DETAILED ACTION
This is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1 – 9 are currently pending in the case and are discussed on the merits 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“goods information unit … configured to …” in claim 1;
No corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“warehouse information unit … configured to …” in claim 1;
No clearly corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“data transmission unit is configured to…” in claim 1;
No clearly corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“intelligent computing unit … generates …” in claim 1;
No clearly corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“storage unit is configured to …” in claim 1;
No corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“goods label unit … being provided and corresponding to” in claim 1;
No clearly corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“terminal unit … is configured to …” in claim 1;
The terminal unit is being interpreted as a computing device in light of pg. 6 lines 14 – 15 of the instant specification. “the terminal unit 15 can be a multimedia mobile device, such as a personal digital assistant (PDA), phone, or tablet.”
“acquiring unit is configured to …” in claim 1;
The acquiring unit is part of the terminal unit (see pg. 6 lines 4 – 5 of the instant specification). Therefore, the acquiring unit is being interpreted the same as the terminal unit.
“instruction unit is configured to …” in claim 1;
The instruction unit is part of the terminal unit (see pg. 6 lines 4 – 5 of the instant specification). Therefore, the instruction unit is being interpreted the same as the terminal unit
“comparison unit is configured to …” in claim 1;
The comparison unit is part of the terminal unit (see pg. 6 lines 4 – 5 of the instant specification). Therefore, the comparison unit is being interpreted the same as the terminal unit
“a release unit for releasing” in claim 8;
No clearly corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“storage bin label unit is configured to …” in claim 9.
No clearly corresponding structure can be found in the specification. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites the following claim language which, as discussed above, invokes 112(f) claim interpretations:
“goods information unit … configured to”;
“warehouse information unit … configured to …”;
“data transmission unit is configured to…”;
“intelligent computing unit … generates …”;
“storage unit is configured to …”;
“goods label unit … being provided and corresponding to”.
As discussed in the claim interpretation section above, the above claim limitations invoke 112(f) interpretation but the specification fails to provide a clearly corresponding structure. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose what structural element the above limitations refer to. Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art what the application was in possession of with regard to each of the above elements. Examiner additionally notes for the purpose of compact prosecution, that even in the absence of a 112(f) interpretation for the above elements, the specification is wholly silent as to what structural elements of the claimed system each of the above “units” would be as many of the “units” are only described functionally and the disclosure does not refer to or appear to tie the “units” to any structural element of a system.
With regard to claims 2 – 9, the claims depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiency of claim 1 described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 9 are rejected under the same logic as claim 1 above.
Additionally, with regard to Claim 8, the claim recites the following claim language which, as discussed above, invokes 112(f) claim interpretation: “a release unit for releasing”. As discussed in the claim interpretation section above, the above claim limitation invokes 112(f) interpretation but the specification fails to provide a clearly corresponding structure. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose what structural element the above limitation refers to. Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art what the application was in possession of with regard to “a release unit”. Examiner additionally notes for the purpose of compact prosecution, that even in the absence of a 112(f) interpretation for the above element, the specification is wholly silent as to what structural element of the claimed system the “release unit” would be as it is only described functionally and the disclosure does not refer to or appear to tie the release unit to any structural element of a system.
Additionally, with regard to claim 9, the claim recites the following claim language which, as discussed above, invokes 112(f) claim interpretation: “storage bin label unit is configured to”. As discussed in the claim interpretation section above, the above claim limitation invokes 112(f) interpretation but the specification fails to provide a clearly corresponding structure. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose what structural element the above limitation refers to. Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art what the application was in possession of with regard to “storage bin label unit”. Examiner additionally notes for the purpose of compact prosecution, that even in the absence of a 112(f) interpretation for the above element, the specification is wholly silent as to what structural element of the claimed system the “storage bin label unit” would be as it is only described functionally and the disclosure does not refer to or appear to tie the release unit to any structural element of a system.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 9 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.
With regard to claim 1, the following claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as discussed above:
“goods information unit … configured to”;
“warehouse information unit … configured to …”;
“data transmission unit is configured to…”;
“intelligent computing unit … generates …”;
“storage unit is configured to …”;
“goods label unit … being provided and corresponding to”.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosed structure to perform the function associated with each of the above “units”. Additinally, it is noted that even absent the associated function, there is not structure disclosed in the specification for any of the above “units” regardless of the associated function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
With regard to claims 2 – 9, the claims depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiency of claim 1 described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 9 are rejected under the same logic as claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 8, the following claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as discussed above: “a release unit for releasing”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosed structure to perform the function associated with the release unit. Additionally, it is noted that even absent the associated function, there is not structure disclosed in the specification for the release unit regardless of the associated function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
With regard to claim 9, the following claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as discussed above: “storage bin label unit is configured to”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosed structure to perform the function associated with the storage bin label unit. Additionally, it is noted that even absent the associated function, there is not structure disclosed in the specification for the storage bin label unit regardless of the associated function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites:
An intelligent warehouse storage bin allocation system, comprising: a goods information unit, a warehouse information unit, a data transmission unit, an intelligent computing unit, a storage unit, and a terminal unit in mutual connection, wherein:
the goods information unit is provided on goods and has goods content and is configured to generate goods information based on the goods content;
the warehouse information unit has storage bin content and is configured to generate storage bin information based on the storage bin content;
the data transmission unit is configured to receive and transmit the goods information and the storage bin information from the goods information unit and warehouse information unit to the intelligent computing unit;
the intelligent computing unit, upon receiving the goods information and the storage bin information, generates a goods label unit and a storage bin label unit through artificial intelligence computation, the goods label unit being provided on the goods and corresponding to content of the storage bin label unit;
the storage unit is configured to receive and store content of the goods label unit and the storage bin label unit from the intelligent computing unit; and
the terminal unit has an acquiring unit, a display unit, an instruction unit, and a comparison unit in mutual connection, wherein (i) the acquiring unit is configured to acquire and display the content of the goods information unit and the storage bin label unit on the display unit, (ii) the instruction unit is configured to input a confirmation command transmitted to the intelligent computing unit, (iii) the intelligent computing unit, upon receiving the confirmation command, displays the content of the goods label unit on the display unit, (iv) the comparison unit is configured to compare the content of the goods label unit with the content of the storage bin label unit and determine whether the content of the goods label unit and the content of the storage bin label unit match, and (v) when the comparison unit determines a perfect match between the content of the goods label unit and the content of the storage bin label unit, the terminal unit displays a shelving-approved command and a specified warehouse position for storage of the goods on the display unit.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system in including at least one element. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of generate goods information based on the goods content; generate storage bin information based on the storage bin content; generates a goods label unit and a storage bin label unit … computation, the goods label unit being provided on the goods and corresponding to content of the storage bin label unit; and compare the content of the goods label unit with the content of the storage bin label unit and determine whether the content of the goods label unit and the content of the storage bin label unit match, and (v) when the comparison unit determines a perfect match between the content of the goods label unit and the content of the storage bin label unit; These limitation, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human can observe goods and via and evaluation or judgement, determine information about the goods. Additionally, the human can for a judgement as to where the goods should be stored or where similar goods are stored. Finally, the can compare the goods information to the information about what is to be stored at a particular location and determine that the storage location is or is not the appropriate location to store the given goods.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Initially, the claim recites several “unites” such as a goods information unit, a warehouse information unit, a data transmission unit, an intelligent computing unit, and a storage unit. As discussed above in the claim interpretation section and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, it is unclear what these respective units are. Thus, these nebulous, undefined “units” fail to provide a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and thus do not result in a practical application. For the sake of compact prosecution, if examiner engages in conjecture unsupported by the instant specification that the “units” are a computer or processor, these elements would amount to no more than generic computer functionality such as receiving data, storing data, or just generally applying the abstract idea to a generic computer which is insufficient to provide a practical application. Finally, the “terminal unit” and its respective units are just a generic computer performing generic computer functions and amounts to no more than (see 112(f) section above). then using a generic computer. Thus, the “terminal unit” merely applies the given steps to a generic computer and is insufficient to result in a practical application.
Accordingly, taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Additionally, mere displaying of data has be a well understood, routing, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the displaying step above is well-understood, routine, convention activity is supported under Berkheimer.
With regards to claims 2 – 9, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0303848 Schoening.
With regard to claim 1, Schoening discloses:
An intelligent warehouse storage bin allocation system, comprising: a goods information unit, a warehouse information unit, a data transmission unit, an intelligent computing unit, a storage unit, and a terminal unit in mutual connection, wherein:
the goods information unit is provided on goods (see item 34 RFID tag provided on each product) and has goods content and is configured to generate goods information based on the goods content (see [0006], [0008], [0046]);
the warehouse information unit has storage bin content and is configured to generate storage bin information based on the storage bin content (see item 30 and 32 RFID tags on loading bays and shelves in the warehouse; [0044]);
the data transmission unit is configured to receive and transmit the goods information and the storage bin information from the goods information unit and warehouse information unit to the intelligent computing unit (see fig. 2 item 22; [0048]);
the intelligent computing unit, upon receiving the goods information and the storage bin information, generates a goods label unit and a storage bin label unit through artificial intelligence computation, the goods label unit being provided on the goods and corresponding to content of the storage bin label unit ([0006], [0044], [0045] discussing associating tags with particular location, tags with particular products and associated particular tagged products with particular tagged locations);
the storage unit is configured to receive and store content of the goods label unit and the storage bin label unit from the intelligent computing unit (see fig. 1 and 2); and
the terminal unit has an acquiring unit (see item 40), a display unit (see item 28), an instruction unit, and a comparison unit in mutual connection (see [0044] generally speaking, the user interface device 23 may be a standalone computing device, such as a laptop, a tablet device, a phone or other handheld device, etc., but this user interface device 23 could be incorporated into the forklift 18, if so desired. The user interface device 23 includes a remote tracking and communication application that executes on a processor and that will be used, as described herein, in more detail, to communicate with the asset tracking and management device 26, the RFID reader 20, and the wireless communication node or device 22 on the forklift 18 to perform various tasks), wherein (i) the acquiring unit is configured to acquire and display the content of the goods information unit and the storage bin label unit on the display unit (see fig. 5 and 6 showing product information and product location displayed on the user interface; see also fig 9 and 10), (ii) the instruction unit is configured to input a confirmation command transmitted to the intelligent computing unit , (iii) the intelligent computing unit, upon receiving the confirmation command, displays the content of the goods label unit on the display unit (see [0008] discussing the central tracking and communication application verifying the tag information and then displaying the information on the user interface device; see also [0009], [0048]), (iv) the comparison unit is configured to compare the content of the goods label unit with the content of the storage bin label unit and determine whether the content of the goods label unit and the content of the storage bin label unit match (see [0051], [0052], [0053] discussing comparing product RFID tag to stored tag, determining where it is located, determining where to move it and verify the location RFID matches the commanded location for the particular product), and (v) when the comparison unit determines a perfect match between the content of the goods label unit and the content of the storage bin label unit, the terminal unit displays a shelving-approved command and a specified warehouse position for storage of the goods on the display unit (see fig. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 showing the system instructing where a particular product is located and to be moved; see also [0051], [0052], [0053]).
With regard to claim 2, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the storage bin label unit is configured to divide warehouse positions for storage of the goods based on the storage bin information, and the goods label unit is provided on the goods and is linked to the storage bin label unit, thus having corresponding content with the storage bin label unit (see fig. 1; see [0051], [0052], [0053]).
With regard to claim 3, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the goods content has goods name, goods type, goods inbound date, goods outbound date, goods volume, and customer inventory history information (see fig 4 – 10 [0003], [0040], [0007]).
With regard to claim 4, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the storage bin content has inbound date, outbound date, storage bin location, storage bin quantity, and storage bin attribute (see fig 4 – 10 [0003], [0040], [0007]).
With regard to claim 5, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the goods label unit and the storage bin label unit are RFID electronic information., Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the goods label unit and the storage bin label unit are RFID electronic information ([0006]).
With regard to claim 6, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the acquiring unit is configured to acquire the content of the goods information unit and the content of the storage bin label unit by scanning or photographing (see fig. 2, [0042]).
With regard to claim 7, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the terminal unit is a personal digital assistant (PDA), phone, or tablet (see [00042]).
With regard to claim 8, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a release unit for releasing a shelving-denied command of the terminal unit and switching to a manual shelving mode (see fig. 17 and 18; [0066], [0067]).
With regard to claim 9, Schoening discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the storage bin label unit is configured to divide warehouse positions for the goods based on the storage bin information, and the goods label unit corresponds to the content of the storage bin label unit (see fig. 1; [0006], [0039], [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R MOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5:30.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/ADAM R MOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657