DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/920,622 filed on 10/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/920,622 filed 10/18/2024 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/544,800, filed 10/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/03/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US 12,400,158 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is obvious in view of claim 1 in the listed patent. Claim 1 of the ‘158 patent recites “A method of operation of a robot fleet management system, the method comprising: accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots; accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks; accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots; and allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task.” Claim 1 of the ‘158 patent recites similar steps to those recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application recites: “A robot fleet management system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot fleet management system to perform a method of operation of the robot fleet management system, wherein the method of operation includes: accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots; accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks; accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots; and allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task.” Although the claims are directed to inventions in different statutory classes (i.e., a system versus a method), the distinction in statutory class does not, by itself, render the claims patentably distinct. The subject matter of claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from the subject matter of claim 1 of the ‘158 patent because the claimed “system” in the instant application is merely a hardware embodiment configured to perform the same method steps as those recited in the ‘158 patent. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a system configured to perform the method steps of the ‘158 patent, since the method and system clams define the same overall invention in different claim formats, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Claims of instant application (as filed on 10/18/2024)
Claims of U.S. Pat. 12,400,158 B2
(issued on 08/26/2025)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12,400,158 B2 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
9. Claim 15 recites “The robot fleet management system of claim 1…based at least in part on a respective cumulative power consumption of each robot for a respective at least one completed task of the at least one untethered tasks.” There is no antecedent basis for the term “the at least one untethered tasks,” and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. While claim 1 recites “a set of tasks,” claim 1 does not introduce untethered tasks. The term “at least one untethered tasks” in claim 15 is not introduced or defined in any prior claim of the dependency chain. Appropriate correction is required.
10. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing task assignments, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot fleet management system to perform a method of operation of the robot fleet management system, wherein the method of operation includes: accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots; accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks; accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots; and allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task. These steps cover organizing human activity because the accessed information directly pertains to task allocation. Claim 1 recites limitations such as: accessing a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots; accessing a respective power consumption for each task ; accessing a respective power state of each robot; and allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task. These steps describe data collection and analysis followed by a decision-making process (allocation of tasks). This amount to organizing and scheduling tasks based on information, which falls within the abstract die grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes.” Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping and the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claim 1, the additional elements are: at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot fleet management system to (claim 1). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the “accessing” steps are evaluated as additional elements, these steps amount at most to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The robots recited in claim 1 are not considered additional elements because they are used only as data objects whose attributes (power state) are evaluated during the allocation process, without any control or modification to the robot themselves. As the claim never causse a robot to perform an action or produces a physical effect, the robots function merely as resources within the abstract task assignment process rather than as technological components providing concrete application. The claim does not require transmission of controls commands to robots or improvement in the functioning of the robot themselves.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claim 1, the additional elements are: at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot fleet management system to (claim 1). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0056, 0106]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
With respect to the “accessing” steps, even if considered as an addition element, these steps at most amounts to receiving/transmitting data, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also MPEP 2106.05(d) i. - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-20 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims, and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One) along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 2-20 further narrow the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 1 by reciting limitations that fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping. For example, dependent claims 2-20 recite “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks includes allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots and the respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks,” “wherein accessing a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots includes accessing a set of tasks comprising at least one tethered task and at least one untethered task,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes: determining the first robot has sufficient power to complete an untethered task selected from the at least one untethered task; and allocating the first robot to the selected untethered task,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes: determining the power state of the first robot is above an upper threshold; and allocating the first robot in the fleet of robots to an untethered task selected from the at least one untethered task,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes: determining the first robot has insufficient power to complete an untethered task selected from the at least one untethered task; and allocating the first robot to a tethered task selected from the at least one tethered task,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes: determining the first robot has insufficient power to complete any untethered task selected from the at least one untethered task; and allocating the first robot to a tethered task selected from the at least one tethered task,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes: determining the power state of the first robot is below a lower threshold; and allocating the first robot in the fleet of robots to a tethered task selected from the at least one tethered task,” “wherein the method further comprises initiating a replenishment of a power source of the first robot during performance of a tethered task,” “wherein accessing, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks includes accessing a respective power consumption based at least in part on a power anticipated to be drawn by a robot in the fleet of robots from a power source to complete each task from the set of tasks,” “wherein accessing a respective power consumption based at least in part on a power anticipated to be drawn by a robot in the fleet of robots from a power source to complete each task from the set of tasks includes accessing a respective power consumption based at least in part on an anticipated power to be drawn from a battery to complete each task from the set of tasks,” “wherein accessing a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks includes accessing a respective power consumption based at least in part on respective historical power consumption data for each task from the set of tasks,” “wherein accessing a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks includes accessing at least one of a respective power consumption score and a power consumption category for each task from the set of tasks,” “wherein accessing a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots includes accessing a respective state of charge of a battery onboard each robot in the fleet of robots,” “wherein accessing a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots includes determining a respective power state of each robot based at least in part on a respective cumulative power consumption of each robot for a respective at least one completed task of the at least one untethered tasks,” “wherein the method further comprises allocating a second robot in the fleet of robots to a second task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power state of at least the second robot and the respective power consumption for at least the second task,” “wherein allocating a second robot in the fleet of robots to a second task from the set of tasks includes allocating a second robot in the fleet of robots to a second task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots and the respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks,” “wherein: accessing a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots includes accessing a set of tasks comprising at least one tethered task and at least one untethered task, and allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks and allocating a second robot in the fleet of robots to a second task from the set of tasks includes: determining the power state of the first robot is lower than the power state of the second robot; allocating a tethered task selected from the at least one tethered task to the first robot; and allocating an untethered task selected from the at least one untethered task to the second robot,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes allocating the first robot to the first task based at least in part on at least one of a priority of the first task relative to other tasks from the set of tasks and a maintenance condition of the first robot,” “wherein allocating a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot and the power consumption for at least the first task includes allocating a first task from the set of tasks to a first robot of the fleet of robots in real-time,” however, these steps recite limitations that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Dependent claims recite additional elements of a power source of the first robot (claim 9) and the battery onboard a battery-powered robot in the fleet of robots (claim 11). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible. With respect to the limitation “wherein the method further comprises initiating a replenishment of a power source of the first robot during performance of a tethered task”, this limitation does not amount to a practical application or significantly more because the claim does not specify how the replenishment is performed or controlled. The limitation does not specify whether the action is performed automatically, by issuing control signals, or by prompting human intervention, leaving the step as a high-level result rather than a concrete technical operation. There is no technological detail tying the replenishment to concrete robot control or a specific technical mechanism.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-2, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0100184 A1, [hereinafter Natarajan], in view of Chen et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0269284 A1, [hereinafter Chen].
As per claim 1, Natarajan teaches a robot fleet management system comprising
at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (paragraph 0145, discussing that the computing device 1200 may perform the various functionality as described with respect to…allocating AMRs (Autonomous Mobile Robots) 102 to tasks, performing enhanced path planning functions, calculating AMR health and failure probabilities with respect to the AMRs performing or completing tasks, communicating with the AMRs 102 to identify new tasks, etc. To do so, the computing device 1200 may include processing circuitry 1202, a transceiver 1204, communication interface 1206, and a memory 1208; paragraph 0146, discussing that the processing circuitry 1202 may be configured as any suitable number and/or type of computer processors, which may function to control the computing device 1200 and/or other components of the computing device 500…; paragraph 0150, discussing that the memory 1208 is configured to store data and/or instructions such that, when the instructions are executed by the processing circuitry 1202, cause the computing device 1200 to perform various functions as described, such as those described with reference to the MRTA system 200. The memory 1208 may be implemented as any well-known volatile and/or non-volatile memory, including, for example, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), flash memory, a magnetic storage media, an optical disc, erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), programmable read only memory (PROM), etc. The memory 1208 may be non-removable, removable, or a combination of both. The memory 1208 may be implemented as a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more executable instructions such as, for example, logic, algorithms, code, etc.),
the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot fleet management system to perform a method of operation of the robot fleet management system (paragraph 0147, discussing that the processing circuitry 1202 may be configured to carry out instructions to perform arithmetical, logical, and/or input/output (I/O) operations, and/or to control the operation of one or more components of computing device 1200 to perform various functions associated with the MRTA (multi-robot, multi-task allocation) system 200 as described. The processing circuitry 1202 may include one or more microprocessor cores, memory registers, buffers, clocks, etc., and may generate electronic control signals associated with the components of the computing device 1200 to control and/or modify the operation of these components. The processing circuitry 1202 may communicate with and/or control functions associated with the transceiver 1204, the communication interface 1206, and/or the memory 1208. The processing circuitry 1202 may additionally perform various operations to control the communications, communications scheduling, and/or operation of other network infrastructure components that are communicatively coupled to the computing device 1200; paragraph 0150, discussing that the memory 1208 is configured to store data and/or instructions such that, when the instructions are executed by the processing circuitry 1202, cause the computing device 1200 to perform various functions as described, such as those described with reference to the MRTA system 200. The memory 1208 may be implemented as any well-known volatile and/or non-volatile memory, including, for example, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), flash memory, a magnetic storage media, an optical disc, erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), programmable read only memory (PROM), etc. The memory 1208 may be non-removable, removable, or a combination of both. The memory 1208 may be implemented as a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more executable instructions such as, for example, logic, algorithms, code, etc.), wherein the method of operation (paragraphs 0150, 0217) includes :
accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a set of tasks available to be performed by a fleet of robots (paragraph 0001, discussing task allocation for autonomous systems; paragraph 0203, discussing receive autonomous agent task data including (i) a set of tasks to be performed by a plurality of autonomous agents operating within an environment);
accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots (paragraph 0030, discussing that the continuous monitoring of tasks and AMR actions facilitates a quick response to any AMR performance-related malfunctions, battery life issues, etc. Moreover, once an AMR completes its task, it is re-assigned to a new task by a task allocation engine, and thus the AMRs are continuously and efficiently assigned to tasks autonomously. In addition, in the techniques discussed, the task allocation engine provides additional logic to support urgent unexpected scenarios such as robot malfunctions or low battery etc., which may require emergency AMR back-up; paragraph 0031, discussing that the allocation of AMRs [i.e., robots] to tasks is determined by several factors such as task parameters and AMR state parameters and availability information (such as the number of assigned and unassigned AMRs, the AMR's current action sequence, idle times, the physical location of AMRs with respect to task location, battery life remaining [i.e., respective power state], the distance to charging stations, etc.). Then, each task may be allocated to the AMRs for each task having the highest reward metric value, which thus represents the “best” AMR to perform each task); and
allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power state of at least the first robot (paragraph 0031, discussing that the allocation of AMRs to tasks is determined by several factors such as task parameters and AMR state parameters and availability information (such as the number of assigned and unassigned AMRs, the AMR's current action sequence, idle times, the physical location of AMRs with respect to task location, battery life remaining [i.e., power state], the distance to charging stations, etc.). Then, each task may be allocated to the AMRs for each task having the highest reward metric value, which thus represents the “best” AMR to perform each task; paragraph 0034, discussing that the AMRs 102 may also receive commands (which may be in the form of transmitted control signals) with respect to allocated tasks to perform as well as the details associated with how and when to perform the allocated tasks, and/or planned path information from the computing device 108; paragraph 0042, discussing that the computing device may thus receive state-related information from each for the AMRs 102…, which may include…data related to the operating state of the AMRs 102, or any other suitable feedback related to the state of the AMRs… In any event, the computing device 108 may optionally use this state-related information, together with other information about the environment 100 that is already known, for task allocation; paragraph 0203, discussing generating autonomous agent task allocation data that allocates each one of the plurality of autonomous agents to a respective one of the set of tasks; and a communication means for transmitting commands to each one of the plurality of autonomous agents to perform the respectively allocated tasks).
While Natarajan describes cost factors that may include the required energy to perform a task (paragraph 0067), Natarajan does not explicitly teach accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks; and allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power consumption for at least the first task. However, Chen in the analogous art of systems for robot fleet management teaches these concepts. Chen teaches:
accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks (paragraph 0052, discussing an amount of energy to be used in each mission of the mission profile; paragraph 0066, discussing a computer-implemented method of managing a fleet of robots comprises receiving a first task, determining at least one factor for the first task indicating information related to accomplishing the first task, receiving data indicating information related to an environment in which the first task is to be accomplished, determining at least one mission capability for accomplishing a mission that includes the first task, wherein the at least one mission capability is based on one or more of the at least one factor or the data, and creating a mission profile based on the first task and one or more of the at least one factor, the data, or the at least one mission capability; paragraph 0170, discussing that fleet manager 628 may manage a fleet of robots with respect to, among other things, scheduling and dispatching missions and tasks to robots…; paragraph 0207, discussing that a mission file may contain one or more of the following: a mission identification, a mission priority level, and/or the identification of any other missions that are scheduled to be completed at the same time as the mission;…; fiducials associated with the robot; minimum battery/energy requirements of the robot to complete the mission, and any reserve built-in to account for any diversions by the robot during the mission…; paragraph 0211, discussing that a mission may be characterized as requiring a highest quality level of mission or task performance, performing the mission or the task in the shortest amount of time, performing the mission or the task using the least amount of energy; paragraph 0067); and
allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power consumption for at least the first task (paragraph 0170, discussing that fleet manager 628 may manage a fleet of robots with respect to, among other things, scheduling and dispatching missions and tasks to robots, monitoring the health and maintenance status of robots and their components, and scheduling maintenance of robots…Fleet manager 628 may assign missions and tasks to robots based on mission requirements and robot capabilities. For instance, if fleet manager 628 determines that a mission can be supported by only a robot type of type A, fleet manager 628 may assign the mission to only a robot among robots 110A, 110B, and 110C of type A… For another mission that can be assigned to a robot of type A or B, fleet manager 628 may assign the mission to a robot among robots 110A, 110B, and 110C of type A or B based on the availability of each robot 110A, 110B, and 110C. The availability of each robot 110A, 110B, and 110C may be determined by fleet manager 628 using metrics such as, for example, communications state and battery life, etc. In some embodiments, operations management system 200 may specify a mission or task to be performed by a specific robot or a robot among a specific group of robots; paragraph 0207, discussing that a mission file may contain one or more of the following: a mission identification, a mission priority level, and/or the identification of any other missions that are scheduled to be completed at the same time as the mission;…; fiducials associated with the robot; minimum battery/energy requirements of the robot to complete the mission, and any reserve built-in to account for any diversions by the robot during the mission…; paragraphs 0046, 0047, 0218).
Natarajan is directed towards a system and method for task allocation for autonomous robots. Chen is directed to systems and methods for management of a robot fleet. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards robot fleet management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Natarajan with Chen because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task allocation and management of robot services, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and methods for robot fleet management), and because modifying Natarajan to include Chen’s features for including accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks, and allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks, based at least in part on the power consumption for at least the first task, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing robots to be assigned to tasks in an efficient manner that may maximize the use of robots to perform the tasks within the facility (Chen at paragraph 0004); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Natarajan-Chen combination teaches the robot fleet management system of claim 1. Natarajan further teaches wherein allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks includes allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots (paragraph 0031, discussing that the allocation of AMRs to tasks is determined by several factors such as task parameters and AMR state parameters and availability information (such as the number of assigned and unassigned AMRs, the AMR's current action sequence, idle times, the physical location of AMRs with respect to task location, battery life remaining [i.e., power state], the distance to charging stations, etc.). Then, each task may be allocated to the AMRs for each task having the highest reward metric value, which thus represents the “best” AMR to perform each task; paragraph 0034, discussing that the AMRs 102 may also receive commands (which may be in the form of transmitted control signals) with respect to allocated tasks to perform as well as the details associated with how and when to perform the allocated tasks, and/or planned path information from the computing device 108; paragraph 0042, discussing that the computing device may thus receive state-related information from each for the AMRs 102…, which may include…data related to the operating state of the AMRs 102, or any other suitable feedback related to the state of the AMRs… In any event, the computing device 108 may optionally use this state-related information, together with other information about the environment 100 that is already known, for task allocation; paragraph 0203, discussing generating autonomous agent task allocation data that allocates each one of the plurality of autonomous agents to a respective one of the set of tasks; and a communication means for transmitting commands to each one of the plurality of autonomous agents to perform the respectively allocated tasks).
Natarajan does not explicitly teach allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks. However, Chen in the analogous art of systems for robot fleet management teaches this concept. Chen teaches:
allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks (paragraph 0170, discussing that fleet manager 628 may manage a fleet of robots with respect to, among other things, scheduling and dispatching missions and tasks to robots, monitoring the health and maintenance status of robots and their components, and scheduling maintenance of robots…Fleet manager 628 may assign missions and tasks to robots based on mission requirements and robot capabilities. For instance, if fleet manager 628 determines that a mission can be supported by only a robot type of type A, fleet manager 628 may assign the mission to only a robot among robots 110A, 110B, and 110C of type A… For another mission that can be assigned to a robot of type A or B, fleet manager 628 may assign the mission to a robot among robots 110A, 110B, and 110C of type A or B based on the availability of each robot 110A, 110B, and 110C. The availability of each robot 110A, 110B, and 110C may be determined by fleet manager 628 using metrics such as, for example, communications state and battery life, etc. In some embodiments, operations management system 200 may specify a mission or task to be performed by a specific robot or a robot among a specific group of robots; paragraph 0207, discussing that a mission file may contain one or more of the following: a mission identification, a mission priority level, and/or the identification of any other missions that are scheduled to be completed at the same time as the mission;…; fiducials associated with the robot; minimum battery/energy requirements of the robot to complete the mission, and any reserve built-in to account for any diversions by the robot during the mission…; paragraphs 0046, 0047, 0218).
Natarajan is directed towards a system and method for task allocation for autonomous robots. Chen is directed to systems and methods for management of a robot fleet. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards robot fleet management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Natarajan with Chen because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task allocation and management of robot services, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and methods for robot fleet management), and because modifying Natarajan to include Chen’s feature for including allocating, by the robot fleet management system, a first robot in the fleet of robots to a first task from the set of tasks based at least in part on the respective power consumption for each task from the set of tasks, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing robots to be assigned to tasks in an efficient manner that may maximize the use of robots to perform the tasks within the facility (Chen at paragraph 0004); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14, the Natarajan-Chen combination teaches the robot fleet management system of claim 1. Natarajan further teaches wherein accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective power state of each robot in the fleet of robots includes accessing, by the robot fleet management system, a respective state of charge of a battery onboard each robot in the fleet of robots (paragraph 0030, discussing that the continuous monitoring of tasks and AMR [i.e., robot] actions facilitates a quick response to any AMR