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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "it". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(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, 3-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stadie et al. (“Stadie”)(US 2020/0363819 A1).
Stadie teaches a distribution system and a method of operating a distribution system, wherein the distribution system comprises:
(re: claim 15) a number of carriers configured for carrying one or more objects (fig. 6 showing multiple carriers supported by a grid transport plane);
a transport plane configured for supporting the carriers, wherein the transport plane comprises a plurality of transport modules, wherein a grid of logical positions is defined on the transport plane (ID. and para. 41-43 teaching that grid as shown in fig. 2-11 can be segmented, physically or logically into one or more sub-grids and is not limited to rectangular grid elements, said grid comprising workstations wherein products can be assembled, manufactured, moved in or out, staged, etc.);
a drive system configured for moving the carriers on the transport plane between the logical positions (para. 34 teaching that robots include various transporting means);
a control system configured for controlling the drive system, wherein the control system comprises a routing system configured for calculating routes for the carriers, wherein the routes comprise a set of partial routes from a start position to a final destination position which is calculated, planned or assigned to a carrier (fig. 1, 12 and para. 31-32, 49-59, 73-74, 90-103 teaching controller including a route determination unit 101 configured for performing a method of operating a distribution system as set forth below);
wherein the method comprises:
(re: claim 1) a) defining a global pattern of safe points and applying the global pattern on the transport plane by using the routing system, wherein safe points are logical positions selected in view of a range of motion for a carrier occupying said logical position such that on the safe points a carrier can be placed and can be moved away again, wherein the global pattern is applied onto the transport plane independently of module boundaries (fig. 6 and para. 51-52, 68-69 teaching that global pattern includes safe points extending from origin 601 to target 602 that is applied onto grid transport plane, wherein carrier can be placed at safe point and then moved again once clearance of next segment of route is granted and wherein global pattern can be regarded as applied independently of module boundaries per --Applicant’s definition in para. 60 of Specification-- as said global pattern spans multiple transport modules/grid elements--and can thus be regarded as “inter-module” and/or “cross-module”); and
b) calculating the partial routes for the carriers so that an end position of each partial route is either one of the safe points or has a free path to one of the safe points to be reachable in the next partial route by using the routing system (Id. with para. 51, 97 expressly teaching that routing from origin to a target on the grid is “broken up into one or more legs”—thus, partial route is regarded as a segment/leg of entire route, e.g., a cleared portion of the route as calculated by the clearance unit 102, wherein a carrier pauses at a cleared portion of route such as corner 604 in fig. 6 until the next portion of route cleared);
(re: claim 3) wherein at least one of the transport modules is a non-square transport module and/or the transport modules have different sizes (para. 41-43 teaching that grid modules are not limited to rectangular elements and may comprise curved or up/down tracks);
(re: claim 4), wherein applying of the global pattern onto the transport plane comprises positioning the global pattern onto the transport plane, wherein positioning the global pattern comprises defining an origin of the global pattern on a logical position of the transport plane (fig. 6 and para. 68 teaching that global pattern is positioned from origin 601 to target 602);
(re: claim 5) wherein applying of the global pattern onto the transport plane comprises determining a best fit of the global pattern onto the grid of logical positions, wherein the determining of the best fit of the global pattern onto the grid of logical positions is performed considering hardware conditions and/or performance of the distribution system (para. 54-58, 65, 90 teaching that system uses “structural analysis” or “fatigue analysis” of grid in determining global pattern);
(re: claim 6) wherein applying of the global pattern onto the transport plane comprises locally adapting the global pattern to the transport plane (para. 50-53, 73 wherein local adapting can be regarded as controller adapting for local errors, e.g., “communication loss and transporting device failure” or re-determining a route);
(re: claim 7) wherein the adapting comprises changing at one or more safe points into transport positions, wherein safe points at an input location or an output location of the transport plane and/or at a crossing position and/or in case of a narrow transport plane are changed into transport positions (Id. wherein one or more safe points can be regarded as changed into a transport position when clearance is given for travel to next leg or route has been re-determined to avoid potential conflict);
(re: claim 8) wherein the applying of the global pattern onto the transport plane comprises automated adapting the global pattern (Id. with para. 32 teaching that controller is configured to implement goods storage and retrieval functions in a fully automated manner);
(re: claim 10) wherein the defining of the global pattern comprises optimizing per logical position whether said logical position should be a safe point or a transport position (para. 50-53, 73-74 teaching determining whether a logical position should be a safety point, i.e., a position where a carrier can be paused, or a transport position based on potential conflicts, such as location and routes of other transport devices);
(re: claim 11) wherein the transport plane is split into multiple domains onto each of which a separate global pattern is applied (Id. with para. 73 teaching that a separate global pattern is applied for each transport elements, wherein said global pattern “can be designated on routes which avoid one another”—thus each route can be regarded as being in a separate domain of the transport plane);
(re: claim 12) wherein the method is computer-implemented (para. 32-35, 48, 106-108 teaching various processor/computer means for implementing method, sending data, communicating and sending instructions);
(re: claim 13) wherein the method comprises analyzing traffic load in at least one area of the transport plane using computer algorithms, wherein the method comprises determining at least one optimized pattern, wherein the method comprises proposing the optimized pattern and/or automatically changing the global pattern for the optimized one for that area (para. 72-74, 94-96 teaching determining a transport route by analyzing traffic load, e.g., potential conflicts with other transport elements, and optimizing pattern by making local changes to said global pattern to avoid said potential conflicts; para. 32 teaching controller performing method in automated fashion);
(re: claim 14) wherein the method comprises making local changes to some of the pattern positions (Id.).
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadie et al. (“Stadie”)(US 2020/0363819 A1) in view of McHale et al. (“McHale”)(US 10,239,740).
Stadie as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2) wherein the global pattern is a repetitive pattern;
(re: claim 9) wherein defining of the global pattern comprises selecting a predefined global pattern out of one or more global patterns.
McHale, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated material handling/transport arts to use predefined routes that are repeated in a transport plane as said routes allow persons to reliably anticipate and avoid transport units that are moving in said transport plane (fig. 7 and col. 20, ln. 18-col. 21, ln. 20).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stadie for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
August 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights