DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-13 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 28, 2023 and November 22, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
a processing sequence of a plurality of pieces of order data including second identification information of one or more kinds of products to be picked from at least part of the plurality of racks; and one or more of the plurality of racks for picking a product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers observations, such as identifying one or more kinds products to be picked from a plurality of racks.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers observations, evaluation judgment or opinion, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an information processing device and one or more hardware processors an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
The information processing device, would also fail to integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. If the information processing device is interpreted as a computer, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic
computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
using a generic computer component.
The one or more hardware processors are also recited at a high level of generality, i.e., processing information such that it amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, a
computer and hardware processor would not be sufficient to amount to significantly 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 and one or more hardware processors amounts to no more than
mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis is applied to claims 11, 12 and 13 which recites essentially the same abstract idea as in claim 1, with the adaptation of computer program product and a transfer device. However, a computer program product is also considered to be a generic computer component, storing data and amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 13 includes the additional elements of a transfer device configured. However, the transfer device is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions) such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Similarly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer program product and a transfer device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. Claim 9 describes that the races are movable to a workstation, further describes a generic function of a movable rack which is an extra-solution activity. Claims 2-8 and 10 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to calculating a higher priority, outputting a number of picking works, generate order data, calculate distances between indexes, determine a processing sequence, and outputting a processing sequence where are all mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kazama, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0313516.
As per Claim 1, Kazama et al. discloses an information processing device (Figure 3, Controller 2) comprising one or more hardware processors (Figure 3, CPU 301) configured to, based on a plurality of pieces of rack data including first identification information of one or more kinds of products housed in each of a plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0065] discusses the storage rack data 212 stored in the memory 302 is to register identification information of each storage rack 105, identification information of the article stored in the storage rack 105, and the quantity of the article stored in the storage rack 105),
determine:
a processing sequence of a plurality of pieces of order data including second identification information of one or more kinds of products to be picked from at least part of the plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 puts the orders including an article held in the same storage rack 105 into one group…pg.5, ¶[0082] discusses the smallest number of trips is achieved when the order lines of ID1 to ID3, ID9, and ID10 belong to the order group B1 and the order lines ofID4 to IDS belong to the order group B2…the order line of ID6 should not belong to the order group Bl but belong to the order group B2); and
one or more of the plurality of racks for picking a product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 creates order groups with reference to the rack IDs 405 and adds identification information of each order group as a group ID 406 to each order line belonging to the same group).
The cited portion of Kazama teaches a system and method that one of ordinary skill within the art would consider to be anticipated as well as obvious because the order group creation unit utilizes a group creation unit to arrange the items to be selected from identified storage racks into an arrangement that reduces the number of trips.
As per Claim 2, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to for each of the plurality of racks, calculate a higher priority as a number of pieces of first identification information that matches the second identification information included in the plurality of pieces of order data is greater (pg.4, ¶ [0074] discusses the order group creation unit 202 also adds the identification information of the same group to the order lines including the same delivery destination in the destination 404), and
for the order data including the second identification information that matches the first identification information included in a rack selected in sequence from a highest priority, determine the selected rack as the one or more of the plurality of racks for picking the product identified by the second identification information (pg.4, ¶ [0077] discusses the sorting rack 102 has four compartments, the order lines of ID1 to ID3, ID9, and ID10 in FIG. 4C belong to the group having a group ID Bl and are to be delivered to four delivery destinations of Cl, C2, C6, and C7. The order line ofID6 includes a rack ID S3, which is the same as the rack IDs of the order lines of ID2 and ID10; however, the order line of ID6 does not belong to the order group having the group ID Bl because the number of delivery destinations of the group having the group ID Bl exceeds four).
The cited portion of Kazama et al. teaches a system and method for grouping items having the same destination, located on different storage racks, where the priority is the delivery destination.
As per Claim 3, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to further output information indicating at least one selected from:
a number of picking works for each of the plurality of racks (Figure 4C depicts the quantity 403 of each article 401 to pick for each item for each identified rack ID 405).
As per Claim 4, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to generate, respectively for the plurality of pieces of order data, indexes each indicating one or more racks for picking the products among racks housing products of the first identification information that matches the second identification information, based on a priority calculated for each of the plurality of racks, and determine the processing sequence using the generated indexes (Figure 4C, depicts the order in which items are to be picked from an identified rack, based on destination being a priority).
As per Claim 5, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 4, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to calculate distances between the indexes generated respectively for the plurality of pieces of order data, and determine the processing sequence such that turns are closer as a calculated distance is smaller (pg.5, ¶ [0085] discusses instruction creation unit 205 retrieves the identification information of the storage rack 105 from the order line(s) assigned to the transport vehicle 106 and calculates the shortest route from the current location of the transport vehicle 106 to the storage rack 105 identified by the retrieved identification information).
As per Claim 7, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to implement a determination unit configured to determine the processing sequence (pg.5, ¶ [0083] discusses the order group transmission unit 203 sends an order group created by the order group creation unit 202 to the work instruction device installed in the workstation 104), and the one or more of the plurality of racks for picking the product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data (Figure 4C, depicts the order group arranged by destination and the identified one or more racks).
As per Claim 8, Kazama et al. discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to output the processing sequence (pg.5, ¶ [0083] discusses the order group transmission unit 203 sends an order group created by the order group creation unit 202 to the work instruction device installed in the workstation 104), and the one or more of the plurality of racks determined for each of the plurality of pieces of order data (Figure 4C, depicts the order group identifying the racks and ordered by destination as priority).
As per Claim 9, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of racks are movable to a work station where housing containers corresponding to each of at least part of the plurality of pieces of order data are disposed (pg.2, ¶ [0038] discusses A transport vehicle 106 transports a designated storage rack 105 to a workstation 104 in accordance with an instruction from a controller).
As per Claim 10, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to determine, based on the plurality of pieces of rack data, the processing sequence and the one or more of the plurality of racks for picking the product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data such that a ratio at which the products assigned to the plurality of pieces of order data are picked from a single rack is improved1 (pg.6, ¶ [0099] discusses the controller 2 in this embodiment creates an order group so that the orders for the same delivery destination will belong to the same order group and the number of delivery destinations of the orders belonging to the order group will be equal to or smaller than the number of compartments. This configuration enables all articles to be delivered in each order to be allocated within an order group and eliminates the work of combining the articles allocated to be delivered for one order; accordingly, higher working efficiency is achieved).
The cited portion of Kazama et al. teaches a system and method capable of determining selecting items from a single rack to improve the selection of items for a destination.
As per Claim 11, Kazama et al. discloses an information processing method executed by the information processing device (Figure 3, Controller 2),
the information processing method comprising, based on a plurality of pieces of rack data including first identification information of one or more kinds of products housed in each of a plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0065] discusses the storage rack data 212 stored in the memory 302 is to register identification information of each storage rack 105, identification information of the article stored in the storage rack 105, and the quantity of the article stored in the storage rack 105), determining:
a processing sequence of a plurality of pieces of order data including second identification information of one or more kinds of products to be picked from at least part of the plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 puts the orders including an article held in the same storage rack 105 into one group…pg.5, ¶[0082] discusses the smallest number of trips is achieved when the order lines of ID1 to ID3, ID9, and ID10 belong to the order group B1 and the order lines ofID4 to IDS belong to the order group B2…the order line of ID6 should not belong to the order group Bl but belong to the order group B2); and
one or more of the plurality of racks for picking a product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 creates order groups with reference to the rack IDs 405 and adds identification information of each order group as a group ID 406 to each order line belonging to the same group).
The cited portion of Kazama teaches a system and method that one of ordinary skill within the art would consider to be anticipated as well as obvious because the order group creation unit utilizes a group creation unit to arrange the items to be selected from identified storage racks into an arrangement that reduces the number of trips.
As per Claim 12, Kazama et al. discloses a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium including programmed instructions, the instructions causing a computer to execute, based on a plurality of pieces of rack data including first identification information of one or more kinds of products housed in each of a plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0065] discusses the storage rack data 212 stored in the memory 302 is to register identification information of each storage rack 105, identification information of the article stored in the storage rack 105, and the quantity of the article stored in the storage rack 105), determining:
a processing sequence of a plurality of pieces of order data including second identification information of one or more kinds of products to be picked from at least part of the plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 puts the orders including an article held in the same storage rack 105 into one group…pg.5, ¶[0082] discusses the smallest number of trips is achieved when the order lines of ID1 to ID3, ID9, and ID10 belong to the order group B1 and the order lines ofID4 to IDS belong to the order group B2…the order line of ID6 should not belong to the order group Bl but belong to the order group B2); and
one or more of the plurality of racks for picking a product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 creates order groups with reference to the rack IDs 405 and adds identification information of each order group as a group ID 406 to each order line belonging to the same group).
The cited portion of Kazama teaches a system and method that one of ordinary skill within the art would consider to be anticipated as well as obvious because the order group creation unit utilizes a group creation unit to arrange the items to be selected from identified storage racks into an arrangement that reduces the number of trips.
As per Claim 13, Kazama et al. discloses an information processing system comprising:
a transfer device (Figure 1, Transport Vehicle 106),
an information processing device (Figure 3, Controller 2), and a work station (Figure 1, Workstation 104), wherein the transfer device is configured to transfer a plurality of racks housing products to the work station (pg.2, ¶ [0038] discusses A transport vehicle 106 transports a designated storage rack 105 to a workstation 104 in accordance with an instruction from a controller), and
the information processing device includes one or more hardware processors configured to, based on a plurality of pieces of rack data including first identification information of one or more kinds of products housed in each of the racks (pg.4, ¶ [0065] discusses the storage rack data 212 stored in the memory 302 is to register identification information of each storage rack 105, identification information of the article stored in the storage rack 105, and the quantity of the article stored in the storage rack 105), determine:
a processing sequence of a plurality of pieces of order data including second identification information of one or more kinds of products to be picked from at least part of the plurality of racks (pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 puts the orders including an article held in the same storage rack 105 into one group…pg.5, ¶[0082] discusses the smallest number of trips is achieved when the order lines of ID1 to ID3, ID9, and ID10 belong to the order group B1 and the order lines ofID4 to IDS belong to the order group B2…the order line of ID6 should not belong to the order group Bl but belong to the order group B2); and
one or more of the plurality of racks for picking a product identified by the second identification information for each of the plurality of pieces of order data(pg.4, ¶ [0072] discusses the order group creation unit 202 creates order groups with reference to the rack IDs 405 and adds identification information of each order group as a group ID 406 to each order line belonging to the same group).
The cited portion of Kazama teaches a system and method that one of ordinary skill within the art would consider to be anticipated as well as obvious because the order group creation unit utilizes a group creation unit to arrange the items to be selected from identified storage racks into an arrangement that reduces the number of trips.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0313516 in view of “A Two-Stage Hybrid Heuristic Algorithm for Simultaneous Order and Rack Assignment Problems”, hereinafter Shi et al.
As per Claim 6, Kazama et al. discloses the device according to claim 5. However, Kazama et al. fails to disclose wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to determine the processing sequence by executing hierarchical clustering in which processing of merging the order data corresponding to indexes with a small distances into a cluster are repeated, and performing recursive expansion such that child clusters having a common parent cluster are adjacent to each other.
Shi et al., teaches (pg.7, paragraph 3 discusses In order to obtain higher similarity of orders and fewer used critical racks, we use the marginal-return-based heuristic strategy to add each order-MR to the picking station. The details are described as follows. 1) Record all feasible assignment combinations that assigning each order in the order-MR group to each picking station. The meaning of a feasible combination is that an order can only be assigned to one picking station, and after assignment, the number of each station’s orders cannot exceed Cup. 2) Select a feasible item from the above combinations to minimize the marginal return. The less marginal return an order assignment combination can bring, the higher priority it should be given in the choosing process. 3) Repeat steps 1) and 2), until all orders in the order-MR group are assigned to picking stations).
The cited portion of Shi et al., teaches a dynamic programming that is repeated until all orders are assigned thereby repeating the merging of order data into a common rack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have dynamic programming to merge order data to select items from a common rack as in the improvement discussed in Shi et al., in the system executing the method of Kazama et al. As in Shi et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a repetitive process to merge order data to a common rack to the inventory scheduling with the predicted result of calculating a common rack for picking items as needed in Li et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0039830 discusses a robot control system for minimizing a number of racks used for order picking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 The Examiner notes, the italicized portions of the above claim are used to denote intended use and are given little patentable weight. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Prosecution Insights