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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 03/23/2023, 12/07/2023, and 08/22/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
This action is in response to claims filed on 03/23/2023. Claims 1-10 are considered in this office action. Claims 9-10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending examination.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 6, the use of the word “or” in line 5 and line 4, respectively, makes the claim limitations unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitations are intended to be optional, or if they are a required part of the recited method. Specifically, in the case of claim 5, it is unclear if the “determining a plurality of positions on the route to stop” step is meant to comprise any one of the 3 subsequently recited limitations, the first and either the second or third limitations, or a different combination of the limitations. In the case of claim 6, it is unclear if the recited method is meant to further comprise either one of the 2 subsequently recited limitations or both. Further, some of the later limitations appear to depend from the initial limitation, and thus using the term “or” regarding the inclusion of the limitations in the recited method renders the claims indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claims as having used the term “and” instead of “or” in regards to the limitations.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2021/0233013 A1) in view of Song et al. (CN110163545A).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches “A route planning method (Title, “Articles Picking Method, Control System, and Articles Picking System”), comprising:
selecting mobile devices from a plurality of mobile devices;
determining routes of the mobile devices and a plurality of stopping positions on the routes to stop (Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”; step 302 “generate the order of the single articles picking point of the AGV for each articles picking point (stopping position) and step 303 “plan the travel route of the AGV”); and
[allocating] the plurality of stopping positions to the mobile devices according to a passing sequence of the plurality of stopping positions on the routes (Par. [0080] teaches in consideration of the difference in the number of AGVs waiting at each articles picking point, the number of AGVs waiting at each articles picking point may be taken as a consideration factor in the planning of the travel route, and the travel route may be adjusted according to the picking pressure state of each articles picking point during the process of passing articles picking points).”
However, Liang does not explicitly teach selecting “at least two mobile devices” from a plurality of mobile devices, and “cross-allocating the plurality of stopping positions to the at least two mobile devices according to a passing sequence of the plurality of stopping positions on the routes.”
From the same field of endeavor of automated warehousing and vehicle loading and unloading, Song teaches selecting “at least two mobile devices” from a plurality of mobile devices, and “cross-allocating the plurality of stopping positions to the at least two mobile devices according to a passing sequence of the plurality of stopping positions on the routes (Par. [0035]-[0036] teaches when the number of robots on a single work surface is two or more, the task assignments are first sorted by odd numbers then by even numbers, e.g. A1, A3, A5…An-1; A2, A4, A6…An; when two robots are working on the same side, the form of interval operation is applied where the two robots are sequentially operated in the order of “odd task number priority”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Liang to incorporate the teachings of Song with a reasonable expectation of success to have the selected mobile devices taught by Liang be at least two or more as taught by Song, and have the plurality of stopping positions taught by Liang be cross-allocated to the at least two mobile devices according to a passing sequence of the stopping positions as taught by Song.
The motivation for doing so would be to prevent to two robots from interfering with each other when working (Song, Par. [0035]).
Claim 7 is directed to a corresponding route planning device that implements the method of claim 1, and this is similarly rejected (see above rejection of claim 1).
Claim 9 is directed to a corresponding electronic equipment that implements the method of claim 1, and this is similarly rejected (see above rejection of claim 1).
Claim 10 is directed to a corresponding non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that implements the method of claim 1, and this is similarly rejected (see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liang and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein cross-allocating the plurality of stopping positions to the at least two mobile devices according to a passing sequence of the plurality of stopping positions on the route comprises:
acquiring stopping positions one-by-one from the plurality of stopping positions according to the passing sequence on the routes (Liang, Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”) (Song, Par. [0035] teaches he task assignments are first sorted by odd numbers then by even numbers, e.g. A1, A3, A5…An-1; A2, A4, A6…An);
acquiring the mobile devices one-by-one from the at least two mobile devices, and acquiring the mobile devices one-by-one from a first mobile device among the at least two mobile devices of the current device is the last mobile device among the at least two mobile devices (Song, Par. [0031] “According to the number of robots, assign task assignments according to different task rules and generate task information”; Par. [0036] teaches when two robots are working on the same side, the form of interval operation is applied where the two robots are sequentially operated in the order of “odd task number priority”); and
allocating the currently acquired stopping position to the currently acquired mobile device every time a stopping position and a mobile device are acquired (Song, Par. [0035]-[0036] teaches when the number of robots on a single work surface is two or more, the task assignments are first sorted by odd numbers then by even numbers, e.g. A1, A3, A5…An-1; A2, A4, A6…An; when two robots are working on the same side, the form of interval operation is applied where the two robots are sequentially operated in the order of “odd task number priority”, e.g. use two robots to press A1, A3, A5…An-1; A2, A4, A6…An).”
Claim 8 is directed to a corresponding route planning device that implements the method of claim 2, and this is similarly rejected (see above rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liang and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein selecting at least two mobile devices from a plurality of mobile devices comprises:
acquiring order information corresponding to the plurality of mobile devices respectively (Liang, Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”); and
determining the route and stopping positions corresponding to each mobile device based on an order information corresponding to the each mobile device, and determining at least two mobile devices with routes and stopping positions meeting preset conditions among the plurality of mobile devices (Liang, Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”; step 302 “generate the order of the single articles picking point of the AGV for each articles picking point (stopping position) and step 303 “plan the travel route of the AGV”) (Song, Par. [0031] “According to the number of robots, assign task assignments according to different task rules and generate task information”; Par. [0036] teaches when two robots are working on the same side, the form of interval operation is applied where the two robots are sequentially operated in the order of “odd task number priority”).”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liang and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches “wherein determining at least two mobile devices with routes and stopping positions meeting preset conditions among the plurality of mobile devices comprises:
determining at least two mobile devices with a same route and stopping positions being staggered on the route among the plurality of mobile devices (Song, Par. [0035]-[0036] teaches when the number of robots on a single work surface is two or more, the task assignments are first sorted by odd numbers then by even numbers, e.g. A1, A3, A5…An-1; A2, A4, A6…An; when two robots are working on the same side, the form of interval operation is applied where the two robots are sequentially operated in the order of “odd task number priority”, e.g. use two robots to press A1, A3, A5…An-1; A2, A4, A6…An).”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liang and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein determining a plurality of stopping positions on the route to stop comprises:
acquiring order information of an order;
acquiring a plurality of stopping positions to stop on the route from the order information when the order information comprises the plurality of stopping positions to stop on the route (Liang, Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order (implying the order information of an order is acquired) needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”); or
determining a plurality of stopping positions corresponding to identifiers of items to be picked up based on a pre-established correspondence between item identifiers and stopping positions when the order information comprises the identifiers of the items to be picked up (Liang, Fig. 3; step 302 “generate the order of the single articles picking point of the AGV for each articles picking point (stopping position); Par. [0038] teaches the picking point includes information of articles which may include names, models, barcodes, two-dimensional codes, or other articles of identification information).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liang and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “acquiring order information of an order, and sending the order information to the at least two mobile devices, so that the at least two mobile devices determine the respective routes and the respective stopping positions to stop on the routes based on the order information (Liang, Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order (implying the order information of an order is acquired) needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”); or
sending the route of each mobile device and the stopping positions allocated to each mobile device to the at least two mobile devices (Liang, Fig. 3; step 301 “determine the articles picking points (stopping positions) that the AGV associated with the order needs to pass through according to the articles required for the order and the storage position of the articles”; step 302 “generate the order of the single articles picking point of the AGV for each articles picking point (stopping position) and step 303 “plan the travel route of the AGV”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665