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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 recites abstract limitations, which are emphasized (bolded) below:
1. (Original) A robotic vehicle, comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device;
a navigation system in operative control of a drive system to navigate the robotic vehicle along a predetermined path;
at least one sensor configured to acquire real-time sensor data; and
a dynamic path adjust module comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to cause the navigation system to generate at least one dynamically determined path or path segment based on the real-time senor data, wherein the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment at least partially and/or temporarily deviates from the predetermined path.
11. (Currently Amended) A path adjust method for a robotic vehicle, the robotic vehicle comprising:
a navigation system operatively controlling a drive system to navigate the robotic vehicle along a predetermined path;
at least one sensor; and
a dynamic path adjust module comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to cause the robotic vehicle to perform a-method that includes:
navigating the robotic vehicle on a predetermined path;
collecting sensor data in real-time; and
executing the dynamic path adjust module program code, including generating at least one dynamically determined path or path segment based on the real- time senor data, wherein the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment at least partially and/or temporarily deviates from the predetermined path.
The provided limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim(s) recite additional elements of: which are emphasized (underlined) below:
1. (Original) A robotic vehicle, comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device;
a navigation system in operative control of a drive system to navigate the robotic vehicle along a predetermined path;
at least one sensor configured to acquire real-time sensor data; and
a dynamic path adjust module comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to cause the navigation system to generate at least one dynamically determined path or path segment based on the real-time senor data, wherein the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment at least partially and/or temporarily deviates from the predetermined path.
11. (Currently Amended) A path adjust method for a robotic vehicle, the robotic vehicle comprising:
a navigation system operatively controlling a drive system to navigate the robotic vehicle along a predetermined path;
at least one sensor; and
a dynamic path adjust module comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to cause the robotic vehicle to perform a method that includes:
navigating the robotic vehicle on a predetermined path;
collecting sensor data in real-time; and
executing the dynamic path adjust module program code, including generating at least one dynamically determined path or path segment based on the real- time senor data, wherein the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment at least partially and/or temporarily deviates from the predetermined path.
The characterization of;
… robotic vehicle
… navigation system
… real-time sensor
… an autonomous mobile robot
amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s);
… at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device
… a navigation system in operative control of a drive system
… at least one sensor configured to acquire real-time sensor data
amounts to merely indicating functions of the at least one processor, a navigation system, a sensor recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea.
(see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s);
… a dynamic path adjust module comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to cause the robotic vehicle to perform a method that includes
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, alternatively the limitation(s) amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea.
(see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The functions of the additional element(s);
… configured to acquire real-time sensor data
… acquiring real-time sensor data
… collecting sensor data in real-time
amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The functions (e.g. monitoring/receiving/transmitting/collecting/storage) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and transmitting data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).)
The characterization of;
… a navigation system in operative control of a drive system to navigate the robotic vehicle along a predetermined path
… navigating the robotic vehicle on a predetermined path
attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the functions 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 does not provide significantly more.
(See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).)
As discussed above, the characterization of the claim(s), as discussed above, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally/alternatively, with respect to the (e.g., to receive, store, transmit data), the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, prior art Kronenberg (US 2010/0082179 A1), discloses that various combinations of sensors, detectors, processors, cameras, and other monitoring means known in the art can be used to monitor driving parameters of vehicles (see [0044]).
Moreover, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 6 13 16; act to further characterize previously recited abstract ideas (e.g., further characterization of the trained path, further characterization of real-time pose data) without reciting any further additional elements beyond those identified above with respect to the independent claims. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 13; further recites limitation(s) which include(s) recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The functions (e.g. storing/retrieving) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(See The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).)
Claim(s) 4 5 10 14 15 20; further recites limitation(s) which include(s) field of use (e.g. further characterizing the sensors, type of robotic vehicle, and modules) and does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or mount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim(s) 8-9 18-19; further recites abstract limitation(s) which include(s) performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or mount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“dynamic path adjust module” (Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11-12, and 17 described in P[0085]). The limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) due to the presence of a generic placeholder and the use of functional language as disclosed. The limitation is further defined within the present application as “the dynamic path adjust module 180 comprises computer program code stored in memory 12 and executable by the at least one processor 10” Therefore, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) and further understood as hardware or a combination of software and hardware, a processor comprising computer code, or equivalence thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim(s) 5 and 15; the limitation(s), “wherein the one or more stereo sensors includes one or more stereo cameras” is/are unclear. The limitation is confusing as the limitation lacks antecedent basis and in part renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 2 8-12 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Sellner US-20200387154-A1.
1. (Original) Sellner US-20200387154-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for …;
A robotic vehicle, comprising:
([FIG.9] pallet transport 130)
at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device;
([claim.19; 0035-0040] one or more processors, circuits, memory devices, and wireless communication devices cooperatively coupled together.)
a navigation system in operative control of a drive system to navigate the robotic vehicle along a predetermined path;
([0035] The method includes electronically transmitting routes to a plurality of robotic vehicles, each robotic vehicle configured to auto-navigate to each pick location on a received route, electronically tracking locations of the robotic vehicles and a plurality of mobile selector units, and electronically determining and communicating navigation instructions to the plurality of mobile selector units based, at least in part, on locations of the mobile selector units and the robotic vehicles and next pick locations of the robotic vehicle routes)
at least one sensor configured to acquire real-time sensor data; and
([0158] A dynamic allocation and coordination of auto-navigating vehicles system 940 is in communication with the order selectors 950, and can perform the analysis and orchestrate the deployment and redeployment of the order selectors 950, e.g., in real or near-real time.)
([0129-0131] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to…)
([0037] at least one processor electronically tracking locations of the robotic vehicles and the mobile selector units)
([0163] Movement of the vehicles can be tracked, in step 806, e.g., by WMS 140 or another tracking system, such as known tracking systems… [see also] warehouse management system, or WMS, 140 is a key part of the supply chain and primarily aims to control the movement and storage of goods within warehouse 100)
a dynamic path adjust module comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor [claim.19; 0035-0040] to cause the navigation system to generate at least one dynamically determined path or path segment based on the real-time senor data [0158], wherein the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment at least partially and/or temporarily deviates from the predetermined path ([0130-0136] e.g. command the robot start/stop/slow down).
([0158] A dynamic allocation and coordination of auto-navigating vehicles system 940 is in communication with the order selectors 950, and can perform the analysis and orchestrate the deployment and redeployment of the order selectors 950, e.g., in real or near-real time.)
([0140] “Smart Path” that is created based on the order stops or slow-downs. The robotic vehicle will travel to each location and stop or slow down for work. This creates the flexibility to have the order selectors follow the robotic vehicle or wait in pre-assigned zones for the robotic vehicles to arrive for work, or be dynamically dispatched to successive pick faces by a centralized system, e.g., WMS 140.)
([FIG.6] iterative self-guidance)
The disclosure of Sellner US-20200387154-A1 teaches a consideration for;
[A] A robotic warehouse vehicle controlled by a navigation system including a processor and memory comprising at least one sensor to collect real-time data and further configured to dynamically adjust a path based upon real-time sensor data used in directing/navigating a path(s) the vehicle (e.g. start/stop/slow down) [0130-0131; 0136]
2. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the dynamic path adjust module is configured to cause the navigation system to resume navigation[0140, 0136] on the predetermined path[0104] after navigating the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment.
([0158] A dynamic allocation and coordination of auto-navigating vehicles system 940 is in communication with the order selectors 950, and can perform the analysis and orchestrate the deployment and redeployment of the order selectors 950, e.g., in real or near-real time.)
([0140] “Smart Path” that is created based on the order stops or slow-downs. The robotic vehicle will travel to each location and stop or slow down for work. This creates the flexibility to have the order selectors follow the robotic vehicle or wait in pre-assigned zones for the robotic vehicles to arrive for work, or be dynamically dispatched to successive pick faces by a centralized system, e.g., WMS 140.)
([0130] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to detect a user's gestures and/or gaze. In such embodiments, the user could use a change in gesture and/or gaze to instruct the robotic vehicle 130 to move to the next location command the robot start/stop/slow down … the method returns to step 512, where the user initiates robotic travel to the next pick face, or the robotic vehicle could be dispensed to a next location, e.g., next pick face or loading area, through an onboard or external control signal)
The disclosure of Sellner US-20200387154-A1 teaches a consideration for;
A robotic warehouse vehicle as discussed above. Sellner further discloses a “Smart Path” routing system for controlling warehouse vehicle navigation and operational routes/patrols. These routes include stops or slow downs for work wherein an operator may command the robot to start/stop/slow down in accordance with real-time dynamic work requirements, the vehicle is then configured to be dispensed to a next location.
8. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the path adjust module is configured to swap a path segment from the predetermined path with a dynamically created path segment.
([0140] “Smart Path” that is created based on the order stops or slow-downs. The robotic vehicle will travel to each location and stop or slow down for work. This creates the flexibility to have the order selectors follow the robotic vehicle or wait in pre-assigned zones for the robotic vehicles to arrive for work, or be dynamically dispatched to successive pick faces by a centralized system, e.g., WMS 140.)
([0130] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to detect a user's gestures and/or gaze. In such embodiments, the user could use a change in gesture and/or gaze to instruct the robotic vehicle 130 to move to the next location command the robot start/stop/slow down … the method returns to step 512, where the user initiates robotic travel to the next pick face, or the robotic vehicle could be dispensed to a next location, e.g., next pick face or loading area, through an onboard or external control signal)
9. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the path adjust module is configured to replace a remainder of the predetermined path with the one or more dynamically determined path or path segments.
([0140] “Smart Path” that is created based on the order stops or slow-downs. The robotic vehicle will travel to each location and stop or slow down for work. This creates the flexibility to have the order selectors follow the robotic vehicle or wait in pre-assigned zones for the robotic vehicles to arrive for work, or be dynamically dispatched to successive pick faces by a centralized system, e.g., WMS 140.)
([0130] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to detect a user's gestures and/or gaze. In such embodiments, the user could use a change in gesture and/or gaze to instruct the robotic vehicle 130 to move to the next location command the robot start/stop/slow down … the method returns to step 512, where the user initiates robotic travel to the next pick face, or the robotic vehicle could be dispensed to a next location, e.g., next pick face or loading area, through an onboard or external control signal)
10. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the robotic vehicle is an autonomous mobile robot lift truck or tugger.
([0144] the robotic vehicle, e.g., a pallet transport or tugger with cart.)
11. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 1.)
12. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 2.)
18. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 8.)
19. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 9.)
20. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 10.)
21. (Original)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 1.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellner US-20200387154-A1, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above and further in view of Harvey US-20120239238-A1.
3. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the predetermined path is ***route*** stored in the at least one computer memory device.
([0034-0035] the method can further comprise a warehouse database having the representation of the storage facility and the pick lists in an electronic memory …at least one processor accessing the warehouse database and electronically generating one or more of the routes.)
([0112] modules 300 can take the form of computer program code stored in a non-transitory storage media 316 and executed by at least one processor 320.)
Harvey US-20120239238-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for the route being “… a trained path”;
(Harvey [0034] FIG. 1, an industrial vehicle 10, specifically a pallet truck … This learning occurs in a training mode in which the vehicle is manually driven along the particular path, while the GANS 13 stores data about that path. The nature of that data depends upon the type of guidance technique employed and may include identification of the specific fiducials encountered, distances between stops and turns, direction and degrees of the turns, velocity during different path segments, and the like. The detailed path information is gathered by sensors and the vehicle controller and transferred for storage in the GANS. A particular path can be taught to one industrial vehicle 10 and the acquired data then may be transferred to other vehicles of the same type, ...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sellner to include a trained path with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Harvey, for the benefit of storing a path which may by used or amended for future operations.
13. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system/method of claim(s) 3 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 3.)
Claim(s) 4 6-7 14 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellner US-20200387154-A1, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above and further in view of Crawley US-20150012163-A1.
4. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more ***input*** sensors.
([0129-0131] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to…)
Crawley US-20150012163-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for “… one or more three-dimensional”;
(Crawley [0083] The above-described first embodiment described a navigation system comprising ... Alternative 2-D and 3-D range finding methods may also be used. Some embodiments may comprise 3-D cameras, such as ...; or other alternative 3-D cameras that will be known to those skilled in the art.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sellner to include one or more three-dimensional sensors with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Crawley, for the benefit of providing three-dimensional information regarding an operational environment during navigation, providing a system with the information needed to operate obstacle avoidance.
6. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 4, wherein the sensor data includes real-time pose data.
([0158] A dynamic allocation and coordination of auto-navigating vehicles system 940 is in communication with the order selectors 950, and can perform the analysis and orchestrate the deployment and redeployment of the order selectors 950, e.g., in real or near-real time.)
([0129-0131] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to… detect a user's gestures and/or gaze)
([claim 19] communicate with a plurality of mobile selector units, each having a wireless communication device; device track locations and movement of the autonomous vehicles along their respective routes)
7. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 6, wherein the dynamic path adjust module is configured to determine a vehicle pose [0032] from the real-time [0158] pose data [0032, 0130] when transitioning from the predetermined path to the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment and to return the vehicle to the vehicle pose and transition back to the predetermined path.
([0032; claim 19] The method includes electronically transmitting routes to a plurality of robotic vehicles, each robotic vehicle configured to auto-navigate to each pick location on a received route, electronically tracking locations of the robotic vehicles and a plurality of mobile selector units)
([0158] A dynamic allocation and coordination of auto-navigating vehicles system 940 is in communication with the order selectors 950, and can perform the analysis and orchestrate the deployment and redeployment of the order selectors 950, e.g., in real or near-real time.)
([0140] “Smart Path” that is created based on the order stops or slow-downs. The robotic vehicle will travel to each location and stop or slow down for work. This creates the flexibility to have the order selectors follow the robotic vehicle or wait in pre-assigned zones for the robotic vehicles to arrive for work, or be dynamically dispatched to successive pick faces by a centralized system, e.g., WMS 140.)
([0130] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to detect a user's gestures and/or gaze. In such embodiments, the user could use a change in gesture and/or gaze to instruct the robotic vehicle 130 to move to the next location command the robot start/stop/slow down … the method returns to step 512, where the user initiates robotic travel to the next pick face, or the robotic vehicle could be dispensed to a next location, e.g., next pick face or loading area, through an onboard or external control signal)
14. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system/method of claim(s) 4 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 4.)
16. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system/method of claim(s) 6 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 6.)
17. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system/method of claim(s) 7 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 7.)
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellner US-20200387154-A1 and Crawley US-20150012163-A1, as applied to claim 4 and 14 above and further in view of Ricard US-20050246065-A1.
5. (Currently Amended) Sellner discloses a consideration for …;
The robotic vehicle of claim 4, wherein the one or more ***sensors*** includes one or more ***environmental*** sensors.
([0129-0131] the robotic vehicle 130 comprises one or more sensors configured to… detect a user's gestures and/or gaze)
Ricard US-20050246065-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for “… the one or more stereo sensors … stereo cameras”;
(Ricard [0002] The present invention relates to a multi sensor system for 3D mobile robot navigation, localization and mapping that combine a high-repetition rate laser range sensor and a stereo camera.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sellner to include one or more stereo sensors wherein the stereo sensors are stereo cameras with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ricard, for the benefit of providing an accurate representation of depth and distance, which is crucial for navigation in object detection/avoidance/localization.
15. (Currently Amended)
(The limitation(s) is/are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system/method of claim(s) 5 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 5.)
Conclusion
It should be noted that there exists prior art which is pertinent to significant though unclaimed features of the defined invention or directed to the state of art. The following is a brief description of relevant prior art cited but not applied:
Anderson US-20150025708-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for “…resume navigation on the predetermined path after navigating the at least one dynamically determined path or path segment”;
(Anderson [0118] the process moves the vehicle along the planned path (step 1306) and monitors for obstacles (step 1308). The process determines whether an obstacle is detected in the planned path (step 1310). …, the process executes avoidance maneuvers to avoid the obstacle (step 1312), then resumes the planned path (step 1314), and continues to monitor for obstacles (step 1308)...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sellner to include resume navigation on a predetermined path after navigating at least one dynamically determined path or path segment with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Anderson, for the benefit of providing obstacle avoidance and a system configured to resume predetermined operations after addressing operational conditions.
See PTO-892: Notice of references cited.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663