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 Status
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-20, and 21-23 are currently being examined. By applicant’s amendment of February 6, 2026, claims 1, 4-6, 8-20, and 21-23 are pending following:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 13-17, and 19-20 have been amended
Claims 2, 3, and 7 have been canceled
New claims 21-23 have been added
Response to Amendments
Applicant has amended the claims to address the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the First Office Action of November 13, 2025. Applicant’s amendments adequately address and resolve the required issues; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 14, and 17 to include a new limitation “and prompt the user to perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool.” This new limitation introduces a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for indefiniteness; see 112 claim rejection section.
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 1, 4-6, 8-19, and 21-23 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool”. No definition or details of the “safety check” are provided in the specification to provide boundaries for the scope of this limitation; a safety check could encompass any task or function involving a visual observation, physical inspection or test, or digital (computer-based verification) inspection or test, or combination of any of the above to identify potential hazards or risks. The lack of clear boundaries defining the scope of the claim renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 4-6, 8-13 and 21-22 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 1.
Independent claim 14 recites the limitation “perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool”. No definition or details of the “safety check” are provided in the specification to provide boundaries for the scope of this limitation; a safety check could encompass any task or function involving a visual observation, physical inspection or test, or digital (computer-based verification) inspection or test, or combination of any of the above to identify potential hazards or risks. The lack of clear boundaries defining the scope of the claim renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 15, 16, and 23 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 14.
Independent claim 17 recites the limitation “perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool”. No definition or details of the “safety check” are provided in the specification to provide boundaries for the scope of this limitation; a safety check could encompass any task or function involving a visual observation, physical inspection or test, or digital (computer-based verification) inspection or test, or combination of any of the above to identify potential hazards or risks. The lack of clear boundaries defining the scope of the claim renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 18 and 19 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 10-20, filed February 6, 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The combination of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. recited features, in the order presented. The amended claims’ new limitation of “perform a safety check” has been addressed both in the 112(b) rejections above and mapped in the 103 rejections section below.
Technical Features – Claims 1, 14, 17
a)
Argument: Gjerdevik does not teach a door-opening request
As noted in the First Office Action, while Gjerdevik et al. discloses a method for controlling a warehouse system with a first target region, first guard door and first goods-carrying tool in a non-operating state, Gjerdevik et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving a door-opening request signal. Gjerdevik et al. was combined with Dong et al. (CN 110936407), a reference directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, which taught obtaining a door-opening request signal of a first guard door [See at least Par. 0026].
In the First Office Action, Examiner indicated the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, set forth the relevant teachings of the prior art relied upon, indicated the difference(s) in the claim over the applied references, provided the proposed modification of the applied reference(s) necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and explained why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, in accordance with MPEP 2142-2144.
Argument: operations of Gjerdevik are triggered without any door-opening-request signal generated before the gateway is open or unlocked.
Applicant argues no request signal corresponding to a gateway to be opened is obtained before the gateway is opened in Gjerdevik, while the instant application first sends a door-opening-request signal then determines a state of a first goods-carrying tool. Applicant also argues that in Dong the security door has been opened before determining which robotic arm of the industrial robot is to be stopped.
In the First Office Action, the teachings of Gjerdevik regarding operations of determining a first target region corresponding to the first guard door, determining that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, and controlling a state of the first guard door to be an open state operations were combined with the teachings of Dong to send an external door opening request signal. [See at least Par. 0026, 0066]
Applicant accurately notes that the security door in Dong has been opened before the determining a state of the robotic arm step, indicating the sending of a door-opening-request occurred before the door was opened (both logically and explicitly disclosed by Dong in at least Par. 0026 and 0066 by the “opening signal can be generated based on an external door opening request signal”). Examiner made the combination of the external door opening request signal of Dong, which occurs before the determining a state of the robotic arm, in combination with the determining a first target region corresponding to first guard door, determining a state of the tool and controlling the guard door to open of Gjerdevik.
Applicant argues the method steps must be performed in the order of first a door-opening-request signal, then a determining of tool state step, and subsequently the first guard door is opened. The combination recited by Examiner follows this order, with a first external door opening request signal which occurs before a determining of tool state (Dong), combined with the determining tool state step and opening of first guard door of Gjerdevik.
As noted in the First Office Action, the combination of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. teaches the steps of the method, in the order presented. The amended claims’ new limitation of “perform a safety check” has been addressed both in the 112(b) rejections above and mapped in the 103 rejections section below.
b)
Argument: after sending the halt signal (sending an operation-stop instruction), Gjerdevik does not teach detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool to determine that the state is the non-operating state.
Under BRI, a step of sending a stop instruction and then verifying (detecting and determining) the vehicle has stopped encompasses sending an operation-stop instruction to the first goods-carrying tool, to cause the first goods-carrying tool to stop operation; and detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool to determining that the state of the first goods-carrying tool is the non-operating state. Gjerdevik et al. discloses both sending the halt signal (sending an operation-stop instruction) and verifying the non-operating state through registering the halt position of the vehicle in at least Par. 0186, 0190; mapped in the 103 rejections below.
c)
Argument: Gjerdevik send prompt information when the shutdown zone is safe; the instant application sends prompt information when the zone is unsafe
As noted in the First Office Action, the method step of pushing information to a user indicating a non-safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in an operating state merely presents a reversal of the step of pushing information to a user indicating a safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in a non-operating state disclosed by Gjerdevik et al.; claiming an obvious variant reversing or adjusting the sequence or arrangement [See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and (VI)] which does not provide any novel or non-obvious features to distinguish over the prior art.
Independent claim 14 recites an apparatus and independent claim 17 recites a system with the same features and functions as the method steps of claim 1 and are rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Independent claim 20 is mapped in the 103 rejections below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerdevik et al. (US 2023/0002156) in view of Dong et al. (CN 110936407). Claims 2, 3, and 7 were cancelled by Applicant.
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
A method for controlling a warehousing system, comprising:
determining a first target region corresponding to the first guard door, wherein the first target region is at least one region in a plurality of regions of the warehousing system; [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numerals 225 (shutdown zone), and 160,360 (gateway), one of a plurality of regions of the warehouse; Par. 0141-0142]
determining that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, [Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 240,340 (malfunctioning vehicle) brought to a halt in 225 (shutdown zone); Par. 0034-0047, 0142] or dispatching the first goods-carrying tool to another region other than the first target region in the warehousing system; [See at least Par. 0041] and
controlling a state of the first guard door to be an open state; [See at least Par. 0034-0047]
wherein the determining that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state comprises:
sending an operation-stop instruction to the first goods-carrying tool, to cause the first goods-carrying tool to stop operation; [See at least Fig. 11, step 403; Abstract, Par. 0186] and
detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool, to determine that the state of the first goods-carrying tool is the non-operating state. [See at least Fig. 11, steps 401-404; Abstract, Par. 0186, 0190]
wherein after the detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool, the method further comprises:
pushing first prompt information when the state of the first goods-carrying tool is an operating state, wherein the first prompt information is configured to prompt a user that the first target region is a non-safe region. [See at least Par. 0046-0050]
and prompt the user to perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool. [See at least Par. 0050, 0061-0064]
The method step of pushing information to a user indicating a non-safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in an operating state merely presents a reversal of the step of pushing information to a user indicating a safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in a non-operating state disclosed by Gjerdevik et al.; claiming an obvious variant reversing or adjusting the sequence or arrangement [See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and (VI)] which does not provide any novel or non-obvious features to distinguish over the prior art.
As noted in the 112(b) rejections above, no definition or details of the “safety check” are provided in the specification to provide boundaries for the scope of this limitation; a safety check could encompass any task or function involving a visual observation, physical inspection or test, or digital (computer-based verification) inspection or test, or combination of any of the above to identify potential hazards or risks. Gjerdevik et al. discloses a display (GUI) which indicates information to the user regarding stopped vehicles and safe to enter conditions [See at least Par. 0050]; the vehicles themselves also provide display signals indicating power supply to the wheel has been switched off, which a human operator can verify visually or audibly [See at least Par. 0061-0064]. These features read on the recited limitations of “safety check” under BRI lacking any further bounds from the specification or claims.
While Gjerdevik et al. discloses a method for controlling a warehouse system with a first target region, first guard door and first goods-carrying tool in a non-operating state, Gjerdevik et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving a door-opening request signal. In regard to this limitation, Dong et al., directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, teaches:
obtaining, by an apparatus for controlling the warehousing system, a door-opening-request signal of a first guard door, [See at least Par. 0026] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. and combine the door-opening request signal and restoring operations when the door is closed with the warehouse system of Gjerdevik et al. The door-opening request signal and restoring operations when the door is closed of Dong et al. allows operations to continue in areas where the specific door is not open, enabling increased speed and effectiveness [See Dong et al., at least Par. 0007].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the door-opening request signal and restoring operations when the door is closed of Dong et al. with the warehouse system of Gjerdevik et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the warehouse system of Gjerdevik et al. and the features of the door-opening request signal and restoring operations when the door is closed of Dong et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Regarding amended claim 4, Dong et al. teaches what Gjerdevik et al. lacks:
The method according to claim 1, wherein before determining that the state of the first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is the non-operating state, the method further comprises:
determining whether the first goods-carrying tool exists in the first target region; and controlling the state of the first guard door to be an open state when determining that there is no first goods-carrying tool in the first target region. [See at least Par. 0007, 0014]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
controlling to forbid a second goods-carrying tool in the warehousing system from entering the first target region, wherein the second goods-carrying tool is a goods-carrying tool in another region other than the first target region. [See at least Fig. 11, step 411; Par. 0065, 0186]
Regarding amended claim 6, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first guard door corresponds to a plurality of target regions [See at least Fig. 7; Par. 0069-0079] , and after determining the first target region corresponding to the first guard door, the method further comprises:
obtaining location information of the user and determining a target region corresponding to the location information as a second target region; [See at least Par. 0069-0079] and
determining that a state of a goods-carrying tool in the second target region corresponding to the location information is a non-operating state. [See at least Par. 0069-0079]
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Regarding amended claim 8, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein after obtaining location the information of the user and determining the target region corresponding to the location information as the second target region [See at least Fig. 8, gateways 160a,b,c], the method further comprises:
determining the first target region as a non-target region, wherein a state of a good carrying tool in said non-target region is an operating state, the second target region is different from the first target region. [See at least Par. 0069-0079]
Regarding amended claim 10, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein after determining that the state of the first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is the non-operating state, the method further comprises:
displaying a safety identifier in the first target region, wherein the safety identifier is configured to indicate that the first target region is a safe region. [See at least Par. 0046-0050]
Regarding claim 11, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the safety identifier is a ground identifier. [See at least Par. 0046-0050]
For examination purposes, the term “ground identifier” has been construed under BRI to include identifiers located upon, protruding from, or attached to the ground or low-lying area which may comprise ground level, as no definition was provided in the instant’s specification for this term. Identifiers within view of the human operator disclosed by Gjerdevik et al. (see at least Par. 0048), fulfill this limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Dong et al. teaches what Gjerdevik et al. lacks:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
restoring the state of the first goods-carrying tool to an operating state if the state of the first guard door is determined as a closed state and/or no user is in the first target region. [See at least Par. 0007, 0014]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding amended claim 13, Dong et al. teaches what Gjerdevik et al. lacks:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the restoring the state of the first goods-carrying tool to the operating state comprises at least one of:
starting a first task of the first goods-carrying tool, [See at least Par. 0007, 0014] or
distributing the first task to the first goods-carrying tool, wherein a target shelving unit of the first task is in the first target region.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding amended independent claim 14, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
An apparatus for controlling a warehousing system [See at least Abstract, Par. 0001, 0025, 0029, 0111], comprising:
at least one processor, and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when being executed by the at least one processor, [See at least Par. 0025, 0029, 0111] are configured to cause the apparatus for controlling the warehousing system to:
determine a first target region corresponding to the first guard door, the first target region being at least one region in a plurality of regions of the warehousing system; [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numerals 225 (shutdown zone), 225b (entrance zone) and 160,360 (gateway), one of a plurality of regions of the warehouse; Par. 0141-0142]
determine that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, [Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 240,340 (malfunctioning vehicle) brought to a halt in 225a (malfunctioning vehicle zone) of 225 (shutdown zone); Par. 0034-0047, 0142] or dispatching the first goods-carrying tool to another region other than the first target region in the warehousing system; [See at least Par. 0041] and
control a state of the first guard door to be an open state. [See at least Par. 0034-0047]
wherein to determine that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, the instructions are further configured to cause the apparatus for controlling the warehouse system to:
send an operation-stop instruction to the first goods-carrying tool, to cause the first goods-carrying tool to stop operation; [See at least Fig. 11, step 403; Abstract, Par. 0186] and
detect the state of the first goods-carrying tool, to determine that the state of the first goods-carrying tool is the non-operating state. [See at least Fig. 11, steps 401-404; Abstract, Par. 0186, 0190]
wherein after the detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool, the instructions are configured to cause the apparatus for controlling the warehousing system to:
push first prompt information when the state of the first goods-carrying tool is an operating state, wherein the first prompt information is configured to prompt a user that the first target region is a non-safe region. [See at least Par. 0046-0050]
and prompt the user to perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool. [See at least Par. 0050, 0061-0064]
The method step of pushing information to a user indicating a non-safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in an operating state merely presents a reversal of the step of pushing information to a user indicating a safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in a non-operating state disclosed by Gjerdevik et al.; claiming an obvious variant reversing or adjusting the sequence or arrangement [See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and (VI)] which does not provide any novel or non-obvious features to distinguish over the prior art.
As noted in the 112(b) rejections above, no definition or details of the “safety check” are provided in the specification to provide boundaries for the scope of this limitation; a safety check could encompass any task or function involving a visual observation, physical inspection or test, or digital (computer-based verification) inspection or test, or combination of any of the above to identify potential hazards or risks. Gjerdevik et al. discloses a display (GUI) which indicates information to the user regarding stopped vehicles and safe to enter conditions [See at least Par. 0050]; the vehicles themselves also provide display signals indicating power supply to the wheel has been switched off, which a human operator can verify visually or audibly [See at least Par. 0061-0064]. These features read on the recited limitations of “safety check” under BRI lacking any further bounds from the specification or claims.
While Gjerdevik et al. discloses a method for controlling a warehouse system with a first target region, first guard door and first goods-carrying tool in a non-operating state, Gjerdevik et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving a door-opening request signal. In regard to this limitation, Dong et al., directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, teaches:
obtain a door-opening-request signal of a first guard door, [See at least Par. 0026] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding amended claim 15, Gjerdevik et al. discloses
The apparatus for controlling a warehousing system according to claim 14, wherein the first guard door corresponds to a plurality of target regions [See at least Fig. 7; Par. 0069-0079]; the instructions are further configured to cause the apparatus for controlling the warehouse system to:
obtain location information of the user and determine a target region corresponding to the location information as a second target region; [See at least Par. 0069-0079], wherein the second target region is different from the first target region, and the second target region corresponds to a second guard door; [See at least Fig. 8, gateways 160a,b,c] and
determine that a state of a goods-carrying tool in the second target region corresponding to the location information is a non-operating state. [See at least Par. 0069-0079]
Regarding amended independent claim 17, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
A warehousing system, comprising a goods-carrying tool, an apparatus for controlling the warehousing system, and a first guard door [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 230, 330, 240, 340 (vehicles) and 160, 360 (gateway); Abstract, Par. 0001, 0015, 0025, 0029, 0111, 0141-0142], wherein the apparatus for controlling the warehousing system is configured to perform operations of:
determining a first target region corresponding to the first guard door, the first target region being at least one region in a plurality of regions of the warehousing system; [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numerals 225 (shutdown zone), 225b (entrance zone) and 160,360 (gateway), one of a plurality of regions of the warehouse; Par. 0141-0142]
determining that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, [Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 240,340 (malfunctioning vehicle) brought to a halt in 225a (malfunctioning vehicle zone) of 225 (shutdown zone); Par. 0034-0047, 0142] or dispatching the first goods-carrying tool to another region other than the first target region in the warehousing system; [See at least Par. 0041] and
controlling a state of the first guard door to be an open state. [See at least Par. 0034-0047]
wherein for determining that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, the apparatus for controlling the warehouse system is further configured to perform operations of:
sending an operation-stop instruction to the first goods-carrying tool, to cause the first goods-carrying tool to stop operation; [See at least Fig. 11, step 403; Abstract, Par. 0186] and
detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool, to determine that the state of the first goods-carrying tool is the non-operating state. [See at least Fig. 11, steps 401-404; Abstract, Par. 0186, 0190]
wherein after detecting the state of the first goods-carrying tool, the apparatus for controlling the warehousing system is further configured to perform operations of:
pushing first prompt information when the state of the first goods-carrying tool is an operating state, wherein the first prompt information is configured to prompt a user that the first target region is a non-safe region. [See at least Par. 0046-0050]
and prompt the user to perform safety check on the first goods-carrying tool. [See at least Par. 0050, 0061-0064]
The method step of pushing information to a user indicating a non-safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in an operating state merely presents a reversal of the step of pushing information to a user indicating a safe condition based on the goods-carrying device being in a non-operating state disclosed by Gjerdevik et al.; claiming an obvious variant reversing or adjusting the sequence or arrangement [See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and (VI)] which does not provide any novel or non-obvious features to distinguish over the prior art.
As noted in the 112(b) rejections above, no definition or details of the “safety check” are provided in the specification to provide boundaries for the scope of this limitation; a safety check could encompass any task or function involving a visual observation, physical inspection or test, or digital (computer-based verification) inspection or test, or combination of any of the above to identify potential hazards or risks. Gjerdevik et al. discloses a display (GUI) which indicates information to the user regarding stopped vehicles and safe to enter conditions [See at least Par. 0050]; the vehicles themselves also provide display signals indicating power supply to the wheel has been switched off, which a human operator can verify visually or audibly [See at least Par. 0061-0064]. These features read on the recited limitations of “safety check” under BRI lacking any further bounds from the specification or claims.
While Gjerdevik et al. discloses a method for controlling a warehouse system with a first target region, first guard door and first goods-carrying tool in a non-operating state, Gjerdevik et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving a door-opening request signal. In regard to this limitation, Dong et al., directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, teaches:
obtaining a door-opening-request signal of a first guard door, [See at least Par. 0026] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The warehousing system according to claim 17, further comprises a second guard door [See at least Fig. 8, gateways 160a,b,c], wherein the apparatus for controlling the warehousing system is further configured to perform operations of:
obtaining location information of the user and determining a target region corresponding to the location information as a second target region; [See at least Par. 0069-0079], wherein the second target region is different from the first target region, and the second target region corresponds to a second guard door; [See at least Fig. 8, gateways 160a,b,c] and
determining that a state of a goods-carrying tool in the second target region corresponding to the location information is a non-operating state. [See at least Par. 0069-0079]
Regarding new claim 21, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first guard door corresponds to a plurality of target regions, the plurality of target regions have a plurality of guard doors, with the first guard door corresponding to the first target region and a second target region, and a second guard door corresponding to the first target region and the second target region; the second target region is one of the plurality of target regions. [See at least Fig. 8, plurality of regions and plurality of doors corresponding to and connecting each of the plurality of regions; Par. 0160-0168]
Regarding new claim 23, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The apparatus for controlling a warehousing system according to claim 14, wherein the first guard door corresponds to a plurality of target regions, the plurality of target regions have a plurality of guard doors, with the first guard door corresponding to the first target region and a second target region, and a second guard door corresponding to the first target region and the second target region; the second target region is one of the plurality of target regions. [See at least Fig. 8, plurality of regions and plurality of doors corresponding to and connecting each of the plurality of regions; Par. 0160-0168]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerdevik et al. (US 2023/0002156) in view of Dong et al. (CN 110936407) and further in view of Herrala (US 2012/0154115).
Regarding amended claim 16, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
The apparatus for controlling a warehousing system according to claim 15, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the apparatus for controlling the warehousing system to:
determine the first target region as a non-target region; [See at least Par. 0069-0079] and
While Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. disclose the limitations of claim 15 and the target and non-target regions and controlling a first guard door to be open, they do not explicitly disclose the first guard door being closer to the user. With regard to these limitations, Herrala teaches what Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. lack:
control, according to the location information, a guard door among the first guard door and the second guard door, which is farther from the user, and open, according to the location information, the other guard door among the first guard door and the second guard door, which is closest to the user. [See at least Par. 0021, 0025, 0028]
Herrala discloses control of a guard door closest to the user (proximity-based access), which has been construed as equivalent to opening the guard door closest to the user under BRI.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. to incorporate the teachings of Herrala and combine the proximity-based access with the systems of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. The proximity-based access of Herrala allows real-time location tracking and access control, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the proximity-based access of Herrala with the systems of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the systems of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. and the features of the proximity-based access of Herrala would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Herrala because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, location tracking and access control in industrial settings such as warehouses, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerdevik et al. (US 2023/0002156) in view of Dong et al. (CN 110936407) and further in view of Ueda (US 2018/0282063).
Regarding amended independent claim 20, Gjerdevik et al. discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, and the computer instructions, when being executed by a computer [See at least Abstract, Par. 0001, 0025, 0029, 0111], are configured to control an apparatus for controlling a warehousing system to perform operations of:
determining a first target region corresponding to the first guard door, wherein the first target region is at least one region in a plurality of regions of the warehousing system; [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numerals 225 (shutdown zone), 225b (entrance zone) and 160,360 (gateway), one of a plurality of regions of the warehouse; Par. 0141-0142], the first guard door corresponds to a plurality of target regions, the plurality of target regions have a plurality of guard doors, with the first guard door corresponding to the first target region and a second target region, and a second guard door corresponding to the first target region and the second target region; the second target region is one of the plurality of target regions; [See at least Fig. 8, plurality of regions and plurality of doors corresponding to and connecting each of the plurality of regions; Par. 0160-0168]
determining that a state of a first goods-carrying tool in the first target region is a non-operating state, [Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 240,340 (malfunctioning vehicle) brought to a halt in 225a (malfunctioning vehicle zone) of 225 (shutdown zone); Par. 0034-0047, 0142] or dispatching the first goods-carrying tool to another region other than the first target region in the warehousing system; [See at least Par. 0041] and
controlling a state of the first guard door to be an open state. [See at least Par. 0034-0047]
determining that a state of a goods-carrying tool in the second target region corresponding to the location information is a non-operating state; [See at least Par. 0069-0079] and
determining the first target region as a non-target region, wherein a state of a good carrying tool in said non-target region is an operating state; wherein the second target region is different from the first target region; [See at least Par. 0069-0079]
While Gjerdevik et al. discloses a method for controlling a warehouse system with a first target region, first guard door and first goods-carrying tool in a non-operating state, Gjerdevik et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving a door-opening request signal. In regard to this limitation, Dong et al., directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, teaches:
obtaining data representing a door-opening-request signal of a first guard door, [See at least Par. 0026] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dong et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
While Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. disclose controlling a warehouse system and obtaining location information of the user, they do not explicitly teach the use of a tag to obtain location information of the user. With regard to these limitations, Ueda teaches what Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. lack:
obtaining data representing location information of a user acquired by a radio frequency identification device, an ultra-wideband identification device, a two-dimensional code recognition device, or an image recognition device, and determining a target region corresponding to the location information as the second target region;[ [See at least Abstract; Par. 0033]
wherein the obtaining the data representing location information of the user acquired by the radio frequency device, the ultra-wideband identification device, the two-dimensional code recognition device, or the image recognition device comprises:
identifying by the radio frequency device, the ultra-wideband identification device, the two-dimensional code recognition device, or the image recognition device a tag of the user, wherein the tag has a positioning identification function; [See at least Abstract; Par. 0034-0036] and
parsing the tag to obtain the location information of the user. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0007, 0028, 0034-0035]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and combine the user tag with the systems of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. The user tag of Ueda allows real-time location tracking of the operator in the warehouse, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the user tag of Ueda with the systems of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the systems of Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. and the features of the user tag of Ueda would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ueda because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, ensuring safety of robotics and automated systems in industrial settings, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. disclose the method of claims 1 and 6 and teach obtaining location information of the user, they do not explicitly teach the use of a tag to obtain location information of the user.
With regard to these limitations of claim 22, Ueda teaches what Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. lack:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the location information of the user is acquired by a radio frequency identification device, an ultra-wideband identification device, a two-dimensional code recognition device, or an image recognition device [See at least Abstract; Par. 0033], and the method further comprises determining a target region corresponding to the location information as the second target region; the obtaining the location information of the user comprises:
identifying by the radio frequency identification device, the ultra-wideband identification device, the two-dimensional code recognition device, or the image recognition device a tag of the user, wherein the tag has a positioning identification function; [See at least Abstract; Par. 0034-0036] and
parsing the tag to obtain the location information of the user. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0007, 0028, 0034-0035]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gjerdevik et al. and Dong et al. to incorporate the teachings of Ueda, see claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights