DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 16, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 have been canceled, and new claims 21 – 40 have been added. Thus, claims 21 – 40 are pending and examined below.
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 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 21 – 24, 32 and 35 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0101971 A1 to Fan et al. (herein after "Fan et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0368330 A1 to Watanabe et al. (herein after “Watanabe et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
The Fan et al. publication relates to a collision avoidance apparatus for use with an AGV that provides an improved way to avoid collisions between multiple AGVs within an indoor environment e.g. a warehouse. The present disclosure also relates to an AGV that includes a collision avoidance apparatus that is configured to detect potential collisions and control the AGV to avoid collisions. (See ¶92.)
As to claims 21 and 40,
the Fan et al. publication discloses a system (100, 110, 120, 130, 230, 400) comprising a server (400), the server (400) comprising a memory, a processor, and a routing engine (see ¶113 for “a map server 400. The controller 240 may be configured to communicate with a map server to download a map of particular indoor environment . . . The map server 400 may be a computing device that includes a processor and a memory and a communication unit . . . each AGV may communicate its own position within the indoor environment 100 (i.e. within the grid 130) to the map server 400; see also ¶94, where “[t]he AGV 110 moves around the indoor environment 100 based on a defined map. The map defines the warehouse 100 and allows paths (i.e. trajectories) of the AGV to be planned and executed. Referring to FIG. 1, the warehouse 100 (i.e. indoor environment) is defined as a series of cells. The warehouse 100 is defined as a two dimensional grid, wherein the floor of the warehouse 100 is defined as a grid”)(Emphasis added), the system configured to:
assign, by the routing engine (see ¶94 and ¶113), travel routes about a grid comprising grid cells for a first computer-controlled vehicle (110) such that during a period when the first computer-controlled vehicle is undertaking a turning maneuver in a first grid cell (132)(see ¶124 for undertaking a turning maneuver in within a grid cell); and
transport, by the first computer-controlled vehicle (110), of an article (102, 104)(see ¶100, where “[t]he AGV 110 can be used for various materials handling tasks. One example task the AGV 110 can be used for is moving and rearranging shelves or shelving ranks . . . the AGV comprises a pair of lifting arms 227 that extend outward from the chassis 202. The lifting arms 227 are used to lift shelves or shelving racks and transport them”; see also ¶122, where “ the AGV 110 is carrying a shelf 102, 104” and ¶123, where “[t]he AGV 110 is configured to detect the lifting of a shelf 102, 104”).
The Fan et al. publication, however, fails to disclose
either a second computer-controlled vehicle does not undertake a turning maneuver in a second grid cell that is adjacent to the first grid cell, or
the second computer-controlled vehicle is not present in the second grid cell that is adjacent to the first grid cell.
The Watanabe et al. publication discloses “[a] mobile communication device . . . provided in a mobile object, and is capable of providing turn collision prevention support, so as to prevent a collision with another mobile object at a risk of collision when the mobile object turns.” (See Abstract.) Such disclosure suggests a second computer-controlled vehicle that does not undertake a turning maneuver in a second grid cell that is adjacent to the first grid cell.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Fan et al. publication so that a second computer-controlled vehicle does not undertake a turning maneuver in a second grid cell that is adjacent to the first grid cell, as suggested by the Watanabe et al. publication, in order to prevent a collision with another mobile object at the time of turning.
As to claim 22,
the Fan et al. publication discloses transporting of a second article on the second computer-controlled vehicle. (See ¶100 and ¶123.)
As to claim 23,
the Fan et al. publication discloses receiving, at a control server, article information corresponding to the first article and the second article. (See ¶100 and ¶121 – ¶123.)
As to claim 24,
the Fan et al. publication, as suggested/modified by at least the Abstract of the Watanabe et al. publication, is considered to disclose controlling, by the routing engine, the turning maneuver of the first computer-controlled vehicle in the first grid cell such that there is no contact between the first article carried on the first computer- controlled vehicle with the second article carried on a second computer-controlled vehicle present in a second grid cell that is adjacent to the first grid cell when the first computer-controlled vehicle is undertaking the turning maneuver.
As to claim 32,
the Fan et al. publication, as suggested/modified by at least the Abstract of the Watanabe et al. publication, is considered to disclose calculating a minimum area of each of the grid cells that the grid being comprised of such that there is no contact between the first article and the second article when the first computer-controlled vehicle is undertaking the turning maneuver.
As to claims 35 – 37,
the modified Fan et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including a boundary 502 that include grid cells in the form a square shape, a polygon shape or a rectangle shape. (See FIG. 1 and ¶95 et seq.)
As to claims 38 – 39,
the Fan et al. publication, as suggested/modified by at least the Abstract of the Watanabe et al. publication, is considered to disclose the turning maneuver by the first computer-controlled vehicle comprising a turn of at least 90-degrees and a turn of at least 180-degrees.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Fan et al. publication in view of Watanabe et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0024691 A1 to Serstad et al. (herein after "Serstad et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 33,
the Fan et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
directing, by the routing engine, a plurality of computer-controlled vehicles to transport a plurality of articles to a plurality of destination containers.
Directing a plurality of computer-controlled vehicles to transport a plurality of articles to a plurality of destination containers is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Serstad et al. publication who discloses multiple mobile transport devices transporting a plurality of articles to a plurality of destination containers. (See ¶58 – ¶59.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Fan et al. publication to direct, by the routing engine, a plurality of computer-controlled vehicles to transport a plurality of articles to a plurality of destination containers, as suggested by the Serstad et al. publication, in order to facilitate dispensing items going to different destinations via different routes in a manner that realizes subsequent transport of items and packages going to the different destinations in a resource-effective manner.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Fan et al. publication in view of Watanabe et al. publication, and further in view of SU 1131487 A1 to Zakharyan (herein after "Zakharyan publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 34,
the Fan et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
controlling, by the routing engine, a travel path of the first computer-controlled vehicle such that the first computer-controlled vehicle does not deviate more than 10 mm of an intended travel path.
Controlling deviation with 10 mm of an intended travel path is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Zakharyan publication discloses the automation of driving self-propelled machines which can be used for group driving of agricultural and construction machines and units along parallel trajectories. In particular, the Zakharyan publication discloses “[t]he control of the proposed method will allow the automatic motion control system of the machine to adjust the directions of movement of the machine, starting at a few millimeters deviation from the given trajectory, which will significantly increase the control accuracy; to ensure high precision of the earthmoving and road works, to ensure group driving of machines and units along trajectories lying in parallel planes.” (See Page 4.) Such disclosure suggests controlling, by the routing engine, a travel path of the first computer-controlled vehicle such that the first computer-controlled vehicle does not deviate more than 10 mm of an intended travel path in order to significantly increase control accuracy.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Fan et al. publication to control, by the routing engine, a travel path of the first computer-controlled vehicle such that the first computer-controlled vehicle does not deviate more than 10 mm of an intended travel path, as suggested by the Zakharyan publication, in order to significantly increase control accuracy.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197, 228 (‘228 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, the alternative language used in claims 21 and 40 is a broader recitation of both claims 22 and 40 of the ‘228 Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 – 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666