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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 11/20/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 07/22/2024 and 05/19/2026.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,908,696 to Zevenbergen (hereinafter Zeven), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2003/0083964 to Horwitz et al., (hereinafter Howitz)
Regarding claim 1, Zeven teaches a computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a real time fill request associated with a robotic distribution device and comprising a target object identifier (Receiving a request to fill an order for an item that is the target of the request, and is associated with an automation robotic based distribution, see Fig. 5 #506, C4 L44-48, C3L33-40, C17L6-14 Zeven);
accessing, by the one or more processors, a conveyor dataset corresponding to a conveyance assembly and comprising a pallet data object comprising one or more intake identifiers and a conveyor location identifier (Conveyer based data associated with a conveyer is accessed to determine if an identified object to be taken is located within a maintained pallet and located at an identified conveyer location, thus there is conveyer dataset that corresponds to conveyance assembly and comprises pallet data with item (intake) identifiers and its conveyor location, such as recirculation loop, see Fig. 5 #508, C4L 52-55, C4 L44-60, C7L40-50, C17L34-60, Zeven);
selecting, by the one or more processors, the pallet data object from a plurality of other pallet data objects of the conveyor dataset based on the target object identifier, the one or more intake identifiers, and the conveyor location identifier (Pallet object data, such as data associated with a maintained pallet, is selected for determining availability of an identified object in relation to a conveyer based location data such as data indicative of a recirculation loop, see Fig. 5 #502 to 506, C4L52-60; C4L44-60, C17L34-45, Zeven);
and
initiating, by the one or more processors, the performance of a fill operation for the robotic distribution device based on a conveyor pallet of the conveyance assembly that corresponds to the pallet data object (Based on determining that a pallet corresponds to a data of a needed identified pallet object, performance of filling a request for an item is initiated by diverting an item toward delivery, see Fig. 5 #510; #502 to 506, C3 L40-43, C4 L57-61, C17L45-55, Zeven).
Although Zeven has the implication of teaching data associated with objects that must be identified in tracking and distribution,
Horowitz, from the same or similar field of item tracking in distribution of items, more explicitly teaches item, palette, and conveyer data obtained and stored (Item, pallet, and conveyer related data is determined and stored, such as through item identifiers, associated item and pallet identifiers, and location data that can be in relation to conveyers, see p43-45, p64, p56, p50, p57, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, p65, p53, Horwitz).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by Zeven and incorporating data associated with items, pallets, conveyer data, as taught by Horwitz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better maintain access needed data information that identified items and objects of interests so as to be able to track, monitor, and locate said objects of interest as they move through a distribution or handling system (see p3-6, p43-45, p64, p56, p50, p57, p65, p53, Horwitz).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Zeven further teaches wherein a conveyor location identifier identifies a relative location of a conveyor pallet relative to a conveyance assembly (A pallet containing an desired item is identified as being located or not relative to a conveyer assembly, such as relative to being on a recirculation conveyer assembly, see C4 L50-53, Fig. 5, C4L 52-55, C4 L44-60, C7L40-50, C17L34-60, Zeven).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Zeven further teaches wherein a real time fill request is based on a current object availability or a predicted object availability at a robotic distribution device (An object item requested that is fulfilled at a distribution location can be based on available items and items that are selected based on future demand, thus predicted availability for selection, see C4 L17-25, C3 L54 to C4L2, Zeven).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Horwitz further teaches wherein a pallet data object comprises one or more transition identifiers respectively corresponding to one or more transitioning containers physically disposed on a conveyor pallet (Individual items of a pallet cluster correspond to items that are transitioned to a new cluster, see Fig. 8, p45, p69, Horwitz) and selecting a pallet data object comprises: identifying a target intake identifier based on the target object identifier (Items to be taken into a new cluster are compiled based on read item identifiers, see p69, Fig. 8, p45, Horwitz); identifying one or more target transition identifiers based on a target intake identifier (A compiled list of identified items to be in taken for transition to a new pallet cluster, see p69, Fig. 8, p45, Horwitz); and selecting the pallet data object based on a comparison between the one or more transition identifiers and the one or more target transition identifiers (Pallet cluster data is formed with compiled transition items identified as compared to linked target items forming the cluster pallet, see p69, Fig. 8, p45, Horwitz).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating transition data considerations, as taught by Horwitz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better keep track of identified items as they may receive further processing including transitioning to new cluster formations (see p69, Fig. 8, p3-6, p43-45, p64, p56, p50, p57, p65, p53, Horwitz).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Horowitz further teaches wherein one or more transition identifiers of a pallet data object comprise at least one of one or more target transition identifiers (Individual items of a pallet cluster correspond to items that are transitioned to a new cluster, see Fig. 8, p45, p69, Horwitz) and selecting a pallet data object comprises: identifying one or more pallet data objects from a conveyor dataset that are each associated with a target transitioning identifier of the one or more target transition identifiers (Items to be transitioned into a new cluster are compiled to a new target list associated the transitioning and based on read item identifiers conveyed through an area, thus comprising conveyer data, see p69, Fig. 8, p45, Horwitz); and selecting the pallet data object from the one or more pallet data objects based on the conveyor location identifier (Pallet cluster data is formed with compiled transition items identified as compared to linked target items forming the cluster pallet, see p69, Fig. 8, p45, Horwitz).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating transition data considerations, as taught by Horwitz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better keep track of identified items as they may receive further processing including transitioning to new cluster formations (see p69, Fig. 8, p3-6, p43-45, p64, p56, p50, p57, p65, p53, Horwitz).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Zeven further teaches wherein initiating the fill operation comprises: initiating a movement of a conveyor pallet based on a distance between the conveyor pallet and a robotic distribution device (Once a requested item is determined to be at a location, such as a recirculation location, an initial movement of pallet is made via conveyer for a distance to other staging delivery area that can gave robotic devices, see C1 L15-36, C3 L33-43, Abs., Zeven).
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeven, in view of Horwitz, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2020/0122200 to Gil, (hereinafter Gil)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Zeven does not explicitly teach wherein a conveyor location identifier corresponds to a previously scanned location within a conveyance assembly.
However, Gil, from the same or similar field of conveyance systems and item handling, teaches wherein a conveyor location identifier corresponds to a previously scanned location within a conveyance assembly (Location identification is based on scanning locations at conveyance locations, see p35, p8, Gil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating scanning, as taught by Gil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better capture desired information such as data relating to items located within a conveyance (see p35, p8, Gil).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zeven, Horwitz, and Gil teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gil further teaches further comprising: receiving, via one or more scanning operations performed at a previously scanned location, scanned indicia data associated with a conveyor pallet (Scanning produces data that is associated with an asset in a conveyer, such as a pallet, see p35, Gil); and in response to a scanned indicia data, assigning a conveyor location identifier to a pallet data object (Scanned location data is associated with an asset in a conveyer, such as a pallet, see p35, Gil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating scanned data and location assignment to an object, as taught by Gil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better capture desired information such as data relating to items located within a conveyance by associating the identified item with a specified location so as to track the item object (see p35, p8, Gil).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zeven, Horwitz, and Gil teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gil further teaches wherein a scanned indicia data is scanned from a pallet identifier representation disposed on a conveyor pallet (Scanning of an asset information can be performed via a representative identifier such as code, and where an asset can be a pallet, see p35-36, Gil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating an identifier representation for scanning, as taught by Gil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently capture desired information such as data object data by a computerized readable code (see p36, p35, p8, Gil).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Zeven further teaches wherein each of one or more pallet data objects comprises a respective conveyor location identifier (A pallet is identified as being at a conveyer location, see Fig. 5, C4L 52-55, C4 L44-60, C7L40-50, C17L34-60, Zeven)
Zeven does not explicitly teach providing, via a user interface, one or more pallet location representations respectively corresponding to a respective conveyor location identifier for each of one or more pallet data objects.
However, Gil, from the same or similar field of conveyance systems and item handling, teaches providing, via a user interface, one or more pallet location representations respectively corresponding to a respective conveyor location identifier for each of one or more pallet data objects (User can receive visual notifications of assets corresponding to conveyer belt objects, see p65, p113-114, Figs. 15, p132-134, 35-37, Gil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating representation notifications, as taught by Gil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to conveniently inform a user of a needed information through visual means related to an asset of interest within an environment (see Fig. 15C, p132, Gil).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Zeven does not explicitly teach wherein initiating a fill operation comprises providing, via a user interface, a manual retrieval notification comprising a pallet location representation corresponding to a conveyor location identifier.
However, Gil, from the same or similar field of conveyance systems and item handling, teaches wherein initiating a fill operation comprises providing, via a user interface, a manual retrieval notification comprising a pallet location representation corresponding to a conveyor location identifier (A notification system can include a notification for conveying to a user to pick and sort (i.e. retrieve) an asset at a specified location, see p132, Gil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating retrieval notification, as taught by Gil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to conveniently instruct a user of a needed task to be performed, such as by picking an identified asset desired for the instruction (see p132, Gil).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zeven and Horwitz teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gil further teaches wherein a manual retrieval notification comprises a container location representation corresponding to a container location identifier for a transitioning container positioned on the conveyor pallet and the container location representation identifies a relative location of the container location identifier relative to the conveyor pallet (User can receive visual notifications of asset container located relative to a conveyer belt transitioning through the conveyer belt, where the asset can be a pallet, and the notification can encompass a pick instruction at sort location identification, see Fig. 15C, p132-133, 35-37, Gil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request fulfillment system as described by the combination that includes Zeven and incorporating representation notifications, as taught by Gil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to conveniently instruct a user of a needed action through visual means related to an asset of interest within an environment (see Fig. 15C, p132, Gil).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zevenbergen, US. Patent Publication No.2018/0065805 teaches a pallet-conveyer system that includes sensors to identify items and/or pallets.
Bruns et al., US. Patent No. 7,770,792 teaches transportation of stock between storage facilities and includes identifying the location of the stock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights