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 .
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 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a server, having a processor and memory, and sending a first and second transfer task sequence to a robot, a first object position, a second object position, and the transfer tasks include a goods taking and a returning task.
Claim 25 recites a storage medium for acquiring a transfer task sequence and performing a second transfer task when the first transfer tasks is performed, and a second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task.
The steps of sending the transfer tasks to the robot and first and second target object positions for performing the tasks; acquiring a transfer task sequence and performing a second transfer task when the first transfer tasks is performed, and a second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task amounts to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the invention is related to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the server with the processor, for sending the first and second target object positions and transfer tasks to a robot, and acquiring a transfer task sequence and performing a second transfer task when the first transfer tasks is performed, with a second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task only store and retrieve information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. MPEP §2106.05(d)
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US Patent No. 9,466,045). Relative to claim 11, Kumar discloses:
a goods transferring method (Col. 7, lines 65-67), executed by a worker (136) and comprising:
acquiring a transferring task sequence to perform a first transferring task (Col. 12, lines 14-20; Col. 9, lines 25-28), a first target object position is acquired from the first transferring task (worker is assigned to travel to locations where items are stored to retrieve items; Col. 12, lines 20-21; Col. 4, lines 60-64); and
performing a second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed (when worker retrieves items from locations, worker is also able to place items at locations in warehouse according to a task; Col. 7, lines 45-50),
a second target object position is acquired from the second transferring task (the storage location to return the item carried by the worker is generated in the second task; Col. 7, lines 44-54), the first target object position is different from the second target object position (location in storage to retrieve item, such as “Item 1” may be different from the geographic location to place another item; Col. 7, lines 44-50), one of the first transferring task and the second transferring task is a goods taking task, and the other one is a returning task (one task may include retrieving items from storage locations, and the other placing items into storage locations; Col. 7, lines 36-48; Col. 12, lines 13-20).
Kumar (main embodiment) does not expressly disclose: the goods transferring method is executed by a robot; performing a second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed; or the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task.
Kumar teaches: the goods transferring method is executed by a robot, as opposed to a human worker, as a matter of design choice for retrieving and storing items based on the user’s preference (Col. 7, lines 65-67).
Kumar also teaches: performing a second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
This system of Kumar teaches performing tasks for retrieving and placing items to and from locations, as well as determining an optimal path for both retrieving and returning items to or from various locations (Col. 7, lines 60-64).
It is obvious that workers may be assigned tasks to perform both retrieving and placing items to and from locations to be performed along a same path assigned to the worker, based on the workers current location, locations of items to be retrieved, and storage locations where items are to be stored.
Assigning both picking and placing related tasks to a worker to be performed along a path minimizes lengthy travel distances for performing necessary inventory related task, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks (Col. 4, lines 10-13; Col. 8, lines 25-30; Col. 8, lines 53-55; Col. 12, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar so that: the goods transferring method is executed by a robot, the second transferring task is performing when the first transferring task is performed; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task, as an obvious matter of design choice since the system includes receiving, storing, and processing items, and assigning multiple inventory related tasks to a worker to be performed along a path minimizes lengthy travel distances for workers, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks.
Moreover, transfer tasks may be performed by a robot as an alternative means for performing inventory related tasks based on the user’s preference.
Relative to claim 13, the disclosure of Kumar, modified as above, discloses all claim limitations, including: when the second transferring task is the returning task, the performing the second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed comprises:
acquiring a first target object position from the first transferring task, and acquiring a returning position of a second target object from the second transferring task (tasks include locations to retrieve a target object to place a target object to storage location by a worker are generated by the control systems and communicated to the workers; Col. 9, lines 25-28);
reaching the returning position of the second target object to perform the returning task during traveling to the first target object position (see above, worker is able to place an item to a location along an assigned path and retrieve items along the same path as instructed by the system); and
traveling to the first target object position to perform the goods taking task (worker travels to location of item to be retrieved; Col. 12, lines 25-35).
Relative to claim 23, Kumar discloses: a server, comprising:
a processor; and a memory, configured to store executable instructions of the processor, the processor is configured to perform, by executing the executable instructions (included with control systems, Col. 9, lines 25-30), operations of:
sending a transferring task sequence to a worker to instruct the worker to perform a first transferring task (Col. 12, lines 20-21; Col. 4, lines 60-64),
the first transferring task comprises a first target object position (Col. 12, lines 20-21); and
sending a second transferring task to the worker (Col. 7, lines 40-50, tasks may be generated to return or place items to locations);
the second transferring task comprises a second target object position (Col. 7, lines 40-50);
the first target object position is different from the second target object position (location in storage to retrieve item, such as “Item 1” may be different from the geographic location to place another item; Col. 7, lines 44-50), one of the first transferring task and the second transferring task is a goods taking task, and the other one is a returning task (one task may include retrieving items from storage locations, and the other placing items into storage locations; Col. 7, lines 36-48; Col. 12, lines 13-20).
Kumar does not expressly disclose: the transferring task sequence is sent to a robot to perform the transferring tasks; sending the second transferring task when performing the first transferring task; or the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task.
Kumar teaches: the transferring task sequence is sent to a robot to perform the transferring tasks, as opposed to a human worker, as a matter of design choice for retrieving and storing items based on the user’s preference (Col. 7, lines 65-67).
Kumar also teaches: sending the second transferring task when performing the first transferring task; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task, as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
This system of Kumar suggests a worker may receive a task to return an item to a location, while retrieving an item from another location along a path based on real-time information about the location of the worker, the locations of items within storage areas, locations for returning items to storage, distances between items and/or storage locations to minimize distance travelled by the workers to perform various tasks (Col. 7, lines 60-64).
It is obvious that workers may be assigned a task to place an item to a storage location, while performing a retrieval task along path to optimize overall operations, based on real-time information of the worker and the locations of items within storage areas, distances between items in the storage area, locations where items are to be stored, distances between storage locations as well as any other factors.
Assigning both picking and placing related tasks to a worker to be performed along a path minimizes lengthy travel distances for performing necessary inventory related task, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks (Col. 4, lines 10-13; Col. 8, lines 25-30; Col. 12, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar so that: the second transferring task is sent when performing the first transferring task, and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task, as an obvious matter of design choice since the system includes receiving, storing, and processing items, and assigning multiple inventory related tasks to a worker to be performed together minimizes lengthy travel distances for workers, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks.
Moreover, transfer tasks may be performed by a robot as an alternative means for performing inventory related tasks based on the user’s preference.
Relative to claim 24, Kumar discloses:
A warehousing system, comprising: a worker (136), a server (included in control systems), a shelving unit (see shelves in storage area 133, Fig. 2A)(Col. 9, lines 43-45), and an operating platform (included with control systems, Col. 9, lines 25-30),
the server (included in control systems) allocates the first transferring task and the second transferring task to the worker (136)(Col. 9, lines 25-35); and
the worker performs operations of: acquiring a transferring task sequence to perform a first transferring task (Col. 12, lines 20-21);
a first target object position is acquired from the first transferring task (location of item to be retrieved is included in task, Col. 12, lines 20-21); and
performing a second transferring task (Col. 7, lines 40-45);
a second target object position is acquired from the second transferring task (Col. 7, lines 45-53), the first target object position is different from the second target object position (location to retrieve an item in storage area may be different from location to place another item to a storage location (Col. 7, lines 36-48; Col. 12, lines 13-20); one of the first transferring task and the second transferring task is a goods taking task, and the other one is a returning task (one task may include retrieving items from storage locations, and the other placing items into storage locations; Col. 7, lines 36-48; Col. 12, lines 13-20).
Kumar does not expressly disclose: a robot is communicatively connected to the server; the server allocates the first and second transferring tasks to the robot;
performing a second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed; or the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task.
Kumar teaches: a robot is communicatively connected to the server (Col. 22, lines 58-65); the server (included in control systems) allocates the first and second transferring tasks to the robot, as an obvious matter of design choice for retrieving and storing items based on the user’s preference (Col. 7, lines 65-67).
Kumar also teaches: performing a second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
This system of Kumar teaches performing tasks for retrieving and placing items to and from locations, as well as determining an optimal path for both retrieving and returning items to or from various locations (Col. 7, lines 60-64).
It is obvious that workers may be assigned to receive tasks to perform both retrieving and placing items along a path assigned to the worker, based on the workers location, locations of items to be retrieved, and locations where items are to be stored.
Assigning both picking and placing related tasks to a worker to be performed along an assigned path minimizes lengthy travel distances for performing necessary inventory related task, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks (Col. 4, lines 10-13; Col. 8, lines 25-30; Col. 12, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar so that: the second transferring task is performing when the first transferring task is performed; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task as an obvious matter of design choice since the system includes receiving, storing, and processing items, and assigning multiple inventory related tasks to a worker to be performed together minimizes lengthy travel distances for workers, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks.
Moreover, transfer tasks may be performed by a robot as an alternative means for performing inventory related tasks based on the user’s preference.
Relative to claim 25, Kumar discloses: a storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program, when being executed by a processor, implement operations (included in control systems, Col. 9, lines 25-30) of:
acquiring a transferring task sequence to perform a first transferring task, wherein a first target object position is acquired from the first transferring task (Col. 12, lines 20-21); and
performing a second transferring task (Col. 7, lines 40-45);
a second target object position is acquired from the second transferring task (Col. 7, lines 40-50),
the first target object position is different from the second target object position (Col. 7, lines 36-48; Col. 12, lines 13-20, location to retrieve an item may be different from location to store another item), one of the first transferring task and the second transferring task is a goods taking task, and the other one is a returning task (Col. 7, lines 36-48; Col. 12, lines 13-20).
Kumar does not expressly disclose: the second transferring task is performed when the first transferring task is performed, or the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task.
Kumar teaches: performing a second transferring task when the first transferring task is performed; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
This system of Kumar teaches performing tasks for retrieving and placing items to and from locations in the facility as well as determining an optimal path for both retrieving and returning items to or from various locations (Col. 7, lines 60-64).
It is obvious that workers may be assigned to receive tasks to perform both retrieving and placing items to and from locations to be performed at a same time or along a same path assigned to the worker, based on the picker’s location, locations of items to be retrieved, and locations of items to be stored.
Assigning both picking and placing related tasks to a worker to be performed along a path minimizes lengthy travel distances for performing necessary inventory related task, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks (Col. 4, lines 10-13; Col. 8, lines 25-30; Col. 8, lines 53-55; Col. 12, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar so that the goods transferring method is executed by a robot, the second transferring task is performing when the first transferring task is performed; and the second carrying task is received during performance of the first transferring task, as an obvious matter of design choice since the system includes receiving, storing, and processing items, and assigning multiple inventory related tasks to a worker to be performed together minimizes lengthy travel distances for workers, improves operational efficiency, and minimizes delays and overall costs associated with inventory related tasks.
Moreover, transfer tasks may be performed by a robot as an alternative means for performing inventory related tasks based on the user’s preference.
Claim(s) 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Manpat (US PG. Pub. 2018/0057265).
Relative to claims 12 and 14-16, Kumar, modified as above, discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, including: the returning position of the second target object in the second transferring task comprises: an initial storage position of the second target object (Col. 7, lines 35-50, initial storage position of an item to be placed is inherently included in the path assignment).
Kumar does not expressly disclose:
claim 12) the robot periodically or aperiodically reports at least one piece of information of position information and vacant slot information to a server; or
when receiving a requirement of a server, the robot reports at least one piece of information of position information and vacant slot information to the server;
claim 14) the returning position of the second target object in the second transferring task comprises: or a position of a vacant storage space;
claim 15) the acquiring a returning position of a second target object from the second transferring task comprises:
acquiring positions corresponding to U vacant storage spaces from the second
transferring task, and distances between the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces and a goods taking path of the robot are within a first preset range, and/or distances between the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces and the robot are within a second preset range;
U is a natural number greater than 0; and the goods taking path is generated according to the position information and the first target object position comprised in the first transferring task; or
claim 16) the acquiring a returning position of a second target object from the second transferring task comprises:
acquiring positions corresponding to U vacant storage spaces from the second
transferring task, a first increased time generated when the robot returns goods according to the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a first preset threshold, and/or a first movement distance increased when the robot returns goods according to the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a second preset threshold; and
U is a natural number greater than 0.
Manpat teaches:
claim 12) when receiving a requirement of a server (114)(Fig. 1)(see “server” and computing device which send instructions for storing and receiving a product; Para. 0018), the robot (RDU) reports at least one piece of information of position information and vacant slot information to the server (RDU reports its location using GPS, Para. 0031);
claim 14) the returning position of the second target object in the second transferring task comprises: a position of a vacant storage space (system determines a vacant storage shelf to receive an item from a first RDU traveling along a path, Para. 0061; 0065; 0069);
claim 15) the acquiring a returning position of a second target object from the second transferring task comprises:
acquiring positions corresponding to U vacant storage spaces from the second
transferring task (system inherently determines positions of vacant shelves in the facility Para. 0061; 0069), and distances between the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces and a goods taking path of the robot are within a first preset range, and/or distances between the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces and the robot are within a second preset range (system determines a distance between the vacant shelf and the path along which a first RDU is traveling, which is an intersection between the path of another RDU, the vacant shelf must be nearest the traveling path to receive an item, Para. 0061, system knows the locations of RDU’s; Para. 0073);
U is a natural number greater than 0 (inherently included, at least one vacant shelf must be located; Para. 0061); and the goods taking path is generated according to the position information and the first target object position comprised in the first transferring task (optimal path is generated or updated based on location of a nearest vacant shelf and the position of the object to be retrieved, Para. 0056; 0065); and
claim 16) the acquiring a returning position of a second target object from the second transferring task comprises:
acquiring positions corresponding to U vacant storage spaces from the second
transferring task (system inherently determines positions of vacant shelves to receive items in the facility Para. 0061; 0069), a first increased time generated when the robot returns goods according to the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a first preset threshold, and/or a first movement distance increased when the robot returns goods according to the positions corresponding to the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a second preset threshold (system determines whether the increased time for transferring goods by a robot to the nearest vacant shelf at the intersection is within threshold time period to transfer the item to vacant shelf so as not to deteriorate optimal travel, Para. 0068); and U is a natural number greater than 0 (system includes at least one vacant shelf (Para. 0061).
Manpat teaches the: robot reporting at least position information and vacant slot information to the server; the returning position comprises: a position of a vacant storage space; acquiring positions of U vacant storage spaces, and distances between the positions of the U vacant storage spaces and a goods taking path are within a first preset range; determining that a first increased time when the robot returns goods to the positions of the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a first preset threshold, and/or a first movement distance increased when the robot returns goods to the positions of the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a second preset threshold described above, for the purpose of providing a system for optimizing the movement of products by a robotic drive unit in a warehouse environment that improves travel speed for retrieving and storing items, and improves cost efficiency (Para. 0001; 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Kumar with the: robot reporting at least position information and vacant slot information; the returning position comprises: a position of a vacant storage space; acquiring positions of U vacant storage spaces, and distances between the positions of the U vacant storage spaces and a goods taking path; determining that a first increased time when the robot returns goods to the positions of the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a first preset threshold, and/or a first movement distance increased when the robot returns goods to the positions of the U vacant storage spaces is not greater than a second preset threshold described above, as taught in Manpot, for the purpose of providing a system for optimizing the movement of products by a robotic drive unit in a warehouse environment that improves travel speed for retrieving and storing items, and improves cost efficiency.
Relative to claim 12, Kumar in view of Manpat discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, including indicating a locations of vacant shelves (Para. 0061; 0065).
Kumar in view of Manpat not disclose: the robot (RDU) periodically or aperiodically reports at least one piece of information of position information and vacant slot information to a server.
Kumar in view of Manpat teaches: the robot (RDU) periodically or aperiodically reports at least one piece of information of position information and vacant slot information to a server as an obvious matter of design choice.
The system includes the server (computing system) at least periodically determining locations of vacant shelves for receiving an item (Para. 0061, system determines whether a shelf nearest an intersection point is vacant). The computing system also knows the locations of items in shelves (Para. 0053) which implies a location of a shelf where no items are currently stored is also known.
The RDU’s have sensors such as cameras to send various information to the computing system, including the position of the RDU. The RDU’s may be modified so that the cameras report positions of vacant shelves in the facility while performing storing and retrieving tasks to assist in path planning for the RDU’s to optimize system performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar in view of Manpat, so that the robot periodically or aperiodically reports at least one piece of information of position information and vacant slot information to a server as an obvious matter of design choice since the system knows the locations of the vacant shelves, and to optimize system performance.
Related Art:
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Voorhies (US PG. Pub. 2019/0310655 A1): includes generating paths for robots to store and retrieve items according to tasks, robots able to store and retrieve items along a path (Para. 0038), includes robots returning items to storage locations and identifies open slots in storage area (Para. 0061-0062). System determines a best path for robots to perform storing and retrieving tasks using real-time information (Para. 0059).
Gupta (US PG. Pub. 2019/0266552): Determines available storage locations in a plurality of storage racks having at least one shelf. Items are transported to storage by robotic vehicle (Para. 0026)(Fig. 1). System chooses an available storage location to store an item based on combination of an affinity score and a popularity score of the storage rack with respect to the item (Abstract; Para. 0039). The system instructs the vehicle to store the item at the selected storage location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655