DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-50 are pending in the current application.
Specification
3. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
4. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 13, 25, 38, and 50 recite the term “store rules” which per the instant specification are “described herein” ([0064]). We have found no formal definition of store rules in the specification, but rather some abstract examples that do not serve as detailed definitions. Per [0146], such rules may define product groups and their mergeability, but are not limited to only those functions. Moreover, the actual content of the rules is undefined, even by example. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to replicate applicant’s invention due to lack of sufficient concrete detail regarding the nature of “store rules”.
Claims 14 and 39 further disclose “customer or default affinity rules” which per the instant specification are “described herein” ([0065]). We found no such description in the text. No formal definition of these rules is provided either in the instant specification or in the specification of provisional parent application 63/288,253 which is cited in [0070] as explaining them. The provisional specification discusses “store affinity characteristics”, e.g. in its paragraph [0050], which are exemplified by customer affinities but not limited to customer affinities. Customer affinities, however, are completely undefined in both the provisional and the instant specification. Affinity in plain English is “spontaneous or natural liking or sympathy” for something, and inasmuch as this liking is a) not disclosed to be quantified or structured, and b) is not a liking disclosed to be directed toward any particular thing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how such affinities could be incorporated into concrete rules regarding product group creation or merger for order fulfillment. Moreover, the “affinity characteristics” described in the provisional specification are not affinity rules.
For purposes of examination on the merits, our broadest reasonable interpretation of “store rules” is any rules that include some aspect of or relation to product groups or product group sets (the merger of product groups). For example, a rule stating that product groups can be defined by and merged according to their SKUs would fit the interpretation. Given that product groups may be defined according to SKU, a rule stating that two different SKUs may be considered equivalent would also exemplify a store rule.
We interpret “customer or default affinity rules” according to plain English, and as such any rule that relates to affinity for a customer or as a default may be a customer or default affinity rule.
Claim Interpretation
5. We take note that applicant’s term “orthogonal” means “unconnected” or “unrelated” per [0028] in the instant specification, and not “geometrically arranged at 90 degree angles”.
Claims 1, 14, 26, and 39 recite the term “heuristically resolve”. While applicant’s specification frequently uses the terms “heuristic solution” and “heuristically resolve”, these terms are never formally defined. We interpret “heuristic” by its usual meaning in computer science, i.e. a method that follows a rule that does not necessarily guarantee an optimal result.
Many claims recite the terms “product group” and “product group set”, sometimes further modified as an “orthogonal product group set”. Our understanding of these terms is partly according to explanations provided in the claims themselves, and partly according to their extensive use in the instant specification. We interpret a “product group” as a quantity of products with a defining characteristic that may, for example, be a SKU or interchangeable set of SKUs required by an individual customer order. A “product group set” is a collection of product groups with the same characteristic, e.g. the same SKU, which can be aggregated to fulfill multiple different orders. Combining this definition of product group set with the interpretation of “orthogonal”, above, an orthogonal collection of product group sets is (if the product group sets are defined by SKU) a collection of product group sets that do not share a SKU and thus do not overlap in content.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite, “…the output product units being one or more of mixed singulated product units, in mixed packed groups, and in mixed cases”. (Emphasis added). The “one or more of” phrase suggests a disjunction of possible types of output product units, but the “and” used to complete the list of options is a conjunction. For purposes of examination on the merits, in this office action we consider the final “and” to be an “or”. (As an aside, the “mixed packed groups” and “mixed cases” of this claim, defined in applicant’s paragraph [0059], by broadest reasonable interpretation may be the same things, as the mixed goods that form a “mixed packed group” may be packed into a case, which may then reasonably be considered a mixed case.)
Claims 1 and 26 moreover recite, “configured so as to form more than one transport channel” and “the at least one transport channel”. This appears to constitute a contradiction between the quantities “>1” and “>=1”. However, we deem that these claims avoid a rejection for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because after careful reading, “the at least one transport channel” appears to refer to one or more in particular of the claimed “more than one transport channels”. However, the combination of the terms “more than one” and “at least one” referring to the same term “transport channel” in this claim is confusing and should be rewritten for clarity.
Claims 12 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: their use of language is obscure and confusing. The limitation, “wherein the at least one transport channel is connected with a corresponding one or more of the at least one elevated storage level that are different than elevated storage levels of the storage array connected to and corresponding to each other transport channel,” is both ungrammatical and ambiguous in meaning. We interpret the claim as requiring that elevated storage levels be associated with distinct transport channels, which is in effect the same requirement as claims 11 and 36.
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.
7. Claims 13-25 and 38-50 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 dependent claims 13, 25, 38, and 50, these claims recite “store rules”. See objection to the specification above; insufficient explanation of the nature of these rules is provided and so these claims are indefinite as a result of the lack of definition of the terms.
Regarding independent claims 14 and 39, these claims recite “customer or default affinity rules”. See objection to the specification above; insufficient explanation of the nature of these rules is provided and so these claims are indefinite as a result of the lack of definition of the terms. Dependent claims 15-25 and 40-50 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 14 and 39.
8. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the " in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 14 introduces a transport channel and it also introduces an elevated storage and transport level, but it does not introduce an elevated storage and transport channel, which, being a limited species of transport channel, has no satisfactory basis. (In contrast, claim 16’s “the at least one storage and transport level” is acceptable because it maps to the previously claimed at least one elevated storage and transport level as species to genus and not genus to species.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 26, 28-31, and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad, et al., US 2021/0147146 (hereinafter Conrad) in view of Andersen, et al., US 2010/0274610 (hereinafter Andersen) and further in view of Agarwal, et al., US 10,274,953 (hereinafter Agarwal) and Guo, Rui, CN 112396369 (hereinafter Guo).
10. Regarding claim 1,
Conrad discloses:
A product order fulfillment system of mixed product units, (order fulfillment, [0030])
the product order fulfillment system comprising: a storage array (130: fig. 1, [0032]), with at least one elevated storage level (130L: fig. 1E, [0065]), wherein mixed product units are input and distributed in the storage array in cases (mixed pallets [0006], input cases [0031]), of product units of common kind per case (uniform pallet loads [0030]-[0031]);
an automated transport system, with at least one asynchronous transport system, for level transport (rails 1200S: fig. 1E; conveyors, figs. 1, 1A), and a lift (150A-B: fig. 1) for between level transport, communicably connected to the storage array (via buffer and transfer stations BS/TS: fig. 1) so as to automatically retrieve and output, from the storage array, product units distributed in the cases in the at least one elevated storage level of the storage array, the output product units being one or more of mixed singulated product units, in mixed packed groups, and in mixed cases (singulation and handled together cases/pickfaces [0092], mixed pallets [0030]-[0031]);
wherein the at least one asynchronous transport system, and the lift are configured so as to form more than one transport channel, at least one of which is separate and distinct from another transport channel, each transport channel being communicably connected with the at least one elevated storage level and the output, and the at least one transport channel effects orthogonal transport output, relative to each other transport channel, of the product units distributed in the storage array;Conrad discloses in figs. 1E and 1G multiple independent transport channels comprising multiple conveyors, storage racks and levels, and lifts. Conveyors and lifts with different sources and destinations such as those depicted are inherently orthogonal to one another according to applicant’s usage, being separate and independent. The different elevated storage and transport levels have their own rail systems, and are likewise separate and distinct from one another.
and a controller (control server 120: fig. 1, [0045], [0062]) communicably connected to the more than one transport channels,
the controller being configured to: register customer orders of product units (order fulfillment from retail stores, [0030]) and describe each order in one or more product groups of product units (sort cases for orders into groups [0031]), each product group having a unique predetermined product group characteristic (product SKU, [0031]) characterizing the product group and relates the product groups to each other;Conrad discloses in [0031] that cases used to fulfill orders are sorted into groups. An order comprising multiple such groups relates the groups to one another by virtue of their association with that particular order. Generally speaking, we consider any method that aggregates products across multiple customer orders to perform this method step, because the “unique predetermined product group characteristic” may be a simple data element such as a SKU or set of SKUs that enables units of product to be interchangeable across orders, and which motivates their aggregation for picking and transport together in order to fulfill multiple orders at the same time.
However, Conrad does not fully disclose these limitations:
heuristically resolve, based on the product group characteristic, the product groups of more than one order, to product group sets, each product group set being of a number of product groups, and orthogonal to each other product group set,Conrad does not disclose combining product groups derived from a plurality of customer orders into orthogonal product group sets across the multiple orders. However, Conrad does note in [0084] that product groups and case units associated with one order may also be associated with another and may be carried by a common bot. This disclosure at least implies product group sets.
and allocate each resolved product group set to the at least one transport channel for retrieval and output, via the at least one transport channel, of product units forming the product group set into order containers of mixed product units, While Conrad does teach the transport of resolved assembled order containers in [0031], it does not explicitly teach the claimed product group sets, and so this limitation likewise requires combination with a secondary reference.
wherein the product group set is allocated so as not to exceed a predetermined threshold of product units transported via the at least one transport channel.Conrad does not disclose a transport capacity threshold for product units.
and having a maximum number of mergeable product groups;Conrad does not disclose a maximum number of mergeable product groups.
Andersen, an invention in the field of order aggregation, teaches:
heuristically resolve, based on the product group characteristic, the product groups of more than one order, to product group sets, each product group set being of a number of product groups, and orthogonal to each other product group set,Andersen teaches the aggregation of customer orders according to predefined criteria in [0030]. We consider the “predefined criteria” to constitute the method of “heuristic resolution”, which is not further limited in the claim. Also in [0030], Andersen teaches the analysis of multiple aggregate orders and their combination into one or more fulfillment groups, which we consider to be the product group sets of the claim. In [0036], Andersen teaches its fulfillment groups to be collections of items to be fulfilled at around the same time. Thus multiple fulfillment groups involve items that should be fulfilled at different times. This feature, time, which is different across fulfillment groups, is an additional factor (apart from Conrad’s SKU) that determines the orthogonality of Andersen’s product group sets.
and allocate each resolved product group set to the at least one transport channel for retrieval and output, via the at least one transport channel, of product units forming the product group set into order containers of mixed product units,In this limitation we rely on Conrad for the physical transport of assembled order containers as disclosed in Conrad’s [0031] (see the selection of “suitable transport” in this paragraph as evidence of allocation to a transport channel), and on Andersen for the explicit teaching of product group sets in Andersen’s [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Conrad, to (i) heuristically resolve, based on the product group characteristic, the product groups of more than one order, to product group sets, each product group set being of a number of product groups, and orthogonal to each other product group set, and (ii) allocate each resolved product group set to the at least one transport channel for retrieval and output, via the at least one transport channel, of product units forming the product group set into order containers of mixed product units, as taught by Andersen. Firstly, the aggregation of multiple customer orders is obvious because this practice is commonplace in wholesale, retail, and warehousing in order to increase fulfillment efficiency. The claimed orthogonality is obvious because if orders are not orthogonal in applicant’s sense, fulfillment efficiency is diminished by redundant piece-part work. The use of a heuristic is obvious because some guiding principle such as aggregation of product groups by SKU or by required fulfillment time is commonplace in the art and because some such rule is commonly followed to organize the system of work in a fulfillment center. Finally the allocation of a product group set to a transport channel is obvious because the ordered goods have to be picked, transported, assembled together, and packed for shipment as universally understood stages of order fulfillment, and given multiple “orthogonal” transport channels as disclosed by Conrad, one has to be chosen for any given transfer operation.
Agarwal, an invention in the field of robotics automation, teaches:
wherein the product group set is allocated so as not to exceed a predetermined threshold of product units transported via the at least one transport channel.Agarwal teaches a maximum load threshold for transport devices in C4/L20-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Conrad and Andersen, wherein the product group set is allocated so as not to exceed a predetermined threshold of product units transported via the at least one transport channel, as taught by Agarwal, because all transport devices have maximum load capacities, and so an attempt during a transport task to transport more than the allowed capacity of items in the process of fulfilling an order would either require the task to fail or else force it to be reconfigured and rescheduled, in either case leading to increased cost and inefficiency of order fulfillment.
Guo, an invention in the field of combining containers, teaches:
and having a maximum number of mergeable product groups;Guo teaches in [0011] separating a plurality of containers to be merged into a plurality of container sets. Each container, containing as it does multiple items, corresponds to one of applicant’s product groups, while Guo’s container sets correspond to applicant’s product group sets. Guo teaches in [0011] that the number of types of goods to be merged is constrained to be less than a preset number, which corresponds to applicant’s maximum number of mergeable product groups given that applicant’s product group characteristic is a product type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Conrad, Andersen, and Agarwal, wherein [the product group set has] a maximum number of mergeable product groups, as taught by Guo, because the combinatoric complexity of a heuristic method that resolves product groups into product sets, as claimed by the applicant in a previous limitation, rises exponentially with the number of product groups that can potentially be merged, potentially resulting in processing delays or even in a computationally unsolvable problem. An upper threshold to the allowed number of mergeable groups limits computational complexity and caps the processing time associated with any individual order resolution method step.
11. Regarding claim 3,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the controller is configured so as to effect dynamic allocation of the product group sets to the at least one transport channel and balance allocated product group sets to the at least one transport channel with other allocated product group sets allocated to each other transport channel.This claim specifies “at least one transport channel”. Given only one transport channel, which is at least one, all goods would have to be transported on that one channel, and so the act of “balancing” the allocated product group sets would be no more than transporting them all on that same one channel per the limitations of claim 1. It would only be necessary for a reference to teach load balancing between multiple channels if strictly more than one channel were required.
12. Regarding claim 4,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the customer orders are of mixed product units, each unit of which being stored, in the storage array, in cases of product units of common kind per case.Conrad discloses in [0031] that the different cases sought by customer orders are sorted into groups; this implies that customer orders comprise mixed units or they wouldn’t require different cases and sorting. [0031] further discloses that uniform pallet loads, the “common kind per case” of the claim, must be broken down or dissociated so as to assemble their product units to fill customer orders. As an aside, we note that this a very common situation in order fulfillment. Customer orders are commonly permitted to comprise more than one kind of product unit, and goods are commonly stored in cases of a single kind per case.
13. Regarding claim 5,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein each customer order is of at least one of the mixed product unitsA customer order must necessarily and inherently comprise at least one product unit. A single product unit can only comprise a single SKU in itself and cannot reasonably be “mixed”. We must therefore interpret a single “mixed product unit” as being a generic, unmodified “product unit”. In other words, we hold that all customer orders conform to the requirements of this limitation, whether or not they comprise multiple SKUs or product unit types.
14. Regarding claim 6,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one transport channel is independent of each other of the more than one transport channel so that output of product units from the at least one transport channel is orthogonal to output from each other transport channel.Conrad discloses in figs. 1E and 1G multiple independent transport channels comprising multiple conveyors, storage racks and levels, and lifts. Conveyors and lifts with different sources and destinations such as those depicted are inherently orthogonal to one another according to applicant’s usage, being separate and independent. The different elevated storage and transport levels have their own rail systems, and are likewise separate and distinct from one another.
15. Regarding claim 8,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one asynchronous transport system comprises autonomous guided autonomous bots (rovers 110: fig. 1) asynchronously traversing the at least one elevated storage level.Conrad discloses in [0034] that its rover bots are autonomous and in [0037] that its rover bots access elevated shelf levels of its storage system. Since asynchronous transport is a default mode of transport for vehicles and mobile robots (if synchronous, the objects must be disclosed to be synchronous with something), it can be assumed Conrad’s autonomous bots traverse its levels asynchronously. Moreover, Conrad discloses in [0084] that its lifts may be asynchronous, and since the lifts are used to access the elevated levels of the storage system, this also means that the bots move asynchronously on the storage levels because their access to the levels may be asynchronous.
16. Regarding claim 9,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein each autonomous guided autonomous bot is configured to transport one case of product units of common kind.Conrad discloses in [0038] that bots effect case transfer. Conrad discloses in [0031] that cases may be homogeneous, i.e. containing units of a common kind.
17. Regarding claim 10,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein at least one of resolution and allocation of product group sets minimizes bot transport of cases of product units per customer order.Agarwal teaches in C12/L37-41 that allocation of a transport task to a bot may minimize transport cost for an item. In combination with Conrad, which discloses transporting cases of items, and with Andersen, which teaches product group sets for customer orders, the three references teach a method that minimizes transport costs for product group sets and their associated cases of product units per customer order.
18. Regarding claim 11,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one transport channel is connected with the at least one elevated storage level separate and distinct from each other transport channel.Conrad discloses in fig. 1G an arrangement of multiple transport channels with multiple independent elevated storage levels. As seen in fig. 1E, each elevated storage level has support members 1200 and rails 1200S along which bots 110 ride, and it is plain that multiple bots can ride on multiple levels without interfering with one another. We note as an aside that this claim only requires at least one transport channel and at least one elevated storage level, and in that case the channel and the level are unique and naturally fulfill the separateness and distinctness requirements of the claim.
19. Regarding claim 12,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one transport channel is connected with a corresponding one or more of the at least one elevated storage level that are different than elevated storage levels of the storage array connected to and corresponding to each other transport channel.Conrad discloses in fig. 1G an arrangement of multiple transport channels with multiple independent elevated storage levels. As seen in fig. 1E, each elevated storage level has support members 1200 and rails 1200S along which bots 110 ride, and it is plain that multiple bots can ride on multiple levels without interfering with one another, thus making their transport channels different from one another. We note as an aside that this claim only requires at least one transport channel and at least one elevated storage level, and in that case the channel and the level are unique and naturally fulfill the differentness requirement of the claim. As a further aside we note that differentness is effectively the same as separateness and distinctness and so this claim is very similar to claim 11.
20. Regarding claim 13,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the controller is programmed with store rules defining product groups and mergeability of product groups to each other.Conrad discloses in [0031] sorting of units into product groups, for example, according to case and SKU. Andersen teaches in [0030] and [0036] the merging of product groups into fulfillment groups according to delivery or fulfillment time. Conrad’s store rule for product group definition is thus related to SKU identity, and Andersen’s rule for mergeability is related to delivery or fulfillment time, but either or both rules could be applied together.
21. Regarding claim 26,
Conrad discloses:
A method for fulfilling product orders of mixed product units, (order fulfillment, [0030])
the method comprising: inputting and distributing mixed product units in a storage array (130: fig. 1, [0032]) of a product order fulfillment system, the storage array having at least one elevated storage level (130L: fig. 1E, [0065]) and the mixed product units are input and distributed in the storage array in cases (mixed pallets [0006], input cases [0031]), of product units of common kind per case(uniform pallet loads [0030]-[0031]);
automatically retrieving and outputting, with an automated transport system of the product order fulfillment system, from the storage array, product units distributed in the cases in the at least one elevated storage level of the storage array, the output product units being one or more of mixed singulated product units, in mixed packed groups, and in mixed cases (singulation and handled together cases/pickfaces [0092], mixed pallets [0030]-[0031]), where the automated transport system is communicably connected to the storage array and has at least one asynchronous transport system for level transport (rails 1200S: fig. 1E; conveyors, figs. 1, 1A), and a lift for between level transport (150A-B: fig. 1)
where: the at least one asynchronous transport system, and the lift are configured so as to form more than one transport channel, at least one of which is separate and distinct from another transport channel, each transport channel being communicably connected with the at least one elevated storage level and the output, and the at least one transport channel effects orthogonal transport output, relative to each other transport channel, of the product units distributed in the storage arrayConrad discloses in figs. 1E and 1G multiple independent transport channels comprising multiple conveyors, storage racks and levels, and lifts. Conveyors and lifts with different sources and destinations such as those depicted are inherently orthogonal to one another according to applicant’s sense of separateness and independence. The different elevated storage and transport levels have their own rail systems, and are likewise separate and distinct from one another.
and registering, with a controller (control server 120: fig. 1, [0045], [0062]) communicably connected to the more than one transport channels, customer orders of product units (order fulfillment from retail stores, [0030]) and describing each order in one or more product groups of product units (sort cases for orders into groups [0031]), each product group having a unique predetermined product group characteristic (product SKU, [0031]) characterizing the product group and relates the product groups to each other;Conrad discloses in [0031] that cases used to fulfill orders are sorted into groups. An order comprising multiple such groups relates the groups to one another by virtue of their association with that particular order. Generally speaking, we consider any method that aggregates products across multiple customer orders to perform this method step, because the “unique predetermined product group characteristic” may be a simple data element such as a SKU or set of SKUs that enables units of product to be interchangeable across orders, and which motivates their aggregation for picking and transport together in order to fulfill multiple orders at the same time.
However, Conrad does not fully disclose these limitations:
heuristically resolving, with the controller, based on the product group characteristic, the product groups of more than one order, to product group sets, each product group set being of a number of product groups, and orthogonal to each other product group set,Conrad does not disclose combining product groups derived from a plurality of customer orders into orthogonal product group sets across the multiple orders. However, Conrad does note in [0084] that product groups and case units associated with one order may also be associated with another and may be carried by a common bot. This disclosure at least implies product group sets.
and having a maximum number of mergeable product groups;Conrad does not disclose a maximum number of mergeable product groups.
and allocating, with the controller, each resolved product group set to the at least one transport channel for retrieval and output, via the at least one transport channel, of product units forming the product group set into order containers of mixed product units,While Conrad does teach the transport of resolved assembled order containers in [0031], it does not explicitly teach the claimed product group sets, and so this limitation likewise requires combination with a secondary reference.
wherein the product group set is allocated so as not to exceed a predetermined threshold of product units transported via the at least one transport channel.Conrad does not disclose a transport capacity threshold for product units.
Andersen, an invention in the field of order aggregation, teaches:
heuristically resolving, with the controller, based on the product group characteristic, the product groups of more than one order, to product group sets, each product group set being of a number of product groups, and orthogonal to each other product group set,Andersen teaches the aggregation of customer orders according to predefined criteria in [0030]. We consider the “predefined criteria” to constitute the method of “heuristic resolution”, which is not further limited in the claim. Also in [0030], Andersen teaches the analysis of multiple aggregate orders and their combination into one or more fulfillment groups, which we consider to be the product group sets of the claim. In [0036], Andersen teaches its fulfillment groups to be collections of items to be fulfilled at around the same time. Thus multiple fulfillment groups involve items that should be fulfilled at different times. This feature, time, which is different across fulfillment groups, is an additional factor (apart from Conrad’s SKU) that determines the orthogonality of Andersen’s product group sets.
and allocating, with the controller, each resolved product group set to the at least one transport channel for retrieval and output, via the at least one transport channel, of product units forming the product group set into order containers of mixed product units,In this limitation we rely on Conrad for the physical transport of assembled order containers as disclosed in Conrad’s [0031] (see the selection of “suitable transport” in this paragraph as evidence of allocation to a transport channel), and on Andersen for the explicit teaching of product group sets in Andersen’s [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Conrad, to (i) heuristically resolving, with the controller, based on the product group characteristic, the product groups of more than one order, to product group sets, each product group set being of a number of product groups, and orthogonal to each other product group set, and (ii) and allocating, with the controller, each resolved product group set to the at least one transport channel for retrieval and output, via the at least one transport channel, of product units forming the product group set into order containers of mixed product units, as taught by Andersen. Firstly, the aggregation of multiple customer orders is obvious because this practice is commonplace in wholesale, retail, and warehousing in order to increase fulfillment efficiency. The claimed orthogonality is obvious because if orders are not orthogonal in applicant’s sense, fulfillment efficiency is diminished by redundant piece-part work. The use of a heuristic is obvious because some guiding principle such as aggregation of product groups by SKU or by required fulfillment time is commonplace in the art and because some such rule is commonly followed to organize the system of work in a fulfillment center. Finally the allocation of a product group set to a transport channel is obvious because the ordered goods have to be picked, transported, assembled together, and packed for shipment as universally understood stages of order fulfillment, and given multiple “orthogonal” transport channels as disclosed by Conrad, one has to be chosen for any given transfer operation.
Agarwal, an invention in the field of robotics automation, teaches:
wherein the product group set is allocated so as not to exceed a predetermined threshold of product units transported via the at least one transport channel.Agarwal teaches a maximum load threshold for transport devices in C4/L20-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Conrad and Andersen, wherein the product group set is allocated so as not to exceed a predetermined threshold of product units transported via the at least one transport channel, as taught by Agarwal, because all transport devices have maximum load capacities, and so an attempt during a transport task to transport more than the allowed capacity of items in the process of fulfilling an order would either require the task to fail or else force it to be reconfigured and rescheduled, in either case leading to increased cost and inefficiency of order fulfillment.
Guo, an invention in the field of combining containers, teaches:
and having a maximum number of mergeable product groups;Guo teaches in [0011] separating a plurality of containers to be merged into a plurality of container sets. Each container, containing as it does multiple items, corresponds to one of applicant’s product groups, while Guo’s container sets correspond to applicant’s product group sets. Guo teaches in [0011] that the number of types of goods to be merged is constrained to be less than a preset number, which corresponds to applicant’s maximum number of mergeable product groups given that applicant’s product group characteristic is a product type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Conrad, Andersen, and Agarwal, wherein [the product group set has] a maximum number of mergeable product groups, as taught by Guo, because the combinatoric complexity of a heuristic method that resolves product groups into product sets, as claimed by the applicant in a previous limitation, rises exponentially with the number of product groups that can potentially be merged, potentially resulting in processing delays or even in a computationally unsolvable problem. An upper threshold to the allowed number of mergeable groups limits computational complexity and caps the processing time associated with any individual order resolution method step.
22. Regarding claim 28,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the controller effects dynamic allocation of the product group sets to the at least one transport channel and balances allocated product group sets to the at least one transport channel with other allocated product group sets allocated to each other transport channel. This claim specifies “at least one transport channel”. Given only one transport channel, which is at least one, all goods would have to be transported on that one channel, and so the act of “balancing” the allocated product group sets would be no more than transporting them all on that same one channel per the limitations of claim 1. It would only be necessary for a reference to teach load balancing between multiple channels if strictly more than one channel were required.
23. Regarding claim 29,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the customer orders are of mixed product units, each unit of which being stored, in the storage array, in cases of product units of common kind per case.Conrad discloses in [0031] that the different cases sought by customer orders are sorted into groups; this implies that customer orders comprise mixed units or they wouldn’t require different cases and sorting. [0031] further discloses that uniform pallet loads, the “common kind per case” of the claim, must be broken down or dissociated so as to assemble their product units to fill customer orders. As an aside, we note that this a very common situation in order fulfillment. Customer orders are commonly permitted to comprise more than one type of product unit, and goods are commonly stored in cases of a single kind per case.
24. Regarding claim 30,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein each customer order is of at least one of the mixed product units.A customer order must necessarily and inherently comprise at least one product unit. A single product unit can only comprise a single SKU in itself and cannot reasonably be “mixed”. We must therefore interpret a single “mixed product unit” as being a generic, unmodified “product unit”. In other words, we hold that all customer orders conform to the requirements of this limitation, whether or not they comprise multiple SKUs or product unit types.
25. Regarding claim 31,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the at least one transport channel is independent of each other of the more than one transport channel so that output of product units from the at least one transport channel is orthogonal to output from each other transport channel.Conrad discloses in figs. 1E and 1G multiple independent transport channels comprising multiple conveyors, storage racks and levels, and lifts. Conveyors and lifts with different sources and destinations such as those depicted are inherently orthogonal to one another according to applicant’s usage, being separate and independent. The different elevated storage and transport levels have their own rail systems, and are likewise separate and distinct from one another.
26. Regarding claim 33,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the at least one asynchronous transport system comprises autonomous guided autonomous bots (rovers 110: fig. 1) asynchronously traversing the at least one elevated storage level.Conrad discloses in [0034] that its rover bots are autonomous and in [0037] that its rover bots access elevated shelf levels of its storage system. Since asynchronous transport is a default mode of transport for vehicles and mobile robots (if synchronous, the objects must be disclosed to be synchronous with something), it can be assumed Conrad’s autonomous bots traverse its levels asynchronously. Moreover, Conrad discloses in [0084] that its lifts may be asynchronous, and since the lifts are used to access the elevated levels of the storage system, this also means that the bots move asynchronously on the storage levels because their access to the levels may be asynchronous.
27. Regarding claim 34,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 33 and also:
wherein each autonomous guided autonomous bot is configured to transport one case of product units of common kind.Conrad discloses in [0038] that bots effect case transfer. Conrad discloses in [0031] that cases may be homogeneous, i.e. containing units of a common kind.
28. Regarding claim 35,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 33 and also:
wherein at least one of resolution and allocation of product group sets minimizes bot transport of cases of product units per customer order.Agarwal teaches in C12/L37-41 that allocation of a transport task to a bot may minimize transport cost for an item. In combination with Conrad, which discloses transporting cases of items, and with Andersen, which teaches product group sets for customer orders, the three references teach a method that minimizing transport costs for product group sets and their associated cases of product units per customer order.
29. Regarding claim 36,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the at least one transport channel is connected with the at least one elevated storage level separate and distinct from each other transport channel.Conrad discloses in fig. 1G an arrangement of multiple transport channels with multiple independent elevated storage levels. As seen in fig. 1E, each elevated storage level has support members 1200 and rails 1200S along which bots 110 ride, and it is plain that multiple bots can ride on multiple levels without interfering with one another. We note as an aside that this claim only requires at least one transport channel and at least one elevated storage level, and in that case the channel and the level are unique and naturally fulfill the separateness and distinctness requirements of the claim.
30. Regarding claim 37,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the at least one transport channel is connected with a corresponding one or more of the at least one elevated storage level that are different than elevated storage levels of the storage array connected to and corresponding to each other transport channel.Conrad discloses in fig. 1G an arrangement of multiple transport channels with multiple independent elevated storage levels. As seen in fig. 1E, each elevated storage level has support members 1200 and rails 1200S along which bots 110 ride, and it is plain that multiple bots can ride on multiple levels without interfering with one another, thus making their transport channels different from one another. We note as an aside that this claim only requires at least one transport channel and at least one elevated storage level, and in that case the channel and the level are unique and naturally fulfill the differentness requirement of the claim. As a further aside we note that differentness is effectively the same as separateness and distinctness and so this claim is very similar to claim 36.
31. Regarding claim 38,
Conrad in view of Andersen, Agarwal, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the controller is programmed with store rules defining product groups and mergeability of product groups to each other.Conrad discloses in [0031] sorting of units into product groups, for example, according to case and SKU. Andersen teaches in [0030] and [0036] the merging of product groups into fulfillment groups according to delivery or fulfillment time. Conrad’s store rule for product group definition is thus related to SKU identity, and Andersen’s rule for mergeability is related to delivery or fulfillment time, but either or both rules could be applied together.
Allowable Subject Matter
32. Claims 2, 7, 27, and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
33. Claims 14 and 39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 15-25 and 40-50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
We note that independent claims 14 and 39 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness of terms not fully understood by the examiner. When these rejections are overcome on amendment, their clarification to eliminate indefiniteness may lead, after additional search, to subsequent prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
34. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding dependent claims 2 and 27, while the dynamic or heuristic resolution of multiple customer order elements into product groups and product group sets was taught by reference Andersen, and while transport capacity thresholds were taught by reference Agarwal, the resolution of multiple customer order elements into product groups and product group sets as constrained by transport capacity thresholds was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Presumably such product group sets would have to be