DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-22 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of U.S. Application Serial Number 18/510,041, filed on November 15, 2023, and U.S. Application Serial Number 18/510,136, filed on November 15, 2023, which each claim priority to U.S. Provisional Application Serial Number 63/425,333, filed on November 15, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 and 07/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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)(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 1-2, 7, 9-12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677). As per claim 1, Rongley discloses a system for regulating robot activity comprising: one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server); a plurality of robots, each in communication with at least one of said one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server in the retail store may receive information pertaining to one or more autonomous robots); wherein each robot of said plurality of robots is configured to: move, based on a resource retrieval instruction provided by said one or more central processors, to a first location proximate a resource to allow said robot to be positioned at said resource (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein a robot may be configured to relocate to the picking station in the warehouse (or storage space) in the retail store once it determines its inventory level has fallen below a threshold (e.g., using a weight sensor, barcode readings, or through any other means). In other cases, the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished); and transport said resource to an outbound location (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein autonomous robots may be deployed to transport inventory items from a first geographic location (e.g., a warehouse in a city) to a second geographic location (e.g., a retail store in the city), for instance, in response to inventory demands at the second location); and wherein said one or more central processors are configured to execute an item assignment algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished) according to a calculated arrival time of said at least one robot (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein the controller or central server may also be aware of the scheduled arrival time of the transportation system carrying the one or more autonomous robots) with respect to a second location (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein autonomous robots may be deployed to transport inventory items from a first geographic location (e.g., a warehouse in a city) to a second geographic location). As per claim 2, Rongley discloses wherein said first location is at or near a storage rack at a warehouse (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the store may comprise a warehouse or storage space, where the warehouse may further include a picking station). As per claim 7, Rongley discloses wherein said one or more central processors are configured to cause each robot of said plurality of robots to remain static at said first location until said first resource is securely positioned on a platform linked to said robot (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the autonomous robot may be loaded at the picking station by a shelf stacker. It should be noted that the shelf stacker may be a worker employed at the warehouse/retail store or may be an automated robot that is configured to load/unload autonomous storage robots). As per claim 9, Rongley discloses wherein said one or more central processors are configured to generate resource retrieval orders, and communicate said orders to an order picking executor (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished). As per claim 10, Rongley discloses wherein said one or more central processors are configured to implement a location manager to track the location in a warehouse of each robot of said plurality of robots (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein the central server at the retail store may track, in real-time, the transportation system and/or the autonomous robots). As per claim 11, Rongley discloses wherein said one or more central processors are configured to implement a fleet manager permitting operator control of one or more fleets of robots of said plurality of robots (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished). As per claim 12, Rongley discloses wherein said fleet manager is configured to prevent two or more robots of said plurality of robots from colliding with one another (see at least paragraph 0125; wherein control device 410 is also in communication with drive device 401 to control the movement of MITU 400. As an example, MITU 400 may be configured to travel in a straight-line while being surrounded on both sides by other objects (e.g., robots, shelves, etc.), a typical scenario inside a warehouse). As per claim 16, Rongley discloses a method for regulating robot activity comprising: providing one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server); providing a plurality of robots, and configuring each robot of said plurality of robots to be in communication with at least one of said one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server in the retail store may receive information pertaining to one or more autonomous robots); configuring each robot of said plurality of robots to: move, based on a resource retrieval instruction provided by said one or more central processors, to a first location proximate a resource to allow said robot to be positioned at said resource (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein a robot may be configured to relocate to the picking station in the warehouse (or storage space) in the retail store once it determines its inventory level has fallen below a threshold (e.g., using a weight sensor, barcode readings, or through any other means). In other cases, the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished); and transport said resource to an outbound location (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein autonomous robots may be deployed to transport inventory items from a first geographic location (e.g., a warehouse in a city) to a second geographic location (e.g., a retail store in the city), for instance, in response to inventory demands at the second location); and configuring said one or more central processors to execute an item assignment algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished) according to a calculated arrival time of said at least one robot (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein the controller or central server may also be aware of the scheduled arrival time of the transportation system carrying the one or more autonomous robots) with respect to a second location (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein autonomous robots may be deployed to transport inventory items from a first geographic location (e.g., a warehouse in a city) to a second geographic location). As per claim 19, Rongley discloses further comprising configuring each robot to be autonomous (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein one or more autonomous robots).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677) in view of Saboo et al. (USPGPub 2018/0300835). As per claim 3, Rongley does not explicitly mention wherein at least one robot of said plurality of robots is configured to obtain said resource from said storage rack, and position said resource at a pallet linked to said robot.
However Saboo does disclose: wherein at least one robot of said plurality of robots is configured to obtain said resource from said storage rack, and position said resource at a pallet linked to said robot (see at least paragraph 0120; wherein if the control system determines that the predicted future inventory of a particular pallet of the particular type of product will be low or empty in the near future, the control system may reroute a robotic device to either remove the pallet when it is low/empty, or to bring more objects of the particular type to be placed onto the particular pallet). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Saboo with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve accuracy, see Saboo paragraph 0047. As per claim 4, Saboo discloses wherein said pallet is configured to secure said resource during transportation thereof (see at least paragraph 0117; wherein the updated map may include a predicted future location of a particular object that is proximate to a location of a pedestal robot, based on an autonomous fork truck reporting its location while en route to deliver a pallet of objects including the particular object at the location proximate to the pedestal robot).
Claims 5, 13-14, 17, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677) in view of Johnson et al. (USPGPub 2019/0138978). As per claim 5, Rongley does not explicitly mention wherein said one or more central processors are further configured to execute a clustering algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots based on a calculated cluster similarity score. However Johnson does disclose: wherein said one or more central processors are further configured to execute a clustering algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots based on a calculated cluster similarity score (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein the next step 904 is to designate the base order, which may be the first order in the order queue after it has been sorted by priority. The items of each order in the order queue are plotted and the cluster regions are established in step 906. At step 908, the score of each order in the order queue is calculated relative to the base score using the established cluster regions, as described above. The order queue is re-sorted by score in ascending order at step 910, such that the orders with items in closest proximity to the base order are the items with the lowest scores (indicating shortest distance relative to the base order)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Johnson with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and productivity in the order queuing and assignment process, see Johnson paragraph 0006. As per claim 13, Rongley discloses a system for regulating robot activity comprising: one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server); a plurality of robots, each in communication with at least one of said one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server in the retail store may receive information pertaining to one or more autonomous robots); wherein each robot of said plurality of robots is configured to: move, based on a resource retrieval instruction provided by said one or more central processors, to a first location proximate a resource to allow said robot to be positioned at said resource (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein a robot may be configured to relocate to the picking station in the warehouse (or storage space) in the retail store once it determines its inventory level has fallen below a threshold (e.g., using a weight sensor, barcode readings, or through any other means). In other cases, the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished); and transport said resource to an outbound location (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein autonomous robots may be deployed to transport inventory items from a first geographic location (e.g., a warehouse in a city) to a second geographic location (e.g., a retail store in the city), for instance, in response to inventory demands at the second location). Rongley does not explicitly mention wherein said one or more central processors are configured to execute a clustering algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots based on a calculated cluster similarity score. However Johnson does disclose: wherein said one or more central processors are configured to execute a clustering algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots based on a calculated cluster similarity score (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein The next step 904 is to designate the base order, which may be the first order in the order queue after it has been sorted by priority. The items of each order in the order queue are plotted and the cluster regions are established in step 906. At step 908, the score of each order in the order queue is calculated relative to the base score using the established cluster regions, as described above. The order queue is re-sorted by score in ascending order at step 910, such that the orders with items in closest proximity to the base order are the items with the lowest scores (indicating shortest distance relative to the base order)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Johnson with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and productivity in the order queuing and assignment process, see Johnson paragraph 0006. As per claim 14, Johnson discloses wherein said one or more central processors are configured to execute said clustering algorithm based on a pairwise distance between at least two items in at least two orders (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein The next step 904 is to designate the base order, which may be the first order in the order queue after it has been sorted by priority. The items of each order in the order queue are plotted and the cluster regions are established in step 906. At step 908, the score of each order in the order queue is calculated relative to the base score using the established cluster regions, as described above. The order queue is re-sorted by score in ascending order at step 910, such that the orders with items in closest proximity to the base order are the items with the lowest scores (indicating shortest distance relative to the base order)). As per claim 17, Rongley does not explicitly mention configuring said one or more central processors to execute a clustering algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots based on a calculated cluster similarity score.
However Johnson does disclose: configuring said one or more central processors to execute a clustering algorithm to regulate movement of at least one robot of said plurality of robots based on a calculated cluster similarity score (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein The next step 904 is to designate the base order, which may be the first order in the order queue after it has been sorted by priority. The items of each order in the order queue are plotted and the cluster regions are established in step 906. At step 908, the score of each order in the order queue is calculated relative to the base score using the established cluster regions, as described above. The order queue is re-sorted by score in ascending order at step 910, such that the orders with items in closest proximity to the base order are the items with the lowest scores (indicating shortest distance relative to the base order)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Johnson with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and productivity in the order queuing and assignment process, see Johnson paragraph 0006. As per claim 21, Rongley discloses a method for regulating robot activity comprising: providing one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server); providing a plurality of robots, each in communication with at least one of said one or more central processors (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a controller or central server in the retail store may receive information pertaining to one or more autonomous robots); configuring each robot of said plurality of robots to: move, based on a resource retrieval instruction provided by said one or more central processors, to a first location proximate a resource to allow said robot to be positioned at said resource and receive at least some of said resource on said robot (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein a robot may be configured to relocate to the picking station in the warehouse (or storage space) in the retail store once it determines its inventory level has fallen below a threshold (e.g., using a weight sensor, barcode readings, or through any other means). In other cases, the robot may receive instructions from the central system in the retail store that its inventory needs to be replenished), and transport said at least some of said resource to an outbound location (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein autonomous robots may be deployed to transport inventory items from a first geographic location (e.g., a warehouse in a city) to a second geographic location (e.g., a retail store in the city), for instance, in response to inventory demands at the second location). Rongley does not explicitly mention configuring said one or more central processors to execute a clustering algorithm to produce picking instructions for said resource. However Johnson does disclose: configuring said one or more central processors to execute a clustering algorithm to produce picking instructions for said resource (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein The next step 904 is to designate the base order, which may be the first order in the order queue after it has been sorted by priority. The items of each order in the order queue are plotted and the cluster regions are established in step 906. At step 908, the score of each order in the order queue is calculated relative to the base score using the established cluster regions, as described above. The order queue is re-sorted by score in ascending order at step 910, such that the orders with items in closest proximity to the base order are the items with the lowest scores (indicating shortest distance relative to the base order)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Johnson with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and productivity in the order queuing and assignment process, see Johnson paragraph 0006. As per claim 23, Rongley does not explicitly mention wherein said one or more central processors are configured to execute a clustering algorithm to cause picking instructions for said resource to be communicated. However Johnson does disclose: wherein said one or more central processors are configured to execute a clustering algorithm to cause picking instructions for said resource to be communicated (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein the next step 904 is to designate the base order, which may be the first order in the order queue after it has been sorted by priority. The items of each order in the order queue are plotted and the cluster regions are established in step 906. At step 908, the score of each order in the order queue is calculated relative to the base score using the established cluster regions, as described above. The order queue is re-sorted by score in ascending order at step 910, such that the orders with items in closest proximity to the base order are the items with the lowest scores (indicating shortest distance relative to the base order)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Johnson with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and productivity in the order queuing and assignment process, see Johnson paragraph 0006.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677) in view of Wintz et al. (USPGPub 2022/0388783). As per claim 6, Rongley does not explicitly mention wherein said item assignment algorithm includes a calculation of picker travel time between multiple warehouse locations. However Wintz does disclose: wherein said item assignment algorithm includes a calculation of picker travel time between multiple warehouse locations (see at least paragraph 0106; wherein the overall travel time can also change dynamically and/or in real-time based on conditions in the warehouse and/or movement of other storage items to available storage locations. In some implementations, a storage location can be assigned a favorable score when that location has a historically faster picking rate and/or travel time after items are stored there in comparison to other available storage locations). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Wintz with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve overall facility efficiency, see Wintz paragraph 0031.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677) in view of Hance et al. (USPGPub 2019/0066041). As per claim 8, Rongley does not explicitly mention wherein said one or more central processors are configured to cause said at least one robot to travel to said second location when said at least one robot is determined to have an earliest estimated arrival time to said second location. However Hance does disclose: wherein said one or more central processors are configured to cause said at least one robot to travel to said second location when said at least one robot is determined to have an earliest estimated arrival time to said second location (see at least paragraph 0160; wherein the projected availability time may be determined to be the earliest time after the expected arrival time of the delivery vehicle at which one or more robots are projected to have the cargo available for pickup by the delivery vehicle). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hance with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve vehicle utilization/decrease empty miles driven, see Hance paragraph 0054.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677), in view of Johnson et al. (USPGPub 2019/0138978), and further in view of Saboo et al. (USPGPub 2018/0300835). As per claim 15, Rongley and Johnson do not explicitly mention wherein said one or more central processors are configured to communicate instructions to said plurality of robots to prevent more than a maximum number of robots from being present in one warehouse zone of a plurality of warehouse zones. However Saboo does disclose: wherein said one or more central processors are configured to communicate instructions to said plurality of robots to prevent more than a maximum number of robots from being present in one warehouse zone of a plurality of warehouse zones (see at least paragraph 0117; wherein the updated map may include a predicted future location of a particular object that is proximate to a location of a pedestal robot, based on an autonomous fork truck reporting its location while en route to deliver a pallet of objects including the particular object at the location proximate to the pedestal robot). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Saboo with the teachings as in Rongley and Johnson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve accuracy, see Saboo paragraph 0047.
Claims 18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677) in view of Sibley (USPGPub 2024/0385615). As per claim 18, Rongley does not explicitly mention further comprising configuring said one or more central processors to implement an optimization layer module for assigning a favorability score to each robot for subsequent robot picking assignments. However Sibley does disclose: further comprising configuring said one or more central processors to implement an optimization layer module for assigning a favorability score to each robot for subsequent robot picking assignments (see at least paragraph 0250; wherein the evaluating step can include evaluating a plurality of the robots for picking up the product against a plurality of features of the plurality of robots using a ranking regression method to provide an aggregate value for each of the respective robots). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Sibley with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently transfer containers 361 throughout system 113, see Sibley paragraph 0128. As per claim 20, Rongley does not explicitly mention further comprising configuring said one or more central processors to track a number of available resource pickers, and communicate orders to said pickers. However Sibley does disclose: further comprising configuring said one or more central processors to track a number of available resource pickers, and communicate orders to said pickers (see at least paragraph 0250; wherein the evaluating step can include evaluating a plurality of the robots for picking up the product against a plurality of features of the plurality of robots using a ranking regression method to provide an aggregate value for each of the respective robots). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Sibley with the teachings as in Rongley. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently transfer containers 361 throughout system 113, see Sibley paragraph 0128.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley (USPGPub 2022/0012677), in view of Johnson et al. (USPGPub 2019/0138978), and further in view of Hayama (USPGPub 2024/0263953). As per claim 22, Rongley and Johnson do not explicitly mention wherein said picking instructions include a sequence determined from application of the Traveling Salesman Problem. However Hayama does disclose: wherein said picking instructions include a sequence determined from application of the Traveling Salesman Problem (see at least paragraph 0090; wherein generate a delivery plan include means such as applying a known solution to a combinational optimization problem such as a traveling salesman problem (TSP)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hayama with the teachings as in Rongley and Johnson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of the delivery, see Hayama paragraph 0051.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2024/0135707 – Provide to determine the head pose of a user, a head-mounted display system having an imaging device can obtain a current image of a real-world environment, with points corresponding to salient points which will be used to determine the head pose. The salient points are patch-based and include: a first salient point being projected onto the current image from a previous image, and with a second salient point included in the current image being extracted from the current image. USPGPub 2024/0094975 – Provide a computing device and method are provided for transmitting a relevant subset of map data, called a neighborhood, to enable mutual spatial understanding by multiple display devices around a target virtual location to display a shared hologram in the same exact location in the physical environment at the same moment in time. The computing device may comprise a processor, a memory operatively coupled to the processor, and an anchor transfer program stored in the memory and executed by the processor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights