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.
Claims 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for determining a route which amounts to . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the rail system claimed is not acted upon, nor is the route implemented by a container handling vehicle. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because grid-based rail systems and container handling vehicles are well known in the art and do not involve an inventive concept.
To overcome the 101 rejection, applicant need only amend claim 24 to include controlling the at least one container handling vehicle to travel the route determined from the first grid position to a second grid position using the model.
Claims 33-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a control system performing a method for determining a route which amounts to mathematical concepts used for determining the route. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the rail system claimed is not acted upon, nor is the route implemented by a container handling vehicle. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because control systems, grid-based rail systems, and container handling vehicles are well known in the art and do not involve an inventive concept.
To overcome the 101 rejection, applicant need only amend claim 33 to include controlling the at least one container handling vehicle to travel the route determined from the first grid position to a second grid position using the model.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a computer program for performing a method for determining a route which amounts to mathematical concepts used for determining the route. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the rail system claimed is not acted upon, nor is the route implemented by a container handling vehicle. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, grid-based rail systems, and container handling vehicles are well known in the art and do not involve an inventive concept.
To overcome the 101 rejection, applicant need only amend claim 43 to include controlling the at least one container handling vehicle to travel the route determined from the first grid position to a second grid position using the model.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art of record was found which could support a 102 or 103 rejection of claims 24-43.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a method comprising creating a model of a grid based rail system comprising a finite set of non-overlapping rectangular first zones extending in a first direction, a finite set of non-overlapping rectangular second zones extending in a second direction, determining overlap information between the first zones and the second zones and determining a route a route from a first grid position to s second grid position using the model of the rail system in combination with remaining claim language is not taught or fairly suggested by the present prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220351133 is considered to be the closes prior art and discloses creating a zone-based model used for determining routes in a grid system. US 2023/0264897, 2020/0363819, 2013/0302132 and 7,920,962 each disclose means for determining a route in a grid-based system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights