DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) of record.
Specification
The lengthy specification (195 Pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 1-12 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured within the independent claims.
Claims 13-23 will be examined.
Claim 13 is the independent claim.
Claim 13 and 21 have been amended.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 6/30/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 6/30/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Abstract objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Abstract Objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the Drawing objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 13-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lalonde et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0178376) in view of Schleicher et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0166157).
With respect to Claim 20: While Lalonde discloses “A method for controlling a plurality of motorized mobile systems comprising” [Lalonde ¶ 0022-0024, 0046-0030 and 0049-0050 (In an environment having multiple robotic devices, the movements of the robotic devices may be coordinated with each other such that they do not run into each other or objects in the environment, for example. In addition, there may be constant communication and/or control of the agents by a centralized management system, to aid in collision avoidance and maintain efficient operation of the agents)];
“generating, based on a location of a first motorized mobile system within an environment, first control instructions for controlling a navigation of the first motorized mobile system through the environment to a first location” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0030, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (When a robotic device is given a task, it may also be given a corresponding time-parameterized path, that may include the scheduled locations, timing, speed, orientation of the robotic device, and/or other information pertaining to the robotic device so that it can carry out the task)];
“transmitting, from a remote server and to the first motorized mobile system, the first control instructions” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0030, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (Warehouse management system 210 can translate logistics requests 212 into one or more actions 214, where actions 214 can include, but are not limited to, a “move-to” action to move one or more designated agents to one or more designated locations, and a “transport” action to carry one or more items to one or more designated locations. In some examples, actions 214 can be go-to commands of the form {agent ID, destination}, but other actions are possible such as move pallet. These are typically decomposable into move-to commands, however (move to pick location, move to place location)];
“generating, based on a location of a second motorized mobile system within the environment, second control instructions for controlling a navigation of the second motorized mobile system through the environment to the first location” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0030, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (Offboard planner 112 can receive actions 214 as inputs and generate one or more coordinated paths 216 for one or more agents operating in a warehouse; e.g., multiple robotic devices, to carry out actions 214. Coordinated paths 216 can be part of a coordinated action plan for all agents in the warehouse to fulfill logistics requests 212. The coordinated action plan can take precedence of agents into account; e.g., if robotic devices RD1 and RD2 are both expected to reach a point at approximately the same time, one of the robotic devices can have precedence or priority over the other, such as robotic device RD1 waiting for robotic device RD2 to pass through the point (or vice versa))];
“and transmitting, from the remote server and to the second motorized mobile system, the second control instructions” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0030, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (Warehouse management system 210 can translate logistics requests 212 into one or more actions 214, where actions 214 can include, but are not limited to, a “move-to” action to move one or more designated agents to one or more designated locations, and a “transport” action to carry one or more items to one or more designated locations. In some examples, actions 214 can be go-to commands of the form {agent ID, destination}, but other actions are possible such as move pallet. These are typically decomposable into move-to commands, however (move to pick location, move to place location)];
“wherein a first processor of the first motorized mobile system controls, the first motorized mobile system based on the first control instructions to the first location” [Lalonde, ¶ 0057-0060 with Figure 3 (he one or more robotic devices 120 can include one or more of: onboard system 320, network switch 330, vehicle controller 332, programmable logic controller (PLC) 334, one or more device sensors 338, and one or more drives 340)];
“and a second processor of the second motorized mobile system controls the second motorized mobile system based on the second control instructions to the first location” [Lalonde, ¶ 0057-0060 with Figure 3 (he one or more robotic devices 120 can include one or more of: onboard system 320, network switch 330, vehicle controller 332, programmable logic controller (PLC) 334, one or more device sensors 338, and one or more drives 340)].
Lalonde does not specifically state that pairing these robots are carried out with control instructions being accepted.
Schleicher, which is also a system for vehicle coordination with locations, teaches “transmitting, to the first motorized mobile system, the first control instructions” [Schleicher, ¶ 0004 and 0066 (the operator can accept or reject jointly coordinated movement (e.g., pairing))];
“receiving, from a human machine interface (HMI) of the first motorized mobile system and in response to a selection by a user of the first motorized mobile system, a first acceptance instruction of the first control instructions” [Schleicher, ¶ 0004, 0052, and 0066 (first wireless communications device is adapted to transmit an alignment data message to the follower vehicle to maintain a target offset between the lead vehicle and the follower vehicle if the operator accepts the jointly coordinated movement)];
“generating, based on a location of a second motorized mobile system within the environment, second control instructions for controlling a navigation of the second motorized mobile system through the environment to the first location” [Schleicher, ¶ 0004, 0052, and 0066 (first wireless communications device is adapted to transmit an alignment data message to the follower vehicle to maintain a target offset between the lead vehicle and the follower vehicle if the operator accepts the jointly coordinated movement)];
“transmitting, to the second motorized mobile system, the second control instructions: and receiving, from a HMI of the second motorized mobile system and in response to a selection by a user of the second motorized mobile system” [Schleicher, ¶ 0004 and 0066 (the operator can accept or reject jointly coordinated movement (e.g., pairing))];
“a second acceptance instruction of the second control instructions, wherein a first processor of the first motorized mobile system controls the first motorized mobile system based on the first control instructions and the first acceptance instruction to the first location and a second processor of the second motorized mobile system controls the second motorized mobile system based on the second control instructions and the second acceptance instruction to the first location” [Schleicher, ¶ 0004, 0052, and 0066 (first wireless communications device is adapted to transmit an alignment data message to the follower vehicle to maintain a target offset between the lead vehicle and the follower vehicle if the operator accepts the jointly coordinated movement)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schleicher into the invention of Lalonde to not only include a central system for controlling robots actions and for collision avoidance and trajectory planning as Lalonde discloses but to also have allowing a pairing of the vehicles with acceptance of the pairing, thus allowing the control of the vehicles in coordination. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Schelicher into Lalonde to create a more robust system that can create a more efficient system that allows vehicles to actively be controlled “within a fleet to minimize down-time of lead vehicles that otherwise might be waiting for one or more follower vehicles” [Schelicher, ¶ 0066]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements using computers to control robots 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 14: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13 further comprising: generating a schedule for controlling of the plurality of motorized mobile systems within the environment” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0031, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (either or both of the first and second robotic devices may have imperfect execution of their time-parameterized paths, by either falling behind schedule or getting ahead of schedule)];
“wherein transmitting the first control instructions and the second control instructions is based on the generated schedule” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0030, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (Warehouse management system 210 can translate logistics requests 212 into one or more actions 214, where actions 214 can include, but are not limited to, a “move-to” action to move one or more designated agents to one or more designated locations, and a “transport” action to carry one or more items to one or more designated locations. In some examples, actions 214 can be go-to commands of the form {agent ID, destination}, but other actions are possible such as move pallet. These are typically decomposable into move-to commands, however (move to pick location, move to place location)].
With respect to Claim 15: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13 further comprising: assigning a primary controller role to the first motorized mobile system and a secondary role to the second motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0024, 0026-0031, 0049-0050 with Figure 2 (one of the robotic devices can have precedence or priority over the other, such as robotic device RD1 waiting for robotic device RD2 to pass through the point (or vice versa)].
With respect to Claim 16: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 15 further comprising: receiving, from the first motorized mobile system, a pairing communication” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0033 (further, the agents may communicate on an ad hoc basis with each other to propagate their respective rates of progress, statuses, errors, deviations, or other information that pertains to execution of their respective paths)];
“and transmitting a verification communication establishing the first motorized mobile system as the primary controller role” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0033 (one of the robotic devices can have precedence or priority over the other, such as robotic device RD1 waiting for robotic device RD2 to pass through the point (or vice versa)].
With respect to Claim 17: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13, wherein the second control instructions comprise at least a control instruction for the second motorized mobile system to maintain a predefined distance from the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0116 and 0132 (the concept of a temporal (or spatial) buffer can apply to one or more other examples disclosed herein)].
With respect to Claim 18: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13, wherein the second control instructions comprise at least a control instruction for the second motorized mobile system to maintain a predefined distance from the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0033, 0103, and 0116 (still further examples, two or more time-parameterized paths may overlap in a plurality of consecutive positions, such as where one robotic device is scheduled to travel the same path or a portion of the same path as a second robotic device (e.g., where a first robotic device follows a second robotic device))].
With respect to Claim 19: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13 further comprising: establishing an ad-hoc wireless network between the remote server, the first motorized mobile system, and the second motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0033 and 0052 with Figures 3-4 (the agents may communicate on an ad hoc basis with each other to propagate their respective rates of progress, statuses, errors, deviations, or other information that pertains to execution of their respective paths)].
With respect to Claim 21: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13, wherein the first motorized mobile system: receives one or more additional control instructions the human machine interface (HMI) of the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0076-0077 with Figure 6a (User interface module 601 can be operable to send data to and/or receive data from external user input/output devices. For example, user interface module 601 can be configured to send and/or receive data to and/or from user input devices such as a keyboard, a keypad, a touch screen, a computer mouse, a trackball, a joystick, a camera, a voice recognition module, and/or other similar devices)];
“the one or more additional control instructions transmitted in response to one or more user inputs at the human machine interface” [Lalonde, ¶ 0076-0077 with Figure 6a (User interface module 601 can be operable to send data to and/or receive data from external user input/output devices. For example, user interface module 601 can be configured to send and/or receive data to and/or from user input devices such as a keyboard, a keypad, a touch screen, a computer mouse, a trackball, a joystick, a camera, a voice recognition module, and/or other similar devices)];
“and controls, via the first drive path controls, via the first drive path manager, the first motorized mobile system based on the one or more additional control instructions” [Lalonde, ¶ 0069 (one or more drive controllers and/or actuators that provide functionality for moving robotic device(s) 120. The drive controllers can direct the drive actuators to control movement of robotic device(s) 120. The drive actuators can include one or more traction motors, electric drives, hydraulic drives, and pneumatic drives)].
With respect to Claim 22: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13, wherein the first motorized mobile system: receives data from one or more sensors of the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0067-0069 (Device sensor(s) 338 can include one or more sensors that can provide data related to controlling and/or operating robotic device(s) 120. The data can provide information about an environment about robotic device(s) 120, such as but not limited to, localization information, position estimates, and mapping data. For example, device sensor(s) 338 can include one or more lasers (e.g., two-dimensional (2D) lasers, safety lasers, laser scanners), cameras (e.g., Time-of-Flight (ToF) cameras, Red-Green-Blue (RGB) cameras, thermal cameras), electrical sensors, proximity sensors, navigational devices, and location sensors)];
“the data comprising one or more of first data generated from one or more sensors associated with one or more characteristics of the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0067-0069 (Device sensor(s) 338 can include one or more sensors that can provide data related to controlling and/or operating robotic device(s) 120. The data can provide information about an environment about robotic device(s) 120, such as but not limited to, localization information, position estimates, and mapping data. For example, device sensor(s) 338 can include one or more lasers (e.g., two-dimensional (2D) lasers, safety lasers, laser scanners), cameras (e.g., Time-of-Flight (ToF) cameras, Red-Green-Blue (RGB) cameras, thermal cameras), electrical sensors, proximity sensors, navigational devices, and location sensors)];
“and second data generated from one or more sensors associated with a user of the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0076-0077 with Figure 6a (User interface module 601 can be operable to send data to and/or receive data from external user input/output devices. For example, user interface module 601 can be configured to send and/or receive data to and/or from user input devices such as a keyboard, a keypad, a touch screen, a computer mouse, a trackball, a joystick, a camera, a voice recognition module, and/or other similar devices)];
With respect to Claim 23: Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13, wherein the first motorized mobile system comprises a drive path manager configured to: determine, based on obtained map data of the environment, a route of the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0031 and 0069 (one or more drive controllers and/or actuators that provide functionality for moving robotic device(s) 120. The drive controllers can direct the drive actuators to control movement of robotic device(s) 120. The drive actuators can include one or more traction motors, electric drives, hydraulic drives, and pneumatic drives)];
“and generate, based on the determined route, one or more steering actions for the first motorized mobile system” [Lalonde, ¶ 0022-0031 and 0069 (one or more drive controllers and/or actuators that provide functionality for moving robotic device(s) 120. The drive controllers can direct the drive actuators to control movement of robotic device(s) 120. The drive actuators can include one or more traction motors, electric drives, hydraulic drives, and pneumatic drives)].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lalonde et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0178376) in view of Schleicher et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0166157), and in view of Nielsen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2011/0054689).
With respect to Claim 20: While Lalonde discloses “The method of claim 13, wherein the remote server is a computing device” [Lalonde, ¶ 0049-0050, 0054 with Figures 3-4 and 6b (warehouse management system 210 can be a centralized control service running on and storing data using one or more computing devices; e.g., server computing devices. To perform these tasks, warehouse management system 210 can include WMS middleware and can provide a user interface to provide access to tools for monitoring and managing system 300. The WMS middleware and/or other components of warehouse management system 210 can use one or more application programming interfaces (APIs), such as protocol conversion APIs for conversion between task/mission instructions (e.g., an instruction to robotic device A to move pallet B from location C to location D) to robotic device paths, poses, and/or trajectories; conversion between inventory tasks and task/mission instructions; and conversions between APIs.)];
Lalonde does not specifically state that the controller of the robots is handheld.
Nielsen, which is also robot control system teaches “wherein the remote server is a handheld computing device” [Nielsen, ¶ 0384 and 0414 with Figures 30, 31a and 31b (illustrate a handheld device 1910 and a user 2000 controlling a hazard sensing robot 100 with the handheld device 1910)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nielsen into the invention of Lalonde to not only include a central system for controlling robots actions and for collision avoidance and trajectory planning as Lalonde discloses but to also have the controller be handheld as taught by Nielsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Nielsen into Lalonde to create a more robust system that allow a user to mover around whilst controlling the robots. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements using computers to control robots 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights