DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1, 10, 1, and 19 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Response to Remarks
101
Applicant’s amendments and remarks have been considered and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 are hereby withdrawn.
103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the Examiner, but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant asserts that the applied prior art of record, alone and in combination, fails to teach or suggest “generating a stopping criteria based on the one or more shipping container attributes including a maximum height and a maximum weight and determining, based on the stopping criterial, that a second portion of the plurality of item containers can be added to a second layer of the one or more layers of the digital representation of the shipping container. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner submits that the applied prior art reference Soles et al discloses wherein the planning engine may generate a packing plan based on constraints associated with the packing area, the items, the packages, and/or the containers. To further illustrate, an example is now given. In the following example, warehouse management system 110 generates a packing plan for packing various products onto several empty pallets and then packing the loaded pallets into a truck. When generating the packing plan, planning engine 202 may identify one or more constraints that limit the location of the products on the pallets and the pallets in the truck based on, for example, the size, weight, and fragility of the products and weight and height restrictions for the truck and pallets (see at least paragraph [0051] to Soles et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the constraints as disclosed by Soles et al, as well as the height and weight restrictions as taught by Soles et al, teach a maximum allowable height and weight associated with a shipping container, and therefore anticipate the newly added claim language of the pending claims. For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morland et al (US 2019/0193956) in view of Soles et al (US 2023/0274218), further in view of Huang et al (US 5,908,283).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art reference Morland et al discloses a system comprising:
A processor (see at least paragraph [0187] to Morland et al, and
a non-transitory memory, storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to (see at least paragraph [0213] to Morland et al); determine a plurality of positions and a plurality of orientations for each of the plurality of item containers (see at least paragraph [0059] to Morland et al, wherein the dynamic pallet-build component 114 utilizes the defined item stack rules to turn the items in all potential orientations (directions), checking for the least amount of space used within each layer), wherein the plurality of orientations are determined based on one or more shipping container attributes of the shipping container and one or more item container attributes for each respective item container of the plurality of the item containers (see at least paragraph [0069] to Morland, wherein The item placement 222 identifies placement of an item on a partially completed pallet. The dynamic item location data 230 identifies a three-dimensional location and orientation of an item placed on the partially completed pallet); in response to determining the plurality of configurations; assign a first portion of the plurality of item containers to a first layer of the one or more layers of the digital representation of the shipping container based on the plurality of positions and the plurality of orientations (see at least paragraph [0059] to Morland et al, wherein The items are assigned to the pallet in a lowest layer first moving up. The dynamic pallet-build component 114 utilizes the defined item stack rules to turn the items in all potential orientations (directions), checking for the least amount of space used within each layer. Once an item no longer will fit into the current layer, the dynamic pallet-build component 114 moves to the next layer up and begins calculating possible locations for the next item in the next highest layer while continuing to try and fill the previous layer with up-coming items which may be smaller); generate item assignment data identifying the assignments of the first portion of the plurality of item containers to the first layer; determine, based on the stopping criteria that second portion of the plurality of item containers can be added to a second layer of the one or more layers of the digital representation of the shipping container and store the item assignment data in a data repository (see at least paragraph [0060] to Morland et al, wherein upon creating the optimal pallet building map for each pallet, the dynamic pallet-build component 114 provides the pallet-build instructions 116 to the user 134 via a selected user interface); determin[ing] a plurality of configurations for each of the plurality of item containers, the plurality of configurations (see at least paragraph [0063] to Morland et al, wherein the selection component 202 analyzes the item data 204 and warehouse layout data using the set of pallet-build criteria 212 to identify items to be included in each proposed pallet in a plurality of proposed pallets. The warehouse layout data is data describing a location of each item stored in a warehouse, such as the warehouse layout data 120 in FIG. 1); determine an order for stacking the first layer and the second layer based on the density values, the strength values, and the weight values corresponding to the first portion of the plurality of item containers, and the density values, the strength values, and the weight values corresponding to the second portion of the plurality of item containers (see at least paragraph [0073] to Morland et al, wherein he assigned location 228 identifies a three-dimensional location for an item in a proposed pallet. The assigned location 228 in some examples includes a pallet layer identification, a length identifier, a height identifier, a width identifier, and an orientation for an item being placed onto a pallet. The assigned location 228 includes a location where each item assigned to be placed on the proposed pallet 210 should be placed in accordance with the set of per-pallet build instructions 216. In other words, the assigned location 228 includes a three-dimensional location in a pallet assigned to a given item and an orientation of the item); based on the order for stacking,generate mapping data characterizing a mapping of the first layer and the second layer of the one or more layers of the digital representation of the shipping container to physical layers of the shipping container ; and store the item assignment data and the mapping data in the data depository (see at least paragraph [0073] to Morland et al, wherein he assigned location 228 identifies a three-dimensional location for an item in a proposed pallet. The assigned location 228 in some examples includes a pallet layer identification, a length identifier, a height identifier, a width identifier, and an orientation for an item being placed onto a pallet. The assigned location 228 includes a location where each item assigned to be placed on the proposed pallet 210 should be placed in accordance with the set of per-pallet build instructions 216. In other words, the assigned location 228 includes a three-dimensional location in a pallet assigned to a given item and an orientation of the item).
receive an item assignment request identifying a plurality of item containers for assigning to one or more layers of a digital representation of a shipping container, the item assignment request comprising an item identifier and a shipping container identifier; based on the item identifier, receive, from a data depository, one or more item container attributes for each of the plurality of the item containers, the one or more item container attributes comprising a density value, a strength value, and a weight value (see at least paragraphs [0072 and [0073] to Morland et al).
Morland et al does not appear to explicitly disclose
generat[ing] a fitness value for each configuration of the plurality of configurations; in response to determining the fitness value and the fitness value generat[ing] a subsequent layer for assigning a plurality of subsequent item containers; wherein the one or more shipping container attributes comprise a maximum height of the shipping container and the maximum weight of the shipping container; and generate stopping criteria based on the one or more shipping container attributes including the maximum height and the maximum weight.
However, Soles et al discloses a system and method for displaying layout instructions using augmented reality, further comprising generat[ing] a fitness value for each configuration of the plurality of configurations; in response to determining the fitness value and the fitness value (see at least paragraph [0101] to Soles et al, wherein Restriction feedback 1104 comprises a chart indicating whether one or more restrictions associated with the load are satisfied or exceeded. Although restriction feedback 1104 comprises a chart indicating restrictions comprising a maximum value, embodiments contemplate restriction feedback 1104 comprising any visual element representing any suitable restriction, including restrictions comprising a minimum value, a range or set of permissible values, a range or set of impermissible values, and the like); wherein the one or more shipping container attributes comprise a maximum height of the shipping container and the maximum weight of the shipping container; and generate stopping criteria based on the one or more shipping container attributes including the maximum height and the maximum weight(see at least paragraph [0051] to Soles et al, wherein when generating the packing plan, planning engine 202 may identify one or more constraints that limit the location of the products on the pallets and the pallets in the truck based on, for example, the size, weight, and fragility of the products and weight and height restrictions for the truck and pallets).
Morland et al and Soles et al, in combination, do not appear to explicitly disclose or suggest wherein based on the shipping container identifier, receive, from the data depository, one or more shipping container attributes of the shipping container, determine an amount of gap space associated with each of the plurality of configurations.
However, Huang et al discloses a system and method for palletizing packages of random size and weight, wherein based on the shipping container identifier, receive, from the data depository, one or more shipping container attributes of the shipping container, determine an amount of gap space associated with each of the plurality of configurations (see at least column 27, line 61- column 28,line 3 to Huang et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for dynamic pallet build as taught by Morland et al and the system and method for displaying layout based instructions using augmented reality, as taught by Soles et al, further in view of the system and method for palletizing packages of random size and weight as disclosed by Huang et al, in order to effectively pick shipments in order to efficiently use storage space, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses The system of claim 1, further including instructions that cause the processor wherein the computing device is configured to: in response to the item assignment request, transmit an item assignment response that includes the item assignment data. (see at least paragraph [0055] to Morland et al, wherein The pallet-build application 136 outputs an identification of the next item to be placed on the pallet and the assigned location for the next item on the pallet relative to the partially completed pallet and any items already placed on the pallet. When the item is correctly placed at the assigned location, the pallet-build application 136 displays an identification of the next item in the item placement sequence to be placed on the pallet and the assigned location for this next item. This process continues until the pallet-build is complete ).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the item assignment response is transmitted to a second device, causing the second device to display the item assignment data (see at least paragraph [0048] to Morland et al, wherein The dynamic pallet-build component 114 sends the set of pallet-build instructions 116 to a user device 132 associated with user 134 building one or more pallets in the pallet-build area 128).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, further including instructions that cause the processor to: obtain, from the data depository, at least one attribute of each of the plurality of item containers; and determine the plurality of positions for each of the plurality of item containers based on the corresponding at least one attribute (see at least paragraph [0043] to Morland et al, wherein The sensor data 122 may include image data, infrared sensor data, barcode data, RFID tag data, or any other type of sensor data for identifying an item, identifying a location of an item, and/or identifying an orientation of an item placed on a pallet).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, further including instructions that cause the processor to: obtain, from the data depository, at least one attribute of each of the plurality of item containers; and order the layer within the digital representation of the shipping container based on the at least one attribute (see at least paragraph [0045 to Morland et al, wherein the pallet-build criteria 124 in some examples includes pallet dimension guidelines, pallet layer guidelines, stacking criteria, item placement sequencing rules, layering rules, item quantity rules, and/or thresholds associated with building pallets).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one attribute comprises a weight of each of the plurality of item containers, and further including instructions that cause the processor to: determine a total weight of the layer based on the weight of each of the plurality of item containers; and order the layer within the digital representation of the shipping container based on the total weight (see at least paragraph [0089] to Morland et al, wherein The per-item quantity rules 408 specify the number of items that may be placed on an identified layer of a given pallet or within a given portion of a pallet layer. For example, the per-item quantity rules 408 may specify a maximum number of a heavy item that may be placed at a given location on a pallet. The per-item quantity rules 408 in other examples may define a per-item maximum number of items per-pallet. The per-item maximum number of items may be based on item size and/or item weight).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of orientations comprise a differing face along a plane (see at least paragraph [0172] to Morland et al, wherein the system dynamically calculates a placement location and orientation of the object that adjusts for any irregularities in the item shape) the examiner submits that the aforementioned limitation is interpreted in view of at least paragraph [0026] of Applicant’s disclosure, which states, in part, “the item container is displayed in each of six orientations. For instance, each configuration has a different face of the item container 500 along the X-Y plane”.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, further including instructions that cause the processor to: determine that a length of the plurality of item containers does not exceed a length of the digital representation of the shipping container; determine that a width of the plurality of item containers does not exceed a width of the digital representation of the shipping container; and assign the plurality of item containers to the layer of the shipping container based on the determinations ((see at least paragraph [0073] to Morland et al, wherein The assigned location 228 in some examples includes a pallet layer identification, a length identifier, a height identifier, a width identifier, and an orientation for an item being placed onto a pallet. The assigned location 228 includes a location where each item assigned to be placed on the proposed pallet 210 should be placed in accordance with the set of per-pallet build instructions 216. In other words, the assigned location 228 includes a three-dimensional location in a pallet assigned to a given item and an orientation of the item ).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to: determine that in at least one of the plurality of positions a length of the plurality of item containers does exceed a length of the shipping container; and assign the plurality of item containers to the layer of the shipping container based on another of the plurality of positions (see at least paragraph [0123] to Morland et al, wherein In some examples, the system compares the dimensions of the item 1412 with the dimensions of the empty space 1422 to determine if the item fits within the remaining empty space 1422 of the first layer).
Claims 10-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627