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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 10/20/2023 has been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 12-16 have been added. Claim 11 has been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final in view of Applicant’s remarks filed 01/28/2026.
Response to Remarks
101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner, and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of pending claim 11 in view of 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
102
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers et al (US 2022/0122031) in view of Cedarleaf-Pavy et al (US 2022/0324658).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a physical distribution system comprising a sorting apparatus comprising a pickup unit, further comprising: a creation unit configured to create a layout for storage of objects to be sorted in a storage container to be delivered to the sorting apparatus(see at least paragraph [0012] to Powers et al, wherein a layout determiner configured for determining layout configurations for packing the plurality of products into at least one container); an output unit configured to output the created layout (see at least paragraph [0012] to Powers et al, wherein a layout visualizer configured for generating a visual illustration of the layout configuration); a notification unit configured to transmit, when there is, in the storage container, an object that cannot be picked up by the pickup unit, a notice for requesting a person to take out that object from the storage container to a terminal apparatus used by that person (see at least paragraph [0012] to Powers et al, wherein packing instructor configured for providing a packing instruction comprising the visual illustration to the user via the user interface); and a pickup control unit configured to control the pickup unit so that it picks up an object that has been put in the storage container according to the layout (see at least paragraph [0036] to Powers et al), and move the object to a sorting destination in accordance with the object, wherein the creation unit creates the layout (see at least paragraph [0012] to Powers et al) in which, among objects to be delivered to the sorting apparatus, only objects that are registered in advance as those that cannot be picked up by the pickup unit are collectively stored in a predetermined storage area (see at least paragraph [0093] to Powers et al).
Powers et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein only objects that are registered in advance as those that cannot be picked up by the pickup unit are collectively stored in a predetermined storage area, however the examiner submits that Powers et al discloses determining, based on the first ranking list and the custom-container machine information, a plurality of layout configurations for packing the plurality of products into at least one container selected from the one or more containers, wherein the available one or more containers is based on the custom-container machine information and wherein determining each of the plurality of layout configurations comprises: picking a product on top of the first ranking list, retrieving, from a database, rules related to: existing products already assigned for packing, the product, the container, and the rate table, determining whether a container is found in the second ranking list to satisfy the rules, when the container is found in the second ranking list to satisfy the rules, assigning the product to a location within the container for packing. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system and method as disclosed by Powers et al takes into account the rules and criteria associated with each item and determines how and where to place the items. It is clear that the determination that an item may only be moved by a human worker would be criteria that could reasonably be taken into consideration, based on the disclosure of the applied prior art reference Powers et al, and as such, would be an obvious variant of the disclosure of Powers et al.
The examiner further submits that the secondary reference Cedarleaf-Pavy et al discloses a robotically controlled system and method to regulate item flow, wherein 3D cameras, force sensors, and other sensors and/or sensor arrays are used to detect and determine attributes of items to be picked and/or placed. Items the type of which is determined (e.g., with sufficient confidence, as indicated by a programmatically determined confidence score, for example) may be grasped and placed using strategies derived from an item type-specific model. Items that cannot be identified are picked and placed using strategies not specific to a given item type. For example, a model that uses size, shape, and weight information may be used. The sensors and/or sensor arrays may be disposed in or around a workspace of a robotic arm (see at least paragraph [0044] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al) and wherein if after attempting to operate in a fully automated mode control computer 212 determines it has no (further) strategies available to grasp one or more items, in various embodiments, control computer 212 sends an alert to obtain assistance from a human operator via teleoperation, e.g., by human operator 220 (see at least paragraph [0129] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for packing optimization and visualization, as disclosed by Powers et al and the robotically controlled system and method to regulate item flow as taught by Cedarleaf-Pavy et al, in order to provide a system and method to remediate issues associated with robot failure within a warehouse environment to further streamline pick and packing operations (see at least paragraph [0041] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al), could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Examiner’s Note:
All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2106 II C. The following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scopeof the claimed invention. See MPEP 2106 II C. Language in a method claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. If the prior art reference is structurally capable of performing the intended use of the claimed invention, it meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as "when, if, may, might, can, or could”, contain optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as "wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.USPTO personnel should begin claim analysis by identifying and evaluating each claim limitation. For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed. For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials. Product claims are claims that are directed to machines, manufactures or compositions of matter. See MPEP § 2106 II C.The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional, but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The examiner submits that claim 1 recites “when there is, in the storage container, an object that cannot be picked up by the pick up unit, a notice for requesting a person to take out that object from the storage container to a terminal apparatus used by the person,” is found to be conditional language. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit transmits, to the terminal apparatus, the notice for requesting the person to take out the object from the storage container along with information indicating a feature for identifying the object (see at least paragraph [0012], to Powers et al, wherein a packing instructor configured for providing a packing instruction comprising the visual illustration to the user via the user interface).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the feature is a name of the object (see at least Figure 5, to Powers et al, item reference).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the feature is an external feature of the object (see at least paragraph [0013] to Powers et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the feature is a weight of the object (see at least paragraph [0044] to Powers et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 1, further comprising a pickup determination unit configured to determine whether or not an object contained in the storage container can be picked up by the pickup unit (see at least paragraph [0012] to Powers et al, wherein a layout determiner configured for determining layout configurations for packing the plurality of products into at least one container).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 6, wherein when it is detected that an area where an object to be sorted is stored is the predetermined storage area, the pickup determination unit determines that the object cannot be picked up (see at least paragraph [0010] to Powers et al, wherein products are moved to a leftover array as not being able to be packed).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the pickup control unit controls the pickup unit so that it picks up and sorts only objects stored in an area other than the predetermined storage area (see at least paragraph [0106] to Powers et al), wherein the automated retrieval device retrieves items from the bin).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 1, further comprising a take-out determination unit configured to determine whether or not the object to be sorted that cannot be picked up has been taken out from the storage container, wherein when it is determined that the object to be sorted that cannot be picked up has not been taken out from the storage container, the notification unit transmits a notice again (see at least paragraph [0069] to Powers et al, wherein the sorted information is placed in a leftover queue).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 1, wherein when the layout for storage of objects including an object that cannot be picked up by the pickup unit is created, the notification unit transmits the notice to the terminal apparatus (see at least paragraph [0093] to Powers et al, wherein The packing instruction may then generate picking orders for workers).
Claim 11 contains recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the pickup unit comprises a robot see at least paragraph [0099] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al, wherein the robotic system may coordinate operation of the plurality of robots to enable the plurality of robots to operate independently to pick and place items).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses the physical distribution system according to claim 12, wherein the robot comprises an end effector for grasping the object or adsorbing the object (see at least paragraph [0096] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al, wherein The robotic arm 202 and end effector 204 are configured to be used to retrieve parcels or other items that arrive via chute or bin 206 and place each item in a corresponding location on segmented conveyor 208).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the processing method according to claim 11, wherein the pickup unit comprises a robot (see at least paragraph [0076] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al, wherein The robotic system coordinates operation of multiple robots to ensure all items are placed in corresponding receptacles).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the processing method according to claim 14, wherein the robot comprises an end effector for grasping the object or adsorbing the object (see at least paragraph [0069] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al, wherein there is an end effector or wrist component of the robotic arm).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses the processing method according to claim 14, wherein controlling the pickup unit comprises controlling movement of the robot (see at least paragraph [0061] to Cedarleaf-Pavy et al, wherein robotic arm 110, and/or carriage 120 are operated in a coordinated manner under the control of control computer 124).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627