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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 7/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, 102, and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20230025647A1 (“Kanemoto”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2026, 5/15/2026, 6/24/2026, 7/14/2026, 8/10/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20250207359A1 (“RC”) in view of US20230025647A1 (“Kanemoto”).
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, RC teaches the limitations of the system(s) and method:
A vehicle system, comprising: a vehicle; and one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain a floorplan of a production system and a current position of the vehicle; receive one or more inputs comprising a plurality of locations and an order of the plurality of locations; generate, based on the floorplan of the production system and a footprint of the vehicle, a route for the vehicle from the current position of the vehicle to the plurality of locations in the order. (RC at least the abstract, [0004], [0021], [0033], FIG. 4, [0054], [0069])
RC does not disclose, which Kanemoto teaches:
the footprint comprising a load footprint being updated at each stage of assembly of a product based on an input from one or more sensors including at least one camera, wherein each state of assembly is determined based on at least one of a product weight, the input from the one or more sensors, or a location of the vehicle; and control operation of the vehicle along the route. (Kanemoto at least the abstract, [0014-0015]: “deriving an estimated geometry of the grasped object, such as by enlarging or shrinking a footprint… use the detected actual aspects and/or the adjusted footprint to derive an updated motion plan”, [0059], [0075-0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RC with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kanemoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to use the detected actual aspects and/or the adjusted footprint to derive an updated motion plan (Kanemoto [0015]).
As per claims 2, 10, and 18 RC in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. RC additionally teaches:
wherein generating the route for the vehicle comprises determining a plurality of possible paths from the current position to the plurality of locations in the order and selecting a desired path for the vehicle from the plurality of paths as the route. (RC at least the abstract: “plurality of candidate paths”, [0042])
As per claims 4, 11 RC in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. RC additionally teaches:
wherein generating the route for the vehicle comprises determining the route for the vehicle based on the floorplan and the footprint of the vehicle such that the vehicle avoids one or more obstacles indicated by the floorplan or indicated by sensor data obtained from a sensor of the vehicle. (RC at least [0022], [0027-0038])
As per claims 6, 14 RC in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. RC additionally teaches:
wherein the footprint of the vehicle is obtained as a predetermined footprint by the one or more processors or determined by the one or more processors based on sensor data. (RC at least [0048-0049], [0055-0056])
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC and Kanemoto in view of US20250298418A1 (“Rangamannar”) .
Regarding claims 3 and 12, RC in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. RC does not disclose:
selecting the desired path for the vehicle comprises selecting a shortest path or a fastest path from the plurality of paths.
Rangamannar teaches the aforementioned limitation (Rangamannar at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RC with the aforementioned limitations taught by Rangamannar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to increase efficiency (Rangamannar [0002]).
Claim(s) 5, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC and Kanemoto in view of US20240147888A1 (“Kakkar”) .
Regarding claims 5, 13, 19, RC in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. RC does not disclose:
the footprint of the vehicle comprises a base footprint or a load footprint, the base footprint reflecting the footprint of the vehicle, and the load footprint reflecting the footprint of the vehicle when carrying one or more loads, the route generated based on the base footprint or the load footprint such that the footprint of the vehicle does not contact obstacles along the route.
Kakkar teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kakkar at least FIGs. 2A-2D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RC with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kakkar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent vehicle operation outside a predefined boundary (Kakkar [0018]).
Claim(s) 7-8, 15-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC and Kanemoto in view of US20260030417A1 (“Sheehan”) .
Regarding claims 7, 15, 20, RC in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. RC does not disclose:
determine a recommended change to the floorplan and operate a display to provide the recommended change to the floorplan to a user.
Sheehan teaches the aforementioned limitation (Sheehan at least the abstract, [0088], [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RC with the aforementioned limitations taught by Sheehan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to ensure a building design complies with required codes (Sheehan [0002]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, RC in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. RC does not disclose:
the recommended change to the floorplan comprises at least one of a recommended arrangement of obstacles, target locations, or egress points of the floorplan such that the recommended change to the floorplan would result in reduced travel time for the vehicle, the recommended change determined based on an identification of one or more locations in the floorplan at which the vehicle becomes trapped.
Sheehan teaches the aforementioned limitation (Sheehan at least the abstract, [0010], [0203]). *Examiner’s note: here the wheelchair is the equivalent of a vehicle and the dimensions of the wheelchair are the equivalent of the footprint of the vehicle. A possible recommendation is to optimize egress routes under 100 feet (or 75 feet in an unsprinklered building) per ICC chapter 10 (2018 IBC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RC with the aforementioned limitations taught by Sheehan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights