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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 18 & 36 have been amended. Claims 5, 19-35, 38-70, 72-91 have been canceled. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-18, 36-37 & 71 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-18, 36-37 & 71 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, the examiner contends that Akira discloses an iterative process (i.e., fig. 10 & 12) where the autonomous movement device has to utilize a separate/additional path (i.e., an avoidance path-see at least fig. 11 & ¶147) in order to avoid an obstacle/object. Hence, the examiner contends that Akira does disclose multiple paths/lanes based on real-time sensor data collected by the autonomous movement device. However, for purposes of expediting prosecution the examiner has presented a new ground of rejection to further demonstrate that the concepts of the instant claims are well known in the art (see rejection below for further clarification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1- 4, 6-18, 36- 37 & 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira et al. WO2021/255797A1 (hereinafter Akira) in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee, “Visiting pebbles on rectangular grids: coordinating multiple robots in mobile fulfilment systems”).
Examiner’s note: for mapping purposes below the examiner has relied up the English translation of the above document (i.e., US2023/0341862A1).
As per claim 1, Akira discloses: a route generation system (see Akira at least fig. 1 [100]), comprising:
a computer program code stored in a non-transitory computer storage media in communication with at least one processor and executable by the at least one processor to (see Akira at least fig. 1 [100, 10 and 20]):
generate route information based on sensor data, a travel path, and a direction travelled by an AMR during a training run (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13 & 15]; surrounding information acquirer, movement path generator, travel route generator and movement controller);
build an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) route based on the route information, the AMR route comprising a network of route segments, including at least one route segment to be travelled in a second direction different than a first direction that the route segment was travelled during the training run (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13 & 15], 8, 10 and 12);
store the AMR route for autonomous navigation use by the AMR (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22], 8, 10 and 12).
Akira discloses the invention as disclosed above.
However, Akira does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is further configured to generate the AMR route to include one or more lane grids comprising a plurality of lanes, each lane providing a selectable option for the AMR during navigation based, at least in part, on real-time sensor data collected by the AMR.
Nevertheless, Lee—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses wherein the system is further configured to generate the AMR route to include one or more lane grids comprising a plurality of lanes, each lane providing a selectable option for the AMR during navigation based, at least in part, on real-time sensor data collected by the AMR (see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions; multi-robot path, pebble motion on rectangular grids, scalable multi-robot coordination algorithms, collision avoidance, adaptive highways on grid).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, to combine Lee’s algorithm(s) to navigate vehicles through a multiple target nodes and/or paths with those of Akira’s autonomous movement device in order to form a more robust and dynamic system (i.e., by allowing the robots to stop at every node along their way to the target destination in order to safely and efficiently navigate a route while avoiding obstacles and optimizing resources).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Lee (see at least Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion).
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 2: wherein the network of route segments comprises overlapping route segments and behaviors that execute spatial mutexes to avoid simultaneous occupancy by multiple AMRs of the overlapping route segments (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22], 8, 10 and 12; see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 3: wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 4: wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) and/or at least one stereo camera (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 6: wherein the plurality of lanes of a lane grid includes: at least one lane defining a plurality of pick and/or drop locations where a load can be flexibly picked and/or dropped in one of the pick and/or drop locations based, at least in part, on real-time sensor data collected by the AMR (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 7: wherein the load comprises at least one pallet (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 8: wherein a lane grid defines a range of adjacent lanes as linear spaces, each linear space comprising the plurality of pick and/or drop locations (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 9: wherein a lane grid is generated and stored as a composite logic entity made of route segments comprising stations, routes, and/or zones (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 10: wherein a lane grid is stored and individually accessible as a lane grid object (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 11: wherein the lane grid object comprises a plurality of layers, each layer comprising a lane of the lane grid object (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 12: wherein the system is further configured to generate a lane grid to include: layered intersection zones having a plurality of route segments defining a plurality of travel paths through an intersection that enable the AMR to travel along a first path while at least one other AMR travels along a second path through the intersection (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 13: wherein the lane grid is stored as a lane grid object that comprises a plurality of layers, each layer comprising a travel path through the intersection (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 14: further comprising: a user interface (UI) module configured to generate step-by-step user instructions via an interactive UI device that enable generation of at least one lane grid from the one or more lane grids in response to user inputs via the UI device (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 15: wherein the user interface (UI) module is configured to generate one or more screens that enable a user to graphically train one or more route segments and/or lane grids (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 16: wherein the user interface (UI) module is configured to generate one or more screens that enable a user to graphically train one or more route segments to be travelled in a direction different than a direction used to train the one or more route segments (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 17: wherein the user interface (UI) module is configured to graphically build the AMR route as a combination of route information and/or route segments from a training run and one or more logic grids trained via the UI module (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 18: further comprising: the AMR comprising one or more sensors and a navigation system configured to autonomously navigate the AMR using the AMR route, including selectively executing a route segment from among a plurality of route segments of a lane grid based, at least in part, on real-time sensor data (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 36: A route generation method executable by at least one processor, the method comprising: generating route information based on sensor data, a travel path, and a direction travelled by an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) during a training run; building an AMR route based on the route information, the AMR route comprising a network of route segments, including at least one route segment to be travelled in a second direction different than a first direction that the route segment was travelled during the training run; generating the AMR route to include one or more lane grids comprising a plurality of lanes, each lane providing a selectable option for the AMR during navigation based, at least in part, on real-time sensor data collected by the AMR; and storing the AMR route for autonomous navigation use by the AMR (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions; see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 37: wherein the network of route segments comprises overlapping route segments and behaviors that execute spatial mutexes to avoid simultaneous occupancy by multiple AMRs of the overlapping route segments (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Akira and Lee disclose claim 71: An autonomous mobile robot (AMR) route generation system, comprising: at least one processor and computer memory; and a route generation program code executable by at least one processor to: process sensor data collected by at least one sensor while an AMR is driven in a first direction along a path; generate route information based on the sensor data and the path; generate one or more lane grids comprising a plurality of lanes, each lane providing a navigation option for the AMR based, at least in part, on real- time sensor data collected by the AMR; and generate an AMR route as a network of route segments comprising at least some of the route information and the one or more lane grids, wherein the AMR route is executable by the AMR to autonomously navigate in a second direction that is different from the first direction for one or more portions of the AMR route (see Akira at least fig. 1 [11, 12, 13, 15 & 22] and 7- 12 and ¶95-98 and see Lee at least fig. 1-4, 6, 11-14 and Abstract & Introduction and Conclusions; see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Akira with Lee, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 5/20/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights