DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Rice (US 2023/0419467)
As to claim 1 Rice discloses 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 and, for each key point, at least one neighboring key point, and wherein the capability model defines for each of the key points of the environment model (Paragraph 49 “] As explained in detail below, such a mission recording may be executed by a mission execution system 184 (shown in FIG. 1B) of the robot 100. The mission execution system 184 may communicate with other systems of the robot 100, as needed, to execute the mission successfully. For instance, in some implementations, the mission execution system 184 may communicate with a navigation system 200 (also shown in FIG. 1B) requesting that the navigation system 200 determine, using a topological map 204 and the mission recording, a navigation route 202 that includes the various waypoints 212 of the topological map 204 that are identified in the mission recording, as well as any number of additional waypoints 212 of the topological map 204 that are located between the waypoints 212 that are identified in the mission recording.”) movement sequence data comprising at least one trajectory for an automated movement to the at least one neighboring key point (Paragraph 72 “The path generator 174 may determine the trajectory of the body 110 of the robot for some future period (e.g., for the next one second). Such determination of the trajectory of the body 110 by the path generator 174 may occur much more frequently, however, such as hundreds of times per second. In this manner, in some implementations, the path generator 174 may determine a new trajectory for the body 110 every few milliseconds, with each new trajectory being planned for a period of one or so seconds into the future”); and
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 first movement sequence data comprising a first trajectory and at least second movement sequence data comprising at least a second trajectory of the capability model (Paragraph 83 “For example, as previously described, such a topological map 204 may include waypoints 212 and edges 214 and the navigation route 202 may indicate that the robot 100 is to travel along a path that includes a particular sequence of those waypoints 212. In some implementations, the navigation route 202 may further include movement instructions that specify how the robot 100 is to move from one waypoint 212 to another. Such movement instructions may, for example, account for objects or other obstacles at the time of recording the waypoints 212 and edges 214 to the topological map 204.”), 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 one second trajectory defines a movement from the intermediate key point to a destination key point or a movement from the intermediate key point to an additional intermediate key point neighboring the intermediate key point (Paragraph 85 “s shown in FIG. 2, when an unforeseeable obstacle obstructs the navigation route 202, the route executor 220 may attempt to generate an alternative path 206 to another feature on the topological map 204 that avoids the unforeseeable obstacle. This alternative path 206 may deviate from the navigation route 202 temporarily, but then resume the navigation route 202 after the deviation. Unlike other approaches to generate an obstacle avoidance path, the route executor 220 seeks to only temporarily deviate from the navigation route 202 to avoid the unforeseeable obstacle such that the robot 100 may return to using course features (e.g., like topological features from the topological map 204) for the navigation route 202. In this sense, successful obstacle avoidance for the route executor 220 occurs when an obstacle avoidance path both (i) avoids the unforeseeable obstacle and (ii) enables the robot 100 to resume some portion of the navigation route 202.”).
As to claim 2 Rice discloses a transport robot wherein the control unit is further configured, after movement of the industrial truck from the starting key point to the intermediate key point on the basis of a 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 neighboring the intermediate key point on the basis of the second movement sequence data comprising the at least one second trajectory to counteract the deviation (Paragraph 90).
As to claim 3 Rice discloses a transport robot wherein, for each key point of the plurality of key points of the environment model, the movement sequence data comprising at least one trajectory of the capability model is based on at least one movement learned by imitation learning of a transport robot operated manually of the plurality of transport robots between the key point and the at least on neighboring key point (Paragraph 47).
As to claim 10 Rice 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 (Paragraph 45); and
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(Paragraph 45).
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US 2023/0419467) in view of Ulbrich (US 2026/0021998)
As to claim 4 Ulbrich teaches a transport robot wherein the control unit is further configured, by means of a cost function, to determine 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 (Paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Rice to include the teachings of using a cost function for the purpose of determining the optimal path for the transport robot.
As to claim 5 Ulbrich teaches a transport robot according 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(Paragraph 34).
As to claim 6 Ulbrich teaches a transport robot 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 of the transport robot relative to the respective key point(Paragraph 34).
As to claim 7 Ulbrich teaches a transport robot wherein the marking is a visual marking, and wherein the sensor unit comprises a depth sensing camera for detection of the visual marking(Paragraph 34).
As to claim 8 Ulbrich teaches a transport robot wherein the transport robot further comprises a drive unit which is configured to drive movement of the transport robot on the basis of movement control signals from the control unit (Paragraph 9).
As to claim 9 Ulbrich teaches a transport robot wherein the transport robot is in the form of an industrial truck (Paragraph 112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1/22/2025