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 § 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 1-15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In the claims, Applicant uses terms like “operation situation” and “work situation” which is unclear. What does “situation” refer to? Does Applicant mean a current status or state of the operation or work? All occurrences of “situation” in the claims should be clarified.
In the claims, it appears that Applicant uses the term “determine” to mean “select”, “choose”, or the like. For instance, in claim 1, line 12, it appears that the movement path determination unit selects a movement path.
Relative to claim 1, several elements are unclear and/or ambiguous. In line 2, “plurality of work processes” is unclear. The term “plurality of work processes” is ambiguous. What does “work processes” mean?
In lines 6-8, is the processing time for assigned jobs in the warehouse, or is the processing time related to the processing time for assigned jobs for the information processing devices?
In lines 9-11, does calculate a movement path refer to calculating a initial path for the information processing device to follow?
Lines 12-17 are unclear. What is an “operation situation”? Is the operation situation a current status or state of an assigned job in the warehouse? Is the path towards a job or task to be performed?
Does the movement determination unit choose a path for the information processing devices based on the state or status of jobs and movement direction of the information processing devices?
The order of the steps are unclear. How does the movement determination unit determine a movement of the information processing device using the movement path calculated by the movement path calculation unit? Also, Applicant should specify that the movement path is calculated by the movement path calculation unit in line 13.
Is an initial movement path calculated first for the information processing device by the movement path calculation unit, and then altered by the movement determination unit based on various factors, such as the “operation situation” and “movement direction”?
Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the movement determination unit chooses an updated path, after an initial path has already been determined, for the information processing device towards a task or job destination. The path is updated based on the operation situation (which is unclear), and a movement direction of the information processing device along the path.
Similar clarification is required for claim 14 as mentioned above.
Relative to claim 2, what does “when the information processing device moves across a plurality of the work processes” mean?
Relative to claim 3, in lines 3-6, does Applicant mean that the movement determination unit selects a path for the information processing device based on the state of a task currently being performed by the information device, and a current position of the information processing device?
Relative to claim 4, the claim included determining a movement of the information processing device based on a traveling direction. This appears to already be recited in claim 1.
Relative to claim 5, “wherein when moving on the movement path, the information processing device moves while selecting a work that can be executed on the movement path and executing the work”, is unclear. In line 1, does Applicant mean that a task is assigned to the information processing device that can be executed along the path on which the information processing device is already moving, or the path that has been selected? Is the secong task assigned once the previous tasks has been completed.
Relative to claims 6, “a series of works are executed by a combination of the information processing devices when the work is executed for each work process”, is unclear. Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that a task may be performed by multiple robots, or multiple robots may cooperate with each other to perform a task or tasks.
Relative to claim 7, lines 1-5 are unclear since they are recited in the preamble of the claim. It is not clear whether the elements are intended to be included in the claim. Applicant should revise the claim to recite the elements in the body of the claim. Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the elements are intended to be included.
In lines 11-13, what does determining a shift of the work subject mean? Is Applicant referring to a change in state, assignment, or position of the work subject? Applicant needs to clarify the term “shift determination unit”.
In line 10, “when it is determined that the work delay is hindersome” is unclear. What does Applicant mean by “hindersome”? This term is ambiguous. Does Applicant mean that a work delay causes a burden that negatively impacts the execution of the task, or that inhibits the execution of a task?
Lines 8-10, does the Applicant mean that if a delay is determined to cause too much of a burden to complete a tasks assigned to a work group that interrupts overall operations of the entire warehouse, then the group configuration change unit changes a configuration of the work groups in order to ease the burden.
Lines 8-13, the overall order of the steps is unclear. Does the system first detect a delay, and based on this, the group configuration unit changes a configuration of the work group? What happens after the group configuration unit changes a configuration of the work groups?
Lines 11-13 are unclear. The shift determination unit for determining that a work subject whose work group is changed is present, determine a shift of the work subject”, is unclear. What does determine a shift of a work subject mean, and does the shift occur after the group configuration unit has changed the configuration of the work group? Does Applicant mean that a “shift” of the work subject has occurred after the changed configuration and the shift determination unit detects the changes of the work subjects or work groups? If so, then a step appears to be missing.
Lines 14-16, “an on-movement-path work determination unit configured to determine the work to be performed on a movement path by the work subject”, is unclear. Does the on-movement-path determination unit determine the work to be performed by the work subject along the path based on the results of the group configuration change unit? How is this step connected to the shift determination unit? The entire claim needs to be revised.
For the phrase, “performed by the work subject along the path”, is the work performed at the path destination along a path with multiple destinations? Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the task is performed at a destination of an assigned path.
Relative to claim 12, displaying a work situation of the work group is ambiguous.
Applicant needs to provide similar clarification to claims 8-11, and 13-15.
Appropriate clarification is required to all claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 14 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franey (US PG. Pub. 2022/0371626). Relative to claims 1-6 and 14, Franey discloses:
claim 1) a warehouse work control system comprising:
a plurality of information processing devices (106)(Para. 0016) configured to move autonomously and, in a warehouse (102)(Fig. 1A) having a plurality of work processes, each perform a work for each of the work processes (autonomous vehicles, 106, move autonomously to perform various picking tasks at picking locations 113 to complete orders; Para. 0025);
a processing time calculation unit configured to calculate a processing time of the work assigned to the work processes (system considers remaining time to fulfill that order and the other orders; Para. 0041);
a movement path calculation unit (included in Ref. 122) configured to calculate a movement path through which each of the information processing devices (106) moves between the work processes (server generates instructions to autonomous vehicles 106 to travel pick paths 128 to various locations; Para. 0036), and
a movement determination unit (included in Ref. 122) configured to determine, by using the processing time and the movement path, movement of the information processing device (106) between the work processes (picking locations 113) based on an operation situation and a movement direction of the information processing device for each work process (server 122, may update or re-route path (128) for the robot (106) to travel based on operation situation which may include: remaining time to fill the order and other orders for the robot (Para. 0041), priority of the order (Para. 0041), the status of other orders to be picked by the autonomous vehicle, 106)(Para. 0041), a shortage of a product at a location (Para. 0039), whether the product or a substitute is available at another location (Para. 0043), position of the vehicle along an assigned path 128 in the warehouse, which inherently includes a direction of travel of the autonomous vehicle (Para. 0014; 0041-0042), system uses the various factors above and the position of the autonomous vehicle to provide a completion score to compare various routes for an autonomous vehicle to fill orders, and to determine whether an updated path should be provided to the autonomous vehicle, and which path should be selected based on the completion score of each path, Para. 0042),
claim 2) the movement determination unit (included in Ref. 122) determines the movement including the information processing device (106) on the movement path (128) when the information processing device (106) moves across a plurality of the work processes (Para. 0038; 0044);
claim 3) the movement determination unit (included in Ref. 122) determines the movement of the information processing device (106) based on a current work situation and a current position of the information processing device (server considers position of robot 106 by considering a distance to an alternate location from a current position of robot on path 128, Para. 0014; 0027, system also considers the current time, 0014, completion of tasks (Para. 0030), likelihood of completing the order in the autonomous vehicle (Para. 0031), and the remaining time to fulfill the order and other orders to decide whether and how to update a path, Para. 0031; 0041);
claim 4) the movement determination unit (included in Ref. 122) determines the movement of the information processing device (106) based on a traveling direction of the information processing device (traveling direction is inherent, the server assigns a path 128 for the robot to travel, and uses the path that the robot 128 is currently traveling while picking products, which includes a direction of travel along the path, to alter the path based on the conditions of the warehouse or conditions at pick locations, Para. 0040; 0044; 0036-0037; system can monitor progress of path, 128)(see Fig. 1B);
claim 5) when moving on the movement path (included in Ref. 122), the information processing device (106) moves while selecting a work (tasks) that can be executed on the movement path (128) and executing the work (as the autonomous vehicle is moving along the path 128, picking tasks can be performed at different locations on the path, path may change dynamically based on current status of inventory, warehouse conditions, priority of orders; Para. 0037-0038; path may be updated while traveling, Para. 0039);
claim 6) a series of works are executed by a combination of the information processing devices (106) when the work is executed for each work process (autonomous vehicles, 106, may meet another vehicle 106 to perform a task, Para. 0080; 0077).
Relative to claims 14-15, the system of Franey includes:
claim 14) a warehouse work control method for, in a warehouse (102) having a plurality of work processes, performing a work for each of the work processes using a plurality of information processing devices (106) configured to move autonomously (Para. 0025), the
warehouse work control method comprising:
calculating a processing time of the work assigned to the work processes (processing time may include number of picks, Para. 0041; 0077);
calculating a movement path (128) through which each of the information processing devices moves between the work processes (Para. 0036, time to perform picking task is inherent, system considers inventory at picking location to determine whether more or less time would be spent towards picking a particular order at a present location or other location, using for instance, number of picks left, amount of inventory at a picking location, status of other containers associated with the order Para. 0077); and
determining, by using the processing time and the movement path, movement of the information processing device (106) between the work processes (pick locations 113) based on an operation situation and a movement direction of the information processing device (106) for each work process (Para. 0039; 0041); and
claim 15) the movement of the information processing device (106) is determined based on a traveling direction of the information processing device (106)(Para. 0014, currently travel direction of an autonomous vehicle 128 along a path is included in the pick path, Para. 0014, see Fig. 1B), and
when moving on the movement path (128), the information processing device (106) moves while selecting a work that can be executed on the movement path and executing the work (Para. 0038; 0016).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 13 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiona. Relative to claims 7-11 and 13, Akiona discloses:
claim 7) a warehouse work control system (see server, orchestrator 312, and simulation system, 300)(Fig. 3 and 6) in which work groups each including a plurality of work subjects are assigned to a plurality of work regions in a warehouse (work groups may comprise actors such as robots (305) and people for performing tasks, and the physical area where the tasks are performed, Para. 0035, see also navigational regions 111 near shelving units where robots and actors can pass, Para. 0023)(Fig. 5, 2) respectively and a work (task) is executed for each work group (Para. 0035, area configuration data includes the types, models, and/or quantities of robots that will perform tasks, the quantity of people that will perform tasks, the type, models, and/or quantities of other equipment that will perform tasks, and optionally a list of tasks that each actor will perform), the warehouse work control system comprising:
a work delay detection unit configured to detect a work delay of each of the work subjects (system determines if aggregate utilization of all actors needs improvement, as well as any conditions in which waiting for a condition to be met to perform a task is high, system also detects congestion in certain travel areas, Para. 0070; 0062);
a group configuration change unit configured to change a configuration of the work group when it is determined that the work delay is hindersome to the execution of the work (robot controller can adjust the allocation of robots, sequence of tasks, and routing of actors to improve utilization based on sensed conditions; Para. 0070);
a shift determination unit configured to, when it is determined that a work subject (robot, worker, or other actor) whose work group is changed is present, determine a shift of the work subject (robot controller adjusts the task allocation between the actors, Para. 0070); and
an on-movement-path work determination unit (included in robot controller) configured to determine the work to be performed on a movement path by the work subject (robot controller adjusts the sequence of tasks to be performed by the robot, and adjusts the navigation of the actors that result in faster completion of tasks; Para. 0070; Para. 0090);
claim 8) the work delay detection unit determines that the work delay is hindersome based on a processing time of the work (Para. 0070; 0072, changes are simulated to ensure changes result in an improvement of the aggregate utilization);
claim 9) the group configuration change unit specifies a delayed work group in which the work is delayed based on the processing time of the work (Para. 0070; 0062, system can determine which of the actors performing tasks are delayed), and
the shift determination unit (included in robot controller) determines the shift of the work subject by obtaining the movement path from the work group at a current location to the delayed work group that is a movement destination (routes for actors may be reassigned, and sequence of tasks may be changed and reallocated based upon a determination that there is unwanted delays, Para. 0070; 0072);
claim 10) the shift determination unit determines the shift of the work subject based on a traveling direction of the work subject (Para. 0040, see direction of travel);
claim 11) when the work subject (actor such as a robot or worker) moves on the movement path, the on-movement-path work determination unit causes the work subject (robot, worker) to move while selecting a work that can be executed on the movement path and executing the work (Para. 0052, next task at next location is provided; 0039); and
claim 13) the work subject includes an information processing device (robots) configured to move autonomously in the warehouse (Para. 0035).
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) 12 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiona in view of Franey.
Relative to claim 12, Akiona discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: a display unit, the display unit displays a work situation of the work group, the movement of the work subject between the work groups, and a change history of the work subject between the work groups.
Franey teaches: a display unit (211)(Fig. 2A), the display unit (vehicle 106, displays the tasks to pickers, 112) displays a work situation of the work group (display may provide instructions one at a time to picker as work is completed, indicate status of remaining products, 0044), the movement of the work subject (picker, 112, vehicle, 106) between the work groups (work groups include vehicles and pickers at picking locations to pick a product, Fig. 1B; movement of the work subject, i.e, vehicle (106) or picker 112) is included with the progress of the vehicle (106) along a path that is monitored, as tasks are completed at each location, this information is displayed, path 128 is also displayed to picker 112, as well as sequence of picking; Para. 0026), and a change history of the work subject between the work groups (display provides revised path 128 with updated pick locations 113 to pickers 112; Para. 0044).
Franey teaches: the display unit for displaying a work situation, movement of the work subject, and change of history of the work subject as described above, for the purpose of providing a system for dynamically re-routing a pick path for an autonomous vehicle that is collecting products for multiple orders that reduces delays and that can efficiently fill orders even when there are inventory shortages (Para. 0001-0003).
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 Akiona with the display unit for displaying a work situation, as taught in Franey, for the purpose of providing a system for dynamically re-routing a pick path for an autonomous vehicle that is collecting products for multiple orders that reduces delays and that can efficiently fill orders even when there are inventory shortages.
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