DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/969,750 filed on December 5, 2024 in which claims 1-11 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 22, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: these form of these claims is difficult to read due to the lack of carriage returns following separate components of the limitations. The examiner recommends adding such carriage returns in order to increase readability. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the industrial truck” lacks antecedent basis and appears to refer to “the transport robot,” which is how this term shall be interpreted for purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mϋhlnickel et al., US Publication 2025/0377661 (hereinafter Mϋhlnickel) in view of Hong et al., US Publication 2024/0385625 (hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Mϋhlnickel discloses a transport robot to carry out transport orders for transport of goods in an environment with a plurality of transport robots” (Mϋhlnickel ¶¶ 28, 39) by disclosing that the robot transports feed (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 28) and that there may be a plurality of robots. (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 39). Additionally, Mϋhlnickel discloses “the transport robot comprising: a communication interface configured to receive an environment model of the environment and a capability model of the plurality of transport robots in the environment” (Mϋhlnickel ¶¶ 38, 64) by receiving a map of the environment (i.e., and environment model) over a communications interface (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 38) and later indicating that the map includes routes (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 64), which are “capability model[s]” for the reasons that will be discussed further below. Further, Mϋhlnickel discloses “wherein the environment model of the environment defines a plurality of key points of the environment” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 55) where various functional points are defined on the map. Moreover, Mϋhlnickel discloses “for each key point, defines at least one neighboring key point” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 64) by defining various waypoints between (i.e., neighboring) the starting point, the anchor point, and the end point. Likewise, Mϋhlnickel discloses “wherein the capability model defines, for each of the key points of the environment model, movement sequence data comprising at least one trajectory for an automated movement to the at least one neighboring key point” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 64) where the route is a trajectory for automated movement among the points. Mϋhlnickel also discloses “wherein, for each key point of the plurality of key points of the plurality of key points of the environment model, the movement sequence data of the capability model is based on at least one movement learned by imitation learning of a manually operated transport robot of the plurality of transport robots between the key point and the at least one neighboring key point” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 54) where the routes are learned by a user remotely controlling (i.e., manually operating) a robot to move between the various points. This route is then used for future robots, meaning that those robots are “imitating” the route, within the plain and ordinary meaning of that term. Finally, Mϋhlnickel discloses “a control unit to carry out a transport order from a starting key point to a destination key point of the plurality of key points and configured to control movement of the transport robot on the basis of the environment model and of the capability model” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 77) where the route is used for autonomous travel.
Although Mϋhlnickel discloses transport robots that perform all the claimed functionality, Mϋhlnickel does not appear to explicitly disclose that these functions occur in a “warehouse” and, thus, does not appear to explicitly disclose a “transport robot to carry out transport orders for transport of goods in a warehouse with a plurality of transport robots, the transport robot comprising: a communication interface configured to receive an environment model of the warehouse and a capability model of the plurality of transport robots in the warehouse, wherein the environment model of the warehouse defines a plurality of key points of the warehouse.”
However, Hong discloses a transportation robot that transports materials stored indoors (Hong ¶ 49), which is a warehouse withing the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Hong was combined with Mϋhlnickel, the robot of Mϋhlnickel would be used in the warehouse setting of Hong. Therefore, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “[a] transport robot to carry out transport orders for transport of goods in a warehouse with a plurality of transport robots, the transport robot comprising: a communication interface configured to receive an environment model of the warehouse and a capability model of the plurality of transport robots in the warehouse, wherein the environment model of the warehouse defines a plurality of key points of the warehouse,” rendering them obvious.
Mϋhlnickel and Hong are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous robots.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mϋhlnickel and Hong before him or her to modify the environment of Mϋhlnickel to include the environment of Hong.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Mϋhlnickel differs from the claimed invention by using an autonomous robot in an agricultural setting in place of using the robot in a warehouse setting. Further, Hong teaches that using an autonomous robot in a warehouse setting was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the warehouse setting for the agricultural setting because agricultural settings are generally more difficult to drive a robot in due to terrain variations not generally present in a warehouse, making such a substitution predictable and easy to perform.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “wherein the control unit, to carry out the transport order from the start starting key point to the destination key point of the plurality of key points, is configured to control the movement of the industrial truck on the basis of the environment model and first movement sequence data comprising a first trajectory and at least second movement sequence data comprising a second trajectory of the capability model, wherein the first movement sequence data comprising the first trajectory defines a movement from the starting key point to an intermediate key point neighboring the starting key point, and wherein the at least second movement sequence data comprising the at least second trajectory defines a movement from the intermediate key point to the destination key point or a movement from the intermediate key point to an additional intermediate key point neighboring the intermediate key point” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 64) by defining routes from a starting point to an anchor point or waypoint (i.e., the first movement sequence data) and a route from the anchor point to a waypoint or end point (i.e., the second movement sequence data).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Mϋhlnickel does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the control unit is further configured, after the movement of the industrial truck from the starting key point to the intermediate key point on the basis of the first movement sequence data comprising the first trajectory, to determine a deviation of a current position or current pose from a specified position or specified pose of the transport robot relative to the intermediate key point and to vary the movement of the transport robot from the intermediate key point to the destination key point or the additional intermediate key point on the basis of the second movement sequence information comprising the second trajectory to counteract the deviation of the current position or current pose from the specified position or specified pose.”
However, Hong discloses an autonomous robot “configured, after the movement of the industrial truck from the starting key point to the intermediate key point on the basis of the first movement sequence data comprising the first trajectory, to determine a deviation of a current position or current pose from a specified position or specified pose of the transport robot relative to the intermediate key point” (Hong ¶ 63) by detecting route deviation. Additionally, Hong discloses that the robot is configured “to vary the movement of the transport robot from the intermediate key point to the destination key point or the additional intermediate key point on the basis of the second movement sequence information comprising the second trajectory to counteract the deviation of the current position or current pose from the specified position or specified pose” (Hong ¶¶ 91-93, see also ¶¶ 94-145) by describing the various methods that may be used to return to the route.
Mϋhlnickel and Hong are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous robots.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mϋhlnickel and Hong before him or her to modify the autonomous robot of Mϋhlnickel to include the path correction algorithms of Hong.
The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid the problems associated with robots that deviate from a path such as accidents. (Hong ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “wherein each key point of the plurality of key points has a marking, and wherein the transport robot further comprises a sensor unit, which is configured to detect the marking of a respective key point and to identify the respective key point on the basis of the detected marking” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 48) where key points may be identified by visually recognizing reflectors.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “wherein the control unit is configured, on the basis of the marking detected by the sensor unit of a respective key point, to determine a position comprising a pose of the transport robot relative to the respective key point” (Mϋhlnickel ¶52) by determining the orientation (i.e., pose) necessary to back into the chagrining station based on the presence of the reflectors.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “wherein the marking is a visual marking, and wherein the sensor unit comprises a depth sensing camera for detection of the visual marking” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 48) where the markings are reflectors (i.e., visual) and the sensors are LIDAR sensors (i.e., depth sensing cameras).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “wherein the transport robot further comprises a drive unit configured to drive the movement of the transport robot on the basis of movement control signals from the control unit” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 38).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “wherein the transport robot is in the form of an industrial truck” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 28) where a robot for transporting materials is an “industrial truck” within the examples set forth by the present specification at page 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses a system for operation of a plurality of transport robots in a warehouse, the system comprising: a plurality of transport robots according to claim 1 for the reasons discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above. Further, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses “a central device for the operation of the plurality of transport robots in the warehouse, wherein the central device is configured to make available to a transport robot of the plurality of transport robots the environment model of the warehouse and the capability model of the transport robots” (Mϋhlnickel ¶ 38) where the higher-level operations management system communicates with the robots to perform this function.
Regarding claim 11, it merely recites the method performed by the transport robot of claim 1. The method comprises execution of computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mϋhlnickel in view of Hong, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Chu et al., US Publication 2023/0072997 (hereinafter Chu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Mϋhlnickel and Hong does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the control unit is further configured, by means of a cost function, to determine the movement of the transport robot from the starting key point to the destination key point via the one or more intermediate key points lying between the starting key point and the destination key point.”
However, Chu discloses an autonomous use “configured, by means of a cost function, to determine the movement of the transport robot from the starting key point to the destination key point via the one or more intermediate key points lying between the starting key point and the destination key point.” (Chu ¶ 65).
Mϋhlnickel, Hong, and Chu are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous robots.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mϋhlnickel, Hong, and Chu before him or her to modify the route of Mϋhlnickel and Hong to include the use of a cost function for route design of Chu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further reduce the risk of accidents by better avoiding other robots through the use of Chu’s cost function for spatio-temporal consistent collision-free smooth path planning. (Chu ¶¶ 61-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Vicenti, US Publication 2016/0271795, System and method for planning a route for a mobile robot.
Kim et al., US Publication 2024/0219924, System and method for planning a route for a mobile robot.
Ohtsuka et al., US Publication 2025/0164999, System and method for detecting the deviation of a route of an autonomous robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662