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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 07 March 2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Prior to initial examination preliminary amendments have been filed cancelling claims 1-12 and adding claims 13-24, therefore claims 13-24 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 March 2025 and 19 May 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, a method for energy management in an automated storage and retrieval system, said system comprising a plurality of autonomous vehicles, the method comprising:
determining tasks to be performed within a predetermined duration; and
determining at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles to be mobilized to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, operating parameters of the autonomous vehicles in order to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, and an energy charging strategy of the autonomous vehicles in order to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, by:
determining an energy loss, the energy loss being a difference between an amount of electrical energy used and an amount of mechanical energy produced during the predetermined duration, for a plurality of combinations, each combination including at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles, operating parameters, and a charging strategy; and
selecting the combination that has the smallest difference so that the amount of energy consumed to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration is minimal, at least when the tasks are below a threshold number of tasks.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method (i.e. process), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “determining tasks to be performed within a predetermined duration” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e. predicts, interprets, determines, etc.) tasks to be performed within a given time period. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles to be mobilized to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, operating parameters of the autonomous vehicles in order to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, and an energy charging strategy of the autonomous vehicles in order to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e. predicts, interprets, determines, etc.) at least one fleet of autonomous vehicle that are to be mobilized to perform the tasks within said given time period, operating parameters of said autonomous vehicles and a charging strategy for said autonomous vehicles. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining an energy loss, the energy loss being a difference between an amount of electrical energy used and an amount of mechanical energy produced during the predetermined duration, for a plurality of combinations, each combination including at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles, operating parameters, and a charging strategy” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e. calculates, interprets, determines, etc.) an energy loss for multiple combinations including at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles, operating parameters, and a charging strategy. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “selecting the combination that has the smallest difference so that the amount of energy consumed to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration is minimal, at least when the tasks are below a threshold number of tasks” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally selects (i.e. picks, chooses, decides, etc.) the combination that has the smallest difference of energy loss to perform the tasks. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
As provided above, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, independent claim 13 recites a series of method steps that do not require any structural elements for performing/executing said method. Therefore, claim 13 recites a judicial exception of an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process, because (1) the collecting of the data used for the data analysis may be considered insignificant pre-solutionary activity, and (2) the human mind may be considered analogous to generic computing structure. Additionally, in support of this analysis under Step 2A, Prong One, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A. clearly explains that claims that contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. This section of the MPEP also mentions Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the courts found that the claims recited a mental process because they merely included collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, when the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. These findings from Electric Power Group are thus very relevant/analogous to the findings of the Examiner with regards to the instant application’s independent claim 13 being analyzed under 35 USC 101, Step 2A, Prong One. Examiner notes wherein the method is “for energy management in an automated storage and retrieval system” (i.e. intended use/application) as provided in the preamble, and there is not a positively recited control step provided with the currently provided method steps, thus the method, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is not positively/explicitly used for implementing/executing said energy management method, so it fails to satisfy the requirements under this section. Examiner additionally notes wherein providing a control step that initiates control of the fleet of the autonomous vehicles to perform the one or more tasks based on the selected combination, would likely overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection provided herein.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 13, is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
In the present case, there are no additional elements currently provided in the claim limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional elements that would impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 13, is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two above, there are no additional elements currently provided in the claim limitation(s). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., since there are no additional elements currently provided in the claim limitation(s) the judicial exception cannot be integrated into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, since independent claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 13 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 14-22, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite an abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that are not well understood, routine or conventional. Therefore claims 14-22 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant recites the additional elements of a “computer program” and a “processor”, however, these are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “computer program” and “processor”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0023, wherein “a computer program is proposed comprising instructions for implementing the method when this program is executed by a processor”. .” Thus for the additional element(s) of claim 22 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claim is ineligible.
Additionally, Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S. C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. The Examiner suggests the claim reads "A non-transitory computer program product…" or "A non-transitory computer program…".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant provides the claim limitation “wherein, when the predetermined duration is greater than a predetermined limit duration, then at least one of a minimum fleet of autonomous vehicles, extreme operating parameters, and an extreme charging strategy are selected”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding “extreme operating parameters” and “an extreme charging strategy” encompass, and therefore claim 21 is rejected under this section for being indefinite. Specifically, the claim term “extreme” provide above in the referenced limitation is ambiguous and it is therefore unclear what the distinction (i.e. what requisite parameters) is/are between the previously claimed “operating parameters” and “extreme operating parameters” and similarly what the distinction (i.e. what requisite parameters) is between the previously claimed “charging strategy” and “extreme charging strategy”, respectively. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Examiner notes wherein the claim(s) have been addressed below in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112(b), or second paragraph rejection(s) provided herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orita et al (US 2008/0109114 A1, hereinafter Orita).
Regarding claim 13, Orita teaches a method for energy management in an automated storage and retrieval system, said system comprising a plurality of autonomous vehicles, the method comprising:
determining tasks to be performed within a predetermined duration (Figures 3-6; at least as in paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein “The task information database 220 is a database containing information regarding tasks which the robots R are supposed to carry out (task data)” and further wherein “the task information database 220 provides the following information items:… (viii) necessary time indicative of time required to carry out the task; (ix) expected task start time (start time; (v); expected task finish time (end time); and (vi) status of the task”); and
determining at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles to be mobilized to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, operating parameters of the autonomous vehicles in order to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration, and an energy charging strategy of the autonomous vehicles in order to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration (Figures 3-6; at least as in paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein “the task schedule table 230 is a table containing information regarding a schedule of tasks, and provides various information items for each task which include "execution order" of the task to be executed by robot R, "task ID" for use in identifying a specific task among those registered in the task information database 220, "priority" of the task, "task content" of the task, and "status" of the task” and further wherein “In the task schedule database 230, the information itemized in fields as described above is organized for each robot R located in the task execution area, so that the tasks assigned to each robot R and the order of the tasks to be carried out by the robot R are retrievable” and further as in at least paragraph 0087, wherein “the robot information database 240 is provided various information items (fields of itemized information) including "battery information", "position information" and "task information", plus information or data regarding the presence or absence of anomaly in driving systems of the robots R, and other information, and these information items are associated with the "robot ID".”), by:
determining an energy loss, the energy loss being a difference between an amount of electrical energy used and an amount of mechanical energy produced during the predetermined duration, for a plurality of combinations, each combination including at least one of a fleet of autonomous vehicles, operating parameters, and a charging strategy (Figures 3-6 & 8; at least as in paragraph 0156, wherein “The task manager 340 is configured to establish task executive plans (task schedule) under which the robots R carry out their own tasks as well as to rearrange the task executive plans in accordance with the process predetermined for each battery level” and further as in paragraph 0163, wherein “the task schedule production unit 341 enumerates all possible combinations of various patterns of task assignment to each robot R located in the task execution area and various orders of execution of the tasks by the robot R (combinations defined based on which robot each task is assigned to and how the tasks assigned to the robot R are ordered). The task schedule production unit 341 then calculates the total cost for each combination assuming that the tasks are assigned to the robots R and the tasks are carried out by the robots in specific orders in accordance with the combination, so that the combination in which the total cost exhibits a minimum value is retrieved” and additionally as in paragraphs 0168-0171, wherein “the total cost CTotal is calculated by Equation (14) as follows: Ctotal=w∙Call+(1-W)∙Call_complete (14) where Call is the total amount of charge in the battery which all the robots R in the robot control system A consume by the time when the robots R finish all the tasks (operation cost), Call_complete is the total period of time which elapses before all the tasks are finished, i.e., the period of time from the start time of the first task scheduled to be started first to the end time of the last task scheduled to be finished last (time cost), and w is the value of weights assigned to the operation cost and the time cost to weigh the total cost CTotal at a desired ratio, i.e., the value set as desired in the range between 0 and 1 inclusive (0≤w≤1). It is appreciated that the greater the value w, the greater importance is placed on the battery consumption in the total cost (CTotal), while the smaller the value w, the greater importance is placed on the time required to carry out all the tasks up to the end (necessary time)”); and
selecting the combination that has the smallest difference so that the amount of energy consumed to perform the tasks within the predetermined duration is minimal, at least when the tasks are below a threshold number of tasks (Figures 3-6 & 8; at least as in paragraph 0156, wherein “The task manager 340 is configured to establish task executive plans (task schedule) under which the robots R carry out their own tasks as well as to rearrange the task executive plans in accordance with the process predetermined for each battery level”, and further as in at least paragraphs 0168-0171, wherein “the task schedule production unit 341 obtains the total costs (Ctotal) respectively for all the combinations, and finds a minimum-cost combination in which the obtained total cost (Ctotal) exhibits the minimum value, so as to determine a task schedule by the task assignment pattern and execution order of the minimum-cost combination”).
Regarding claim 14, Orita further teaches wherein determining at least one of the fleet of autonomous vehicles, the operating parameters of the autonomous vehicles, and the charging strategy of the autonomous vehicles, is carried out if the tasks are below a threshold number of tasks, and otherwise they take pre-established default values (Figures 5-8 & 11; at least as in paragraphs 0128-0132, 0168-0171 and 0204-0208).
Regarding claim 15, Orita further teaches wherein the operating parameters comprise at least one of: an acceleration rate, a deceleration rate, and a travel speed (at least as in paragraph 0073, regarding “traveling speed of the robot R”).
Regarding claim 17, Orita further teaches wherein defining the charging strategy comprises selecting a charging current and a charging time (Figures 8-11; at least as in paragraphs 0055-0056, 0168-0171 and 0183-0185).
Regarding claim 18, Orita further teaches wherein at least one of the operating parameters of the autonomous vehicles and the charging strategy of the autonomous vehicles are identical for each autonomous vehicle in the fleet of autonomous vehicles (Figures 8-11; at least as in paragraphs 0055-0056, 0087, 0168-0171 and 0183-0185).
Regarding claim 19, Orita further teaches wherein the amount of electrical energy used is a function of the number of autonomous vehicles, the operating parameters, and the charging strategy, and wherein the amount of mechanical energy produced is a function of the operating parameters (Figures 8-11; at least as in paragraphs 0055-0056, 0168-0171 and 0183-0185).
Regarding claim 20, Orita further teaches wherein the combination that presents the lowest energy loss is stored in a database (Figures 8-11; at least as in paragraphs 0055-0056, 0168-0171 and 0183-0185).
Regarding claim 21, Orita further teaches wherein, when the predetermined duration is greater than a predetermined limit duration, then at least one of a minimum fleet of autonomous vehicles, extreme operating parameters, and an extreme charging strategy are selected (Figures 8-11; at least as in paragraphs 0055-0056, 0168-0171 and 0183-0185).
Regarding claim 22, Orita teaches a computer program comprising instructions for implementing the method according to claim 13 (as provided above with respect to claim 13) when this program is executed by a processor (Figures 1-3, robot control apparatus 3; at least as in paragraph 0036, wherein “robot control apparatus 3 has a task executive plan (task schedule) organized for each robot R to carry out a task (or a series of tasks), and is configured to rearrange the tasks registered in the task schedule (i.e., reevaluating the execution order of the tasks, and changing the tasks) based on the remaining amount of charge in the battery of the robot R”, and further as in at least as in paragraphs 0063-0064, wherein “the robot control apparatus 3 includes an input/output device 100, a storage device 200 and a control unit 300”).
Regarding claim 23, Orita teaches an automated storage and retrieval system (Figure 1, robot control system A; at least as in paragraph 0031), comprising:
a plurality of autonomous vehicles (Figure 1, robots RA, RB, RC, R) configured to at least one of retrieve and store items (Figure 1; at least as in paragraph 0031, wherein “the robot control system A includes a plurality of robots RA, RB and RC which are capable of moving. Note that when an unspecified robot or robots are generally referred to, the robot(s) will be designated simply by "R". Each robot R is configured to carry out a task (or a series of tasks) in accordance with a task executive plan (task schedule) which has been organized for each robot R and stored in a robot control apparatus 3” and further as in at least paragraph 0034, wherein “a robot RB carrying out a porter's task, i.e., carrying and delivering burdens or baggage to somebody”). Examiner notes wherein the disclosed “porter’s task” as taught by Orita correlates to a storage and retrieval task, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language.;
at least one autonomous vehicle charging station (Figure 1, battery charge area (B1-B3); at least as in paragraphs 0115 & 0117); and
a processor (Figures 1-3, robot control apparatus 3; at least as in paragraph 0036, wherein “robot control apparatus 3 has a task executive plan (task schedule) organized for each robot R to carry out a task (or a series of tasks), and is configured to rearrange the tasks registered in the task schedule (i.e., reevaluating the execution order of the tasks, and changing the tasks) based on the remaining amount of charge in the battery of the robot R”, and further as in at least as in paragraphs 0063-0064, wherein “the robot control apparatus 3 includes an input/output device 100, a storage device 200 and a control unit 300”) configured to control at least one of the fleet of autonomous vehicles, the operating parameters of the autonomous vehicles, and the charging strategy, by implementing the method according to claim 13 (as provided above with respect to claim 13).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orita et al (US 2008/0109114 A1, hereinafter Orita) in view of Lert, JR. et al (US 2009/0074545 A1, hereinafter Lert).
The teachings of Orita have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Orita further teaches wherein each autonomous vehicle is configured to move in a longitudinal direction , a lateral direction, and a vertical direction (at least as in paragraph 0031, wherein “the robot control system A includes a plurality of robots RA, RB, RC which are capable of moving” and further as in at least paragraphs 0069-0073, wherein “The map information database 210 is a database containing map information (global map) of a task execution area E (area within which the robots R are supposed to execute tasks)” and further wherein “In the map information database 210, objects that exist in the task execution area, such as passages (passageways), stairs (stairways), elevators, rooms and battery charge areas, are registered in association with coordinate data indicative of positions in the task execution area” and additionally wherein “The robot control apparatus 3 is configured to generate signals instructing autonomous motion and execution of tasks of robots R (task executive instruction), based on the positional relationship; thus, the robots R can be allowed to move to a desired position (e.g., task start position) in the task execution area”). Examiner additionally notes wherein Orita teaches that the robot control apparatus is configured to control said mobile robots, including the speed and heading of each of the respective robots. Accordingly, Examiner contends wherein it is at least heavily suggested, if not implicit, from the teachings of Orita wherein each of the respective robots are configured to move in a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction and a vertical direction (i.e. up/down stairs, ramps, etc.). That said, Orita is silent specifically regarding wherein “the operating parameters comprise at least one of: a vertical ascending acceleration rate, a vertical ascending deceleration rate , a vertical descending acceleration rate, and a vertical descending deceleration rate.”
Lert, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention of coordinating and controlling multiple autonomous robots to perform one or more tasks, teaches a materials-handling system using autonomous transfer and transport vehicles (i.e. T3V, robots, bots, etc.), that are configured to move in a longitudinal direction, lateral direction and/or vertical direction, such that one or more bots may store/retrieve cases of merchandise for a fulfillment order. Lert goes on to teach wherein coordinating movement between a plurality of bots includes “scheduled tasks that are output by the task-scheduling process on the system master computer are then input to the traffic-control process, which performs a function very similar to what air-traffic controllers do in the system of air travel. The traffic-control function decomposes each scheduled task into a series of very specific routing instructions, or "vectors", that ensure that the task is accomplished successfully while avoiding collision with any other T3V. For example, the traffic-control process would instruct the T3V, starting from a specified location at a specified time, to accelerate at a specified rate to a specified speed, maintain that speed for a specified time in order to arrive at a second specified location at a second specified time, decelerate at a specified rate to a lower specified speed, execute a turn at a specified fork to change to a different guideway, etc.”. Lert further teaches wherein the bots employ regenerative braking, thereby converting kinetic energy of the autonomous vehicle motion to electrical energy during braking, thereby slowing the robot and recharging the battery (at least as in paragraphs 0035-0036, 0058, 0084, 0102, 0104 and 0108-0110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Orita, to include Lert’s added functionality of controlling the acceleration/deceleration rate of the bots as part of the task-scheduling function for a fleet of operational bots, since Lert teaches wherein such functionality provides enhanced control as well as improves collision avoidance between the respective bots of the materials-handling system, thereby providing a more efficient materials-handling system/process.
Regarding claim 24, Orita further teaches wherein each autonomous vehicle is configured to move in a longitudinal direction, a transverse direction, and a vertical direction (at least as in paragraph 0031, wherein “the robot control system A includes a plurality of robots RA, RB, RC which are capable of moving” and further as in at least paragraphs 0069-0073, wherein “The map information database 210 is a database containing map information (global map) of a task execution area E (area within which the robots R are supposed to execute tasks)” and further wherein “In the map information database 210, objects that exist in the task execution area, such as passages (passageways), stairs (stairways), elevators, rooms and battery charge areas, are registered in association with coordinate data indicative of positions in the task execution area” and additionally wherein “The robot control apparatus 3 is configured to generate signals instructing autonomous motion and execution of tasks of robots R (task executive instruction), based on the positional relationship; thus, the robots R can be allowed to move to a desired position (e.g., task start position) in the task execution area”). Examiner additionally notes wherein Orita teaches that the robot control apparatus is configured to control said mobile robots, including the speed and heading of each of the respective robots. Accordingly, Examiner contends wherein it is at least heavily suggested, if not implicit, from the teachings of Orita wherein each of the respective robots are configured to move in a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction and a vertical direction (i.e. up/down stairs, ramps, etc.).
Lert, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention of coordinating and controlling multiple autonomous robots to perform one or more tasks, teaches a materials-handling system using autonomous transfer and transport vehicles (i.e. T3V, robots, bots, etc.), that are configured to move in a longitudinal direction, lateral direction and/or vertical direction, such that one or more bots may store/retrieve cases of merchandise for a fulfillment order. Lert goes on to teach wherein coordinating movement between a plurality of bots includes “scheduled tasks that are output by the task-scheduling process on the system master computer are then input to the traffic-control process, which performs a function very similar to what air-traffic controllers do in the system of air travel. The traffic-control function decomposes each scheduled task into a series of very specific routing instructions, or "vectors", that ensure that the task is accomplished successfully while avoiding collision with any other T3V. For example, the traffic-control process would instruct the T3V, starting from a specified location at a specified time, to accelerate at a specified rate to a specified speed, maintain that speed for a specified time in order to arrive at a second specified location at a second specified time, decelerate at a specified rate to a lower specified speed, execute a turn at a specified fork to change to a different guideway, etc.”. Lert further teaches wherein the bots employ regenerative braking, thereby converting kinetic energy of the autonomous vehicle motion to electrical energy during braking, thereby slowing the robot and recharging the battery (at least as in paragraphs 0035-0036, 0058, 0084, 0102, 0104 and 0108-0110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Orita, to include Lert’s added functionality of controlling the bots to move in any one or more of a longitudinal direction, lateral direction and/or vertical direction as part of the task-scheduling function for a fleet of operational bots, since Lert teaches wherein such functionality provides enhanced control as well as improves collision avoidance between the respective bots of the materials-handling system, thereby providing a more efficient materials-handling system/process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also read on several of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2023/0046794 A1, issued to Stevens et al, which is directed towards systems and methods for dynamically managing the location of inventory items in an inventory management facility.
US 2020/0122927 A1, issued to Bellar et al, which is directed towards a system comprising a plurality of AGV’s for sorting and transporting items to destination locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights