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
Claim(s) 1-22 are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “115” in Fig. 1C has been used to designate both left-hand conveyance structure leading to outbound station "125" and right-hand conveyance structure leading to outbound station "150".
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference character(s) mentioned in the description: "126" found on page 15, line 3 of Para. 0054, and "602" found on page 28, line 2 of Para. 0089.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Alternatively, the Applicant is allowed to delete the reference character(s) from the description instead of adding them to the drawing(s).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "620" in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 23, Para. 0073 appears to contain an inconsistency because it describes "triangles and parallelograms" which is different than previous description of "half-moons, cylinders, etc."; clarification is recommended;
on page 24, Para. 0077 appears to be a misplaced identical duplication of Para. 0071 as it discusses Fig. 3 items in the midst of the description of Fig. 4; the office recommends removing the duplicate paragraph or amending the language;
on page 26, Para. 0083, lines 4-5 contains an identical duplicate of the previous sentence on lines 2-4; the office recommends removing the duplicate sentence;
on page 30, Para. 0100 contains a Fig. reference error/typo as on line 2 it states that "process 800 proceeds to 835" when Fig. 8 shows that process 800 proceeds to 845; the office recommends amending the language to match the respective figure;
on page 34, a similar error to the previous bullet appears in Para. 0117, line 2, where it states "process 1100 proceeds to 1135" instead of 1145 as shown in Fig. 11; the office recommends amending the language to match the respective figure;
on page 35, Para 0124 contains a statement in regards to what is claimed, however 37 CFR 1.75(h) states: The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. See MPEP 608.01(i); the office recommends removing the line or moving it to the claims sheet.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term "Nike" in at least Para. 0069, 0074, 0080, and 0086, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 contains redundant information "of items of items". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the term “robotic structure” is construed as indefinite as the language in the claims does not further define the term beyond functional language and while the specification does use physical descriptors and structural language, mitigating invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the specification is replete with varying, disparate, and potentially contradictory definitions for the as used “robotic structures” when applied to the claims language.
Regarding Claims 5-9 and 12-13, as they are dependent on Claim 4, they fall under the same argument as above and so are treated as indefinite.
Claim limitation “communication interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any description of any structure that performs the functions in the claims, suggesting it could refer a wide variety of disparate items, e.g., a user terminal, a microphone/speaker combination, a radio transceiver, a data transmission device, etc. Furthermore, in Para. 0033, 0034, and 0121, "communication interface" is used solely in conjunction with functional language in regards to "receiving item data" and "obtaining item data" as part of the method of use, again lacking any structural language, rendering the term indefinite. Therefore, Independent Claims 1, 21, and 22, as well as Claims 2-20 is/are indefinite and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent Claim 1 defines item data as "including an indication of a set of items" and Claim 2, dependent on Claim 1, attempts to further define item data as comprising "an item attribute". While data may be used as both singular and plural in common English, by definition to one of ordinary skill in the art, data is the plural version of datum, and this is further supported in the claim language by item data representing both the existence of items and an item attribute thereof. As such, data is inherently the collection of attributes or characteristics of a subject, including their existence or presence, causing Claim 2 to be redundant in light of the mentioned verbiage in Claim 1. Redundancy without additional boundaries does not further limit the claim. Additionally, while Claim 3 incorporates Claim 2 by way of dependency and does further limit it with a defined list, it does so by incorrectly labeling item attributes as subsets of a singular item attribute, causing further plural/singular confusion. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner recommends either canceling Claim 2 and amending and incorporating the language into Claim 1 as follows: “item data includes an indication of a set of one or more items...and comprises one or more item attributes associated with the selected set of one or more items”, and amending the language of Claim 3 to “wherein the item attributes include…” or canceling Claim 3 and amending and incorporating the language into Claim 2 as follows: “wherein the item data comprises one or more item attributes associated with the selected set of one or more items, and the item attributes includes one of more of…” as well as amending Claim 1 to “indication of a set of one or more items…” for the purpose of consistency. Applicant is reminded that this recommendation is merely a suggestion and Applicant is not limited to this example as other approaches may exist.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 is drawn to a system (i.e. a machine), Independent Claim 21 is drawn to a method (i.e. a process) and Independent Claim 22 is drawn to a computer program contained in a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). As such Claims 1-22 are each drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a communication interface; and
one or more processors coupled to the communication interface and configured to:
obtain item data via the communication interface, the item data including an indication of a set of items to be routed across a plurality of outbound stations;
obtain capability data for the plurality of outbound stations, the capability data indicating one or more capabilities or state for at least one outbound station;
determine a plan to route a selected item to a destination outbound station selected from among the plurality of outbound station, the plan being determined based at least in part on the item data and the capability data for the destination outbound station; and
cause the plan to be implemented to route the selected item to a particular handling path associated with the destination outbound station.
The claim and its associated limitations recite a machine and its components parts solely as a structure to receive or gather data, analyze said data, and determine a result based on the analysis, which is analogous to a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) without sufficient direct link to the structure for the specific application of the mental process, i.e. the structure can perform other processes and the process can be performed by other structures. A claim to “obtain item data, obtain capability data, and determine a plan” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind has been found by the courts to be directed to an abstract idea [See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed Cir. 2016)] As such, the claim recites an abstract idea grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG [See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The act of mere data gathering may not serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is considered “insignificant extra-solution activity”, specifically “pre-solution activity” [See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Additionally, the determination and any subsequent implementation of a plan based on the gathered data involves the capability data or state of a “destination outbound station” which includes capabilities and states of the human workers at the outbound station, as defined in the instant application specification: at least Para. 0028, 0035, 0046-0048, 0054, and 0060, which falls under methods of organizing human activity, specifically the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” [See In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018)]. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea grouped as methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG [See MPEP 2106.04(a)(3)].
Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, or the mere recitation of concrete or tangible functional components, does not qualify as a particular machine [See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). As such, the claim does not recite a particular machine applied to the judicial exception [See MPEP 2106.05(b)].
Finally, while the claim does use the verbiage “cause the plan to be implemented”, this amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and lacks any corresponding structure for implementing the plan or routing the selected item. The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, beyond invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform the process, as well as extra-solution activity. [See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984]. As such, the claim recites no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [See MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites:
A method, comprising:
obtaining item data via the communication interface, the item data including an indication of one or more items to be routed across a plurality of outbound stations;
obtaining capability data for the plurality of outbound stations, the capability data indicating one or more capabilities or state for at least one outbound station;
determining a plan to route a selected item to a destination outbound station selected from among the plurality of outbound station, the plan being determined based at least in part on the item data and the capability data for the destination outbound station; and
causing the plan to be implemented to route the item to a particular handling path associated with the destination outbound station.
The claim and its associated limitations recite a method using the structure as defined in Claim 1 (and further in dependent Claims 2-20) to perform the same steps analogous to abstract ideas grouped as a mental process and as a method of organizing human activity as previously mentioned in the response to Claim 1. The use of tangible or concrete functional components as a tool to perform these steps does not sufficiently take the claim out of the mental process grouping nor the method of organizing human activity grouping. The previous arguments therein in regards to a particular machine, extra-solution activity, and doing no more than adding the equivalent of the words “apply it” also apply to Claim 21.
The judicial exception is not sufficiently integrated into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to use a communication interface as a tool to perform these processes, implementing the abstract idea using a functional component as a tool as a part of the method is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use a communication interface as a tool as part of a method to perform the processes. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements or sufficient structure to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a functional tool such as the communication interface to perform the obtaining, determining, and planning steps of the method amounts to no more than performing the process directed to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea, nor does it provide a patent eligible inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites:
"22. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer instructions for:
obtaining item data via the communication interface, the item data including an indication of one or more items to be routed across a plurality of outbound stations;
obtaining capability data for the plurality of outbound stations, the capability data indicating one or more capabilities or state for at least one outbound station;
determining a plan to route a selected item to a destination outbound station selected from among the plurality of outbound station, the plan being determined based at least in part on the item data and the capability data for the destination outbound station; and
causing the plan to be implemented to route the item to a particular handling path associated with the destination outbound station.
The claim and its associated limitations recite the use of a non-transitory computer readable medium and a computer program comprising computer instructions to perform the steps of using the structure as defined in Claim 1 (and further in dependent Claims 2-20), and perform the same steps as the method of Claim 21. The use of a computer as a tool to perform these steps does not sufficiently take the claim out of the mental process grouping nor the method of organizing human activity grouping. The previous arguments therein in regards to a particular machine, extra-solution activity, and doing no more than adding the equivalent of the words “apply it” also apply to Claim 22.
The judicial exception is not sufficiently integrated into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to use a computer as a tool to perform these processes, implementing the abstract idea using a computer as a tool is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use a computer as a tool to perform the processes. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements or sufficient structure to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to perform the obtaining, determining, and planning steps amounts to no more than performing the process directed to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea, nor does it provide a patent eligible inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as a result of the rejection of Independent Claim 1. Additionally, Claims 2-3, 5-9, 16, and 19 contribute additional mental processes or abstract ideas, such as evaluation of attributes, states, constraints, or disposition, and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of Claim 1 and cannot provide a patent eligible inventive concept.
Furthermore, Claims 3, 14-15, 18, and 20 also describe a mathematical calculation which can be performed by humans without a computer [See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014)]. Specific details for the claims are as follows:
Claim 3 – determining/calculating the weight or size of an item
Claim 14 – determining/calculating a timing solution
Claim 15 – determining/calculating a maximum aggregate throughput count
Claim 18 – determining/calculating a speed solution
Claim 20 – determining/calculating the stability of items or a set of items
Finally, Claims 4, 10-13, and 17-18 do contain language that attempts to integrate the inventive concept into a practical idea, however the language is used in the passive voice style and is insufficient in this regard as the mention of structure or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, alone or in conjunction with the use of language that is equivalent to “apply it”, or extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering towards an abstract idea, as is stated in the referenced claims [See MPEP 2106.05(b), (d), (f), and (g)]. Therefore, Claims 2-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner et al. (US 10730078 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wagner).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Wagner discloses:
A system, comprising:
a communication interface [See at least Col. 4, lines 18-20, "A central controller 44 communicates with the robotic system 20 and scanner 40 to provide input regarding the assignment of objects to a bin"]; and
one or more processors coupled to the communication interface and configured to [See at least Fig. 1, Ref Numeral 44, and Col. 4, lines 10-30]:
obtain item data via the communication interface, the item data including an indication of a set of items to be routed across a plurality of outbound stations [See at least Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 100-104, Col. 5, lines 12-30, “as well as knowing what items are currently upstream of the sortation process” and Col. 4, lines 10-30, "An additional scanner 46 may be employed to provide the sorting stations with advance information regarding objects 48 that are being provided on the input conveyor 16"];
obtain capability data for the plurality of outbound stations, the capability data indicating one or more capabilities or state for at least one outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 12-30, "The system may also employ a flexible destination stage, including a process for dynamically changing the correspondence of sorter outputs and system destinations using a switch based on heuristics from the sortation process"];
determine a plan to route a selected item to a destination outbound station selected from among the plurality of outbound station, the plan being determined based at least in part on the item data and the capability data for the destination outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 31-42, "Destinations may be assigned on the fly...an understanding of the current state of the system is used to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of space allocated for those objects that are expected to arrive. When combined with the knowledge of those objects that have already been sorted, the correspondence of sorter outputs to system destinations can typically be allocated deterministically", and Fig. 4]; and
cause the plan to be implemented to route the selected item to a particular handling path associated with the destination outbound station [See at least Fig. 4 and 5, as well as Col. 6, line 54 to Col. 7, line 19].
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, a “communication interface” is construed as including, but not limited to, any electronic device, circuit, bus, cable or system to facilitate data exchange, be it wired or wirelessly, between two separated electronic components.
Regarding Claim 2, Wagner discloses:
the item data comprises an item attribute associated with the selected item [See at least Col. 5, lines 15-30, "physical characteristics of the items sorted or apriori information" and lines 63-67, "dynamically allocating sorter outputs is to take into account the physical characteristics of the packages and the facility"].
Regarding Claim 3, Wagner discloses:
the item attribute includes one or more of: (a) a weight, (b) a size, (c) a destination, (d) an order with which the item is associated, (e) a packaging type, and (f) an item category [See at least Col. 2, lines 42-46, "object sortation system that sorts objects of a variety of sizes and weights", and Col. 3, lines 62-66, "The systems…provide for the identification of the entire object's shape and disposition", and Col. 4, lines 42-62, "The perception system…may also use more general machine vision algorithms to identify object class and shape, and to track objects as they are circulated", and Col. 5, lines 15-30, "physical characteristics of the items sorted, or apriori information, or known future deliveries, or location within a facility, including the physical location relative to other allocated sorter outputs (e.g., above, beside, on or nearby), or incoming shipments" and lines 63-67, "dynamically allocating sorter outputs is to take into account the physical characteristics of the packages and the facility"].
Regarding Claim 4, Wagner discloses:
a sensor system configured to collect sensor data in a workspace for a robotic structure configured to route the item [See at least Fig. 1, and Col. 4, lines 10-30 "The sorting station 12 may also include a scanner 40...The system may also include further sorting stations, e.g., 14, that may also include a scanner 42 that permits an object to be scanned while being held by an end effector of a robotic system 30" and lines 53-62 "The perception system may…track objects as they are circulated", as well as Col. 7, lines 46-67, "The system 300 also includes an articulated arm 302 with an end effector 304, an input area 306 in which objects are presented for sortation, an overhead camera 308 for identifying objects to be sorted"]; and
the item data is obtained based at least in part on the sensor data [See at least Col. 3, lines 49-55, "so that once an object is scanned, it is important to keep the information associated with the object", and Col. 4, lines 15-30 "A central controller 44 communicates with the robotic system 20 and scanner 40 to provide input"].
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, a “robotic structure” is construed as any electro-mechanical structure or mechanism with some degree of functional movement, designed to accomplish a task as defined by programming, with some degree of autonomy based on various inputs, controls, or constraints.
Regarding Claim 5, Wagner discloses:
the sensor data comprises information pertaining to a plurality of other items or objects in the workspace [See at least Col. 3, lines 49-55, Col. 4, lines 42-62, "The perception system may read labels when they are visible, but may also use more general machine vision algorithms to identify object class and shape, and to track objects as they are circulated", and Col. 5, lines 12-30].
Regarding Claim 6, Wagner discloses:
the sensor data comprises information pertaining to a state of the destination outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 12-30 "items already processed, or current contents of other dynamically allocated sorter outputs...information regarding correspondence between sorter outputs to system destinations may be provided to an automated system for sorting" and lines 49-62, "an understanding of the current state of the system is used to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of space allocated for those objects that are expected to arrive…the correspondence of sorter outputs to system destinations can typically be allocated deterministically…this knowledge also allows the system to specify which sorter outputs should be emptied such that they can quickly be reallocated to new system destinations."].
Regarding Claim 7, Wagner discloses:
the information pertaining to the state of the destination outbound station includes information pertaining to one or more items comprised in an outbound workspace of the outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 15-30, "known future deliveries", and Col. 6, lines 5-13, "displaying the sorter output-system destination correspondence information next to the destinations. This allows human workers interacting with the system to understand how and when to properly empty the destinations"].
Regarding Claim 8, Wagner discloses:
the information pertaining to the state of the outbound station includes a queue of items to be handled by the outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 49-62, "an understanding of the current state of the system is used…with the knowledge of those objects that have already been sorted…A knowledge of those objects already processed and the contents of current sorter outputs allows the system to optionally remap the sorter outputs once they have been emptied of their contents."].
Regarding Claim 9, Wagner discloses:
the item is routed based at least in part on the state of the destination outbound station [See at least Col. 4, lines 43-62, "the central controller may employ a wide variety of heuristics that may further shape the process of dynamically assigning objects to collection bins" and lines 64-67, as well as Col. 5, lines 12-30, "The system may dynamically map sorter outputs to system destinations based on long-term historical usage trends and statistics, or items already processed, or current contents of other dynamically allocated sorter outputs"].
Regarding Claim 11, Wagner discloses:
the item data comprises a manifest assigned to one or more of the plurality of outbound stations, and the item is routed to the destination outbound station based at least in part on the manifest assigned to the destination outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 12-30, "items already processed, or current contents of other dynamically allocated sorter outputs...or apriori information, or known future deliveries", and Col. 6, lines 5-13, "displaying the sorter output-system destination correspondence information next to the destinations"].
Regarding Claim 12, Wagner discloses:
the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify a plurality of items in the workspace for a robotic structure configured to route items along the particular handling path [See at least Col. 4, lines 10-30, "The sorting station 12 may also include a scanner 40 that permits an object to be scanned while being held by an end effector of a robotic system 20" and lines 31-37, "each sorting station 12, 14 may either select an object and then identify the selected object by a detection device on the articulated arm…and then grasp the identified object"];
determine a set of plans to route the plurality of items across a plurality of outbound stations [See at least Col. 4, lines 42-62, "the central controller may employ a wide variety of heuristics that may further shape the process of dynamically assigning objects to collection bins...The input conveyor may be also provided as a loop conveyor on which objects pass by multiple sorting stations, or the input conveyor may be provided as multiple conveyors on which objects pass by multiple sorting stations"]; and
cause the robotic structure to implement the set of plans to route the plurality of items [See at least Col. 4, lines 37-62, "the system then assigns a bin to the object if a new bin is available and the object is not yet assigned a bin at that sorting station...The sorters acquire objects from the buffer…They may move objects to any of several outputs, including the possibility of placing an object back on the buffer, either for later handling or for handling by a different sorter", and Fig. 3A-3C, as well as Col. 6, lines 29-35, "the load bed 52 is tipped (FIG. 3C), causing the object 80 to fall into the a desired destination location 24 among a plurality of other destination locations 22, 26, 32, 34, 36"].
Regarding Claim 13, Wagner discloses:
determining the set of plans to route the plurality of items includes for each item:
selecting the destination outbound station from the plurality of outbound stations [See at least Col. 5, lines 12-30, "The system may also employ a flexible destination stage…may dynamically map sorter outputs to system destinations"]; and
causing the robotic structure to route the particular item to the destination outbound station [See at least Col. 4, lines 37-62, and Fig. 3A-3C and Col. 6, lines 29-35, "the load bed 52 is tipped (FIG. 3C), causing the object 80 to fall into the a desired destination location 24 among a plurality of other destination locations 22, 26, 32, 34, 36”].
Regarding Claim 14, Wagner discloses:
causing the plan to be implemented to route the selected item to the destination outbound station includes determining a timing for routing and delivery of the selected item to the destination outbound station [See at least Fig. 4, and Col. 5, lines 12-30, “or average, minimum or maximum time-to-sort associated with each sorter output”, and Col. 6, line 54 to Col. 7, line 19, "the system would return the object to the input stream (step 114) to be again received at a later time (step 102)"].
Regarding Claim 15, Wagner discloses:
the plan is determined based at least in part on a determination of a routing that maximizes aggregate throughput of the set of items across the plurality of outbound stations [See at least Fig. 5-10, Col. 7, lines 20-45, Col. 8, lines 50-62, "Given achievable speeds for belt driven linear actuators, distances, and picking speed of the articulated arm, this length of 8 collection bins is a reasonable length that does not adversely limit system throughput", and Col. 8, line 63 to Col. 9, line 6, "frequent destinations are assigned to collection bins closer to the shuttle's home position, thereby reducing the average cycle time of the shuttle"].
Regarding Claim 16, Wagner discloses:
maximizing the aggregate throughput of the set of items is subject to a set of predefined constraints [See at least Col. 8, lines 50-62, "each system 200 is limited to 8 collection bins long, for 16 total collection bins per wing. The length of collection bins traveled by the linear carriage should be balanced with other throughput factors in the system", and Col. 8, line 63 to Col. 9, line 6, "mapping of objects to collection bins is dynamic and under the control of the system as discussed above with reference to the system of FIGS. 1-7"] .
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “predefined constraints” is construed as the physical characteristics of the items queued for, currently undergoing, or previously sorted by, the routing/sortation process and/or the prior, current, or anticipated capabilities and status of the outbound stations.
Regarding Claim 17, Wagner discloses:
the one or more processors are further configured to control a delivery order of a subset of the set of items to the destination outbound station, and cause the subset of items to be routed and delivered according to the delivery order [See at least Fig. 4, and Col. 6, line 49 to Col. 7, line 19, and Col. 7, lines 20-45, "objects are serially loaded into the carriage 50 at a first end 248, and the carriage 50 shuttles the objects to the assigned bins...A hand-held printer (or printer/scanner) 250 may be in wireless communication with the central controller 44, and may print out a label 252 specifically identifying the contents of the bin that is being emptied for further processing. In certain embodiments, for example, the bin may include a bag that is sealed and labeled by a label 252 when pulled from the drawer"].
Regarding Claim 18, Wagner discloses:
the one or more processors are further configured to control a delivery speed of the set of items of items in connection with causing the plan to be implemented to route the selected item to the particular handling path [See at least Col. 5, lines 43-48, “historical trends provide information on the speed at which objects can be sorted into outputs, and the rate at which outputs are transferred to system destinations”, and lines 49-62, "an understanding of the current state of the system is used to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of space allocated for those objects that are expected to arrive", Col 6., line 49 to Col. 7, line 19, and Col. 10, lines 58-64, “tuning shuttle sorter speeds and robot picking/scanning speeds”].
Regarding Claim 19, Wagner discloses:
at least a subset of the set of items are routed substantially in parallel [See at least Col. 5, lines 1-11 "The system is also easily scalable, by adding sorters", and Col. 6, lines 14-28, Col. 8, line 63 to Col. 9, line 20, "multiple systems 200 are used in parallel", and Col. 10, line 65 to Col. 11, line 7, "To scale a maximum number of bins and a maximum throughput beyond this, multiple of these stations can be parallelized and fed by manual or automated means"].
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Wagner discloses:
A method, comprising [See at least Title, Summary section, and Claims 20-25, “A method of sorting objects”]:
obtaining item data via the communication interface, the item data including an indication of one or more items to be routed across a plurality of outbound stations [See at least Col. 4, lines 10-30 "A central controller 44 communicates with the robotic system 20 and scanner 40 to provide input regarding the assignment of objects to a bin…An additional scanner 46 may be employed to provide the sorting stations with advance information regarding objects 48 that are being provided on the input conveyor 16" and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 44 and Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 100-104, as well as Col. 5, lines 12-30, "as well as knowing what items are currently upstream of the sortation process"];
obtaining capability data for the plurality of outbound stations, the capability data indicating one or more capabilities or state for at least one outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 12-30, "The system may also employ a flexible destination stage, including a process for dynamically changing the correspondence of sorter outputs and system destinations using a switch based on heuristics from the sortation process...items already processed, or current contents of other dynamically allocated sorter outputs...or physical characteristics of the items sorted, or apriori information"];
determining a plan to route a selected item to a destination outbound station selected from among the plurality of outbound station, the plan being determined based at least in part on the item data and the capability data for the destination outbound station [See at least Col. 5, lines 31-42, "Destinations may be assigned on the fly...an understanding of the current state of the system is used to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of space allocated for those objects that are expected to arrive. When combined with the knowledge of those objects that have already been sorted, the correspondence of sorter outputs to system destinations can typically be allocated deterministically" and Fig. 4]; and
causing the plan to be implemented to route the item to a particular handling path associated with the destination outbound station [See at least Fig. 4 and 5 as well as Col. 6, line 54 to Col. 7, line 19].
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 10730078 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wagner) in view of Robin et al. (US 11254506 B1, hereinafter referred to as Robin) and Stallman et al. (US 10929800 B1, hereinafter referred to as Stallman).
Regarding Claim 10, Wagner discloses a variety of flexible, monitored capabilities throughout the system, including at the destination outbound stations, such as robots, a buffer area, etc., but does not explicitly disclose items such as floor-loaders, palletizers, or weight limits. However, Robin and Stallman, directed to the same field of endeavor — inventory sorting, routing, and management — each mention additional capabilities that would be reasonable to incorporate into Wagner’s teachings:
the one or more capabilities includes one or more of: (i) a number of robots at a particular outbound station, (ii) a set of human operators handling items at the particular outbound station, (iii) a robot truck floor-loader, (iv) a palletizer, (v) a throughput, (vi) a buffer area to store a queue of items, (vii) a derating of a robot at the particular outbound station, (viii) a weight limit for handling items at the particular outbound station, and (ix) an availability of space in a freight carrier at the particular outbound station [See at least Wagner: Col. 4, lines 49-62, "The buffer holds the objects, possibly in a disorganized jumble, where they may be accessed by one of several sorters", Col. 6, lines 5-13, Col. 10, lines 21-64, "tuning shuttle sorter speeds and robot picking/scanning speeds, a wide range of overall system throughputs and collection bin counts are possible using the same basic architecture", and Col. 11, lines 8-11, and at least Robin: Col. 2, lines 10-30, "As the containers become full (e.g., a threshold weight, a threshold volume, a threshold number of items/packages, etc.), the containers may be readied for shipment to their associated destination", Col. 8, lines 24-41, "the containers 120 may be dropped off onto multiple shipping platforms (e.g., pallet, delivery truck, delivery trailer, etc.)", and Col. 16, lines 23-50, as well as at least Stallman: Col. 5, lines 1-15, "the inventory holder 208c at the outbound bay 218 can be retained until additional items have been transferred thereto, until a predetermined number of items have been transferred, or until the system determines that the inventory holder at the outbound bay has reached a capacity based on weight, based on the occupation of containers therein, or other comparable metric" and Col. 23, lines 7-28, "the modular sorting station can also work with alternative forms of inventory holders, such as bulk containers, pallets, or the like. In various embodiments, the modular sorting station 500 can include at least one grasper 532, or at least two graspers"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Robin and/or Stallman into Wagner to expand the available capabilities of the dynamic sortation system disclosed therein.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize those additional capabilities integrated into the sortation system as described to increase its efficiency and flexibility, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 10730078 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wagner) in view of Beinhoffer et al. (US 20210009351 A1, hereinafter referred to as Beinhoffer).
Regarding Claim 20, Wagner discloses a system that can assess item characteristics and derive a route plan based on those, but fails to explicitly mention determining stability of stacked items based at least in part on assessed characteristics as applied to that sorting order. However, Beinhoffer, directed to a related field of endeavor — robotic systems for package handling and sorting — teaches what Wagner lacks:
the plan to route the item is determined based at least in part on a stability of a stack of items at the destination outbound station [See at least Wagner: Col. 3, lines 38-45, "objects may be selected in a most advantageous order", Col. 4, lines 3-9, and Col. 5, lines 12-30, "physical characteristics of the items sorted", and lines 63-67, as well as at least Beinhoffer: Abstract and Summary sections, Para. 0006-0008, "goods are differentiated by one or a combination of the physical parameters: dimensional stability, compressive stability, flexural rigidity, strength, absolute weight and/or specific weight", as well as Para. 0014-0026 for additional detail].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Beinhoffer, a robotic order-picking system wherein goods are differentiated by physical parameters, including stability factors, into the package handling and sorting system of Wagner that already assesses similar item attributes.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Beinhoffer’s teachings into Wagner’s to expand the capabilities of the system with existing equipment, allowing greater sortation flexibility and efficiency with less oversight, with a reasonable expectation of success.
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “a stability” is construed as physical characteristics of individual items in a stack or the aggregated physical characteristics of a stack of items including, but not limited to, dimensional or compressive stability, rigidity, shear or tensile strength, elastic modulus, etc., evaluated in regards to further potentially incoming items.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 10730078 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wagner) in view of Beinhoffer et al. (US Pub 20210009351 A1, hereinafter referred to as Beinhoffer) and further in view of Robin et al. (US 11254506 B1, hereinafter referred to as Robin).
Regarding Independent Claim 22, Wagner describes the operation of a system and those relevant algorithms running on a central controller, but does not explicitly disclose a computer program product on a non-transitory computer readable medium. However, Beinhoffer describes a similar process with additional detail focused on the electronic control, and Robin further teaches using nonvolatile computer readable medium for such processes:
A computer program product, [See at least Wagner: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 44, Fig. 4, and Col. 6, line 54 to Col. 7, line 19, "shows a flowchart of the operation of a system in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention", and at least Beinhoffer: Para. 0029, 0057-0060, “program sections in the form of code segments are retrieved directly from the central controller and/or the central database, which are then loaded into the robot controller… depending on a property of a good or on a type of a good”, and Claims 2-3, 5, 30-31, 33, and 38-41] embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer instructions for [See at least Robin: Col 24, line 57 to Col. 25, line 13, “"The computer-readable media 136, the computer-readable media 702, and/or the computer-readable media 720 may include volatile and nonvolatile memory…such as computer-readable instructions”, and Claim 1]:
obtaining item data via the communication interface, the item data including an indication of one or more items to be routed across a plurality of outbound stations [See at least Wagner: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 44, Fig. 4, Ref. Numerals 100-104, and Col. 4, lines 10-30, "A central controller 44 communicates with the robotic system 20 and scanner 40 to provide input regarding the assignment of objects to a bin", and Col. 5, lines 1-11];
obtaining capability data for the plurality of outbound stations, the capability data indicating one or more capabilities or state for at least one outbound station [See at least Wagner: Col. 5, lines 31-42];
determining a plan to route a selected item to a destination outbound station selected from among the plurality of outbound station, the plan being determined based at least in part on the item data and the capability data for the destination outbound station [See at least Wagner: Col. 5, lines 12-30]; and
causing the plan to be implemented to route the item to a particular handling path associated with the destination outbound station [See at least Wagner: Fig. 4 and 5, and Col. 6, line 54 to Col. 7, line 19].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the control programs/instructions on a non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed by Beinhoffer and Robin, into the package handling and sortation system of Wagner to effectively impart control over the system and its parts therein to accomplish its functions.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate said teachings for the purpose of maximizing efficiency and control over the robotic system and its components and algorithms in the execution of its tasks, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner’s Note
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to F JERVIS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0730 - 1530.
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.
/F JERVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3655 4 Feb 26
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655