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 1-3, 6, 12-15, 18-22, 25, 32, and 34-36 are currently being examined. By Applicant’s amendment of April 22, 2026, claims 1-3, 6, 12-15, 18-22, 25, 32, and 34-36 are pending following:
Claims 1, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 32, 34, and 36 have been amended
Claims 4 and 5 have been cancelled
Claims 7-11, 16-17, 23-24, 26-31 and 33 were previously cancelled
Response to Amendments
Applicant has amended the claims to address the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the First Office Action of January 30, 2026. Applicant’s amendments adequately address and resolve the required issues; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the First Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 13 and 19 have necessitated new grounds of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
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 13-15, 18-21, 32, and 34-36 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 13 recites the limitations “wherein the order receptacle is” and “when the order receptacle is… the order receptacle handling device is…”; however, no features of an order receptacle or an order receptacle handling device have been introduced in claim 13 and there is no antecedent basis for these limitations, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 14, 15, 18, and 32 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 13.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitations “wherein the order receptacle is” and “when the order receptacle is… the order receptacle handling device is…”; however, no features of an order receptacle or an order receptacle handling device have been introduced in claim 19 and there is no antecedent basis for these limitations, making the scope unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 20, 21, and 34-36 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim, independent claim 19.
Examiner notes that addition of these features and their associated limitations in combination with the shared workstation of claim 13 would provide the independent claim with similar limitations directed to slightly different scope (shared workstation versus separate workstations) from that of independent claim 1. Examiner also notes that claim 19 also recites separate workstations, similar to claim 1, and further differentiation may be necessary to avoid repetition of scope between claims 1 and 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.
Claims 1-3, 12-15, 18-22, 32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109583800) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111861325).
Examiner notes translations and paragraph numbering of a reference can vary based their source; Examiner provided both the original references and English translations relied upon as attachments to the First Office action and it was these English translations from which the cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art claims has been cited. The original references and English translations relied upon by Examiner are also attached to this Office Action.
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Li et al. discloses:
A warehouse management system, comprising:
a control server, a first storage area, a second storage area, a first inventory receptacle handling device, a second inventory receptacle handling device and an order receptacle handling device, wherein a first inventory receptacle and a first workstation are arranged in the first storage area, a second inventory receptacle and a second workstation are arranged in the second storage area, and the first inventory receptacle handling device and the second inventory receptacle handling device are communicatively connected to the control server; [See at least Fig. 10, Ref. Numerals 1800 (shelf storage locations; first and second storage areas), 1030 (handling robots moving to/from storage areas, workstations and collection points – Par. 0157 & 0161; communicatively connected to control server/sorting management device), 1020 (sorting management device), 1070 (parcel racks) 1080 (collection points); Par. 0017, 0157-0166]
wherein the control server is configured to:
send a third handling instruction to the order receptacle handling device after determining that a selecting task corresponding to one sub-order of the two sub-orders is completed; [See at least Par. 0127, 0153, 0154]
wherein the first inventory receptacle handling device is configured to, when the first sub-order is dispatched to the first workstation in the first storage area, transport a specified first inventory receptacle from the first storage area to the first workstation in response to the first handling instruction; [See at least Par. 0069-0073, 0088-0091, 0129-0137; where each of a plurality handling robots are selected to move inventory shelves from respective storage areas to each of a plurality of selected workstations]
wherein the second inventory receptacle handling device is configured to, when the second sub-order is dispatched to the second workstation in the second storage area, transport a specified second inventory receptacle from the second storage area to the second workstation in response to the second handling instruction; [See at least Par. 0069-0073, 0088-0091, 0129-0137; where each of a plurality handling robots are selected to move inventory shelves from respective storage areas to each of a plurality of selected workstations] and
wherein the order receptacle handling device is configured to, in response to the third handling instruction, transport a first order receptacle containing a first product selected at the first workstation to the second workstation, or transport a second order receptacle containing a second product selected at the second workstation to the first workstation, or transport the first order receptacle containing the first product selected at the first workstation and the second order receptacle containing the second product selected at the second workstation to a specified confluence location to complete order consolidation. [See at least Par. 0011, 0017, 0076, 0114, 0161, 0164]
For examination purposes, the handling robots of Li et al., as disclosed in at least Par. 0157 and 0161 describe the goods handling equipment moving between storage locations and workstations as being the same or different handling robots as the parcel handling equipment moving between workstations and collection points, fulfilling the inventory receptacle handling devices and order receptacle handling device limitations.
While Li et al. discloses the warehouse management system, Li et al. does not explicitly disclose robots carrying totes on shelves or classifying products and splitting tasks. In regard to these limitations, Lu et al., directed to the same technology — warehouse management, storage, sorting and control — teaches:
wherein the control server is configured to: when it is determined that order products in an order task are to be selected from both the first inventory receptacle in the first storage area and the second inventory receptacle in the second storage area, split the order task into a first sub- order and a second sub-order according to the order task, dispatch the first sub-order to the first workstation located in the first storage area, and send a first handling instruction to the first inventory receptacle handling device, dispatch the second sub-order to the second workstation located in the second storage area, and send a second handling instruction to the second inventory receptacle handling device, and [See at least 0010-0020, 0118-0130]
wherein the order receptacle is a movable order shelf with an order tote placed thereon, or the order receptacle is an order tote only; [See at least Fig. 6, Ref. Numerals 141 (movable storage rack) with 201 (storage container) placed thereon; Par. 0078-0081] and
wherein when the order receptacle is a moveable order shelf with an order tote placed thereon, the order receptacle handling device is a shelf handling robot, and when the order receptacle is an order tote only, the order receptacle handling device is a tote handling robot. [See at least Par. 0078-0081]
Li et al. discloses receptacles and inventory receptacle handling devices and order receptacle handling devices with configurations where the robots transport transportable containers, explicitly recited as a parcel shelf (equivalent to the moveable shelf of instant) or cage basket (equivalent to the tote of instant) in at least Par. 0073. Li et al. discloses carrying shelves and totes has the capability to carry both items and totes on the shelves and does not teach away from doing so; for clarity of record, Lu et al. has been mapped to the limitation of carrying a shelf with an order tote placed thereon as it explicitly discloses carrying totes on the shelves.
Under BRI, “moveable shelf” has been construed as a shelf which is moveable/transportable, as opposed to a shelf which is static. Applicant argued (see Applicant Remarks, page 16) the limitation “moveable shelf” refers to individually moveable/adjustable compartment on the shelf. Per MPEP 2111.01, Examiner must use a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), giving the words of a claim their plain meaning and cannot import limitations into a claim which are not part of the claim. If Applicant wishes the limitation to be construed with the more limited scope of a shelf with internally adjustable compartments as presented in the arguments, Applicant must amend the claims to explicitly recite these limitations with the more limited scope.
Applicant has narrowed the scope of the amended claims to remove the option of a moveable order shelf only, and explicitly linked the type of robot (shelf handling or tote handling) with the remaining two order receptacle options: a shelf handling robot to transport a moveable order shelf with an order tote thereon or a tote handling robot to transport an order tote only.
As the claim uses disjunctive language (“or”) in the list, Examiner interpreted the original limitation of claim 4 “wherein the order receptacle is a moveable order shelf, order tote, or a moveable order shelf provided with an order tote” as “wherein the order receptacle is a moveable order shelf, or an order tote, or a moveable order shelf provided with an order tote” as it would defy logic for the order receptacle to be simultaneously a moveable order shelf and an order tote, especially in light of the explicit recitation of a third option which is a combination of the two. An amended version of these limitations have been added to the independent claims.
A narrowed scope version of this limitation has been added to the independent claims, but maintains the disjunctive language with the limitation of “wherein the order receptacle is a moveable order shelf with an order tote placed thereon, or the order receptacle is an order tote only.” Regarding limitations using disjunctive (“or”, also called alternative) claim language, a prior art reference must teach at least one of the features of the list, while for limitations using conjunctive (“and”) language, the prior art must teach all of the features of the list.
The limitations “when the order receptacle is a moveable order shelf with an order tote placed thereon, the order receptacle handling device is a shelf handling robot, and when the order receptacle is an order tote only, the order receptacle handling device is a tote handling robot” have been interpreted under BRI as narrative in nature, describing the robot rather than prescriptive with a concrete correlation of a change in structure. A singular order receptacle handling device (the) is referred to across the claims, which can be alternately considered a shelf handling robot or a tote handling robot, depending of the type of transportable container (shelf or tote) which the robot is carrying. There are no details in the claims or the specification describing any change in the robot itself (such as a different or plural robots) or a change in end effector which could provide a concrete structural correlation to distinguish between a shelf carrying robot and a tote carrying robot; therefore, the robots of both Li et al. and Lu et al. which are capable of carrying a shelf, a tote, and/or a combination of a shelf with a tote upon it, fulfill these limitations.
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 Li et al. to incorporate the teachings of Lu et al. and combine the details of the robots carrying shelves with totes and the classification of products and splitting of tasks with the warehouse sorting and management system of Li et al. The details of the robots carrying shelves with totes and classification of products and splitting of tasks of Lu et al. allows additional flexibility in storage of goods, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the details of the robots carrying shelves with totes and classification of products and splitting of tasks of Lu et al. with the warehouse sorting and management system of Li et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the warehouse sorting and management system of Li et al. and the features of the details of the robots carrying shelves and totes and classification of products and splitting of tasks of Lu 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 Lu et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (warehouse management, storage, sorting and control), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Amended independent claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109583800) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111861325); the original limitations were mapped in the First Office Action and the amended limitations are rejected on the same basis as those of claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2, 3, 12, 14, 18-22 and 34-36 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109583800) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111861325) from the First Office Action are maintained. Claims 15 and 32 (depending from amended independent claim 13) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109583800) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111861325), mutatis mutandis.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 6 and 25 being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109583800) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111861325) and further in view of Winkler et al. (US 2022/0332508) are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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