the same side of the conveying path, in order to avoid a back-up condition at the downstream induction stations”) thus Cerutti also teaches determine a first loading position on the shuttle for placing the first load based on… the second retrieval location.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery vehicle route taught by Stingel, by using both sides of the delivery vehicle and picking up items on a particular side and planning the position of items in the delivery vehicle by which side they were picked up, as taught by Cerutti, with the predictable improvement in productivity and efficiency of increasing the access to storage space.
Stingel does not specifically teach: (shuttle) comprising: one or more sensors… (computer in communication with) the one or more sensor. Lert, in the same field of art, teaches a shuttle with sensors (see at least [0033] “The preferred embodiment of the T3V (100) is” and [0040] “(g) sensors that provide information to the control computer, especially about the external environment, such for reading location markers or aligning the transfer arms with a target carrier tray in preparation for a payload transfer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery vehicle route taught by Stingel, by adding sensors, as taught by Lert, due to the predictable improvement in accuracy of system information by knowing the location of the delivery vehicle with the additional precision made possible by sensors on the delivery vehicle.
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16:
Stingel in view of Cerutti and Lert teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 8 and 15. While Stingel also teaches: ([0056] “delivery vehicles having side door access to the payload compartment” and [0064] “product can be removed from pallets from top to bottom and/or side to side in sequence with the stops on the delivery route”), Stingel does not specifically teach: (Claim 9 is used as exemplary) (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the first retrieval location and the second retrieval location are on a same side of the shuttle, wherein the first loading position is determined further based at least in part on the determination that the first retrieval location and the second retrieval location are on the same side of the shuttle. Cerutti also teaches this: (see at least [0060] “process 500 is operable to load items from induction stations at either side of the conveying path onto an approaching transport unit if the cell or cells of the transport unit are empty and not reserved or booked by a downstream induction station along the same side of the conveying path. Also, where there are more than one set of induction stations, the system control may be operable to leave a number of free cells or transport units between loaded cells at each induction station which is equal to the number of downstream induction stations along the same side of the conveying path, in order to avoid a back-up condition at the downstream induction stations”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery vehicle route taught by Stingel, by using both sides of the delivery vehicle and picking up items on a particular side and planning the position of items in the delivery vehicle by which side they were picked up, as taught by Cerutti, with the predictable improvement in productivity and efficiency of increasing the access to storage space.
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17:
Stingel in view of Cerutti and Lert teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 8 and 15. Stingel teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 8 and 15. Stingel also teaches: (Claim 10 is used as exemplary) (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: control the shuttle to place the second load in a second loading position without repositioning the first load. ([0082] “the loading sequence for loading the pallets onto the delivery vehicles also can be determined… product can be loaded in FILO fashion so that products designated for customers positioned at the beginning of a delivery route can be located closest to the loading doors of the delivery vehicle”).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18:
Stingel in view of Cerutti and Lert teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17. Stingel also teaches: (Claim 11 is used as exemplary) (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the second loading position is closer to an outer edge of the shuttle than the first loading position. ([0082] “the loading sequence for loading the pallets onto the delivery vehicles also can be determined… product can be loaded in FILO fashion so that products designated for customers positioned at the beginning of a delivery route can be located closest to the loading doors of the delivery vehicle”).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19:
Stingel in view of Cerutti and Lert teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 8 and 15. Stingel also teaches: (Claim 12 is used as exemplary) (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the first loading position is determined further based at least in part on a load delivery sequence. ([0082] “the loading sequence for loading the pallets onto the delivery vehicles also can be determined… product can be loaded in FILO fashion so that products designated for customers positioned at the beginning of a delivery route can be located closest to the loading doors of the delivery vehicle”).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20:
Stingel in view of Cerutti and Lert teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19. Stingel also teaches: (Claim 13 is used as exemplary) (Original) The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the aisle controller, an indication of the load delivery sequence. ([0065] “The automated material handling system 200 can include various material handling machinery components and/or systems such as… robots 220… Each of the aforementioned components of the automated material handling system 200 can be operated under the control of the PRP 110 and various programmable logic controllers (PLCs) 245”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Stingel in view of Cerutti and Lert teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 8 and 15. Stingel also teaches: (Claim 14 is used as exemplary) (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the shuttle comprises the one or more processors. ([0068] “robots 220 can add cases to pallets in a case by case manner using case attributes such as the dimensions of cases” and [0065] “The automated material handling system 200 can include various material handling machinery components and/or systems such as… robots 220”).
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art at the time of applicant’s application.
U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0357040 (Patel) teaches a central management system planning the loading sequence of delivery vehicles using LIFO (see at least [0091] and [0101]) so products do not need to be re-arranged at each stop to deliver each order.
U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0207710 (Conrad et. al.) teaches an automated storage and retrieval system that uses autonomous transport vehicles to move items around a warehouse and teaches a central computer that generates loading sequences that are matched to each side of an autonomous transport vehicles (see at least [0054]). Also see other similar publications from Applicant “Symbotic”: U.S. Patent Publications 2016/0167880, 2016/0207709, 20190389671 and 20210147146.
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 KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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) m Zeender can be reached at 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 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights