DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are pending in this application. Claims 12-15 were canceled and claims 16-24 are new, following a preliminary amendment.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
5. Claims 1, 4, 8-11, 16, 18, and 21-24 recite the term “click volume”. This term appears throughout applicant’s specification. While this term is conventionally used in internet marketing to measure advertisement effectiveness and normally has nothing to do with warehousing or storage systems, applicant has acted as their own lexicographer in [0007] and in the independent claims, and is using the term to refer to the frequency with which a storage container is retrieved. This paragraph acknowledges applicant’s unusual usage and redefinition of the term.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7-8, 16, 18, 20-21, and 24 recite the obscure word “streetlet”, a term virtually never seen in modern English and which appears in no other US patent publication in the PE2E database. According to [0003], it is plain applicant uses this term instead of the more conventional “warehouse aisle”. We again acknowledge applicant’s unusual usage and redefinition of the term.
Claims 7 and 20 recite the term “loading rate”. This term is not formally defined in the specification. We interpret the loading rate of a rack to be similar to the “click volume” of a container, namely the frequency with which the rack is accessed for storage. Since no method is disclosed or claimed for determining or measuring this value, any means of determining a “loading rate” and comparing it to a “target loading rate” would be acceptable in complying with the claim limitations.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 16-20, and 24 recite the term “matching degree”, which in and of itself might be considered an indefinite “term of degree” in the absence of more detail. We note that applicant discloses an exemplary procedure for determining a matching degree in its [0095]-[0097] which rescues the term from indefiniteness. However, because the disclosed procedure is not cited in the claim (and is merely exemplary in any case) we do not restrict the determination of the matching degree to the application of this formula; rather, we acknowledge the antecedent basis provided by the specification as exemplified by the formula. Other means of determining a matching degree might also satisfy the limitations of the claims. Similarly, applicant recites in claim 1 and elsewhere that a storage rack is determined “according to the matching degree”. The term “according to” would likewise be considered indefinite in the claims except that applicant’s specification also provides an example of how “according to” may possibly be concretely interpreted, for example in [0100]. Again, we do not restrict the interpretation of “according to” to applicant’s method but instead admit any method that relates a determination of the already-broad term “matching degree” to the determination of a storage location.
Examiner’s Note
6. The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims introduce a “matching weight” which could mistakenly be interpreted by a casual reader as having to do with the mass of the to-be-stored container as compared to the mass of other containers on the “available rack”; mass of a stored object is a common consideration for storage methods. However, from context, it appears this matching weight is actually related to the “weighted total cost” of storing the container subsequently introduced in the claim. The claim should be rephrased to make the meaning of “matching weight” entirely clear from the outset. This could perhaps be done by first introducing the weighted total cost limitation and then relating the claimed matching weight of the to-be-stored container as an aspect of weighted total cost, but there are undoubtedly many other ways of clarifying the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-11 and 16-24 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.
Independent claims 1, 16, and 24 recite “determining ranking of a first click volume of a to-be-stored container in a first click volume of a stored container at a target streetlet” (emphasis added). We do not understand what it means to make a determination of the ranking of a click volume of a to-be-stored container in a click volume of a stored container. The claim language seems to suggest that the retrieval frequency of one container can somehow be in the retrieval frequency of another container, and that this composite relationship can somehow be ranked, which we find incomprehensible. We can speculate that the emphasized word “in” should be “and” in this limitation, but the instant speculation does not provide a strong enough basis for this speculation for us to merely object to the claims as containing minor informalities as it repeatedly recites the same confusing usage, e.g. in [0007]. If the claims were amended to use the word “and”, the specification would not provide antecedent basis for the amendment. All dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of the independent claims.
A further ground of indefiniteness of independent claims 1, 16, and 24 is found in the limitation “and determining a storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack.” We do not understand what is meant by determining a storing rack from an available rack. Only one available rack was introduced in a previous limitation of the claim, and so the otherwise-plausible interpretation of this limitation as the determination of a storing rack from among a plurality of available racks is impossible. We may speculate that applicant intends to determine a storage space in the previously introduced available rack, but this speculation has insufficient basis for this issue to be a mere objection for minor informality. We might also speculate that the “storing rack” is meant to be a storage shelf, i.e. one horizontal level of a multi-shelf rack system; in that case the question of which shelf to use from among a plurality of shelves would be a reasonable question for applicant’s system to address. This second plausible guess is not only incompatible with the first, but likewise has insufficient basis in the specification to be considered definite. As doubt remains regarding applicant’s intention for the limitation, it is another ground of indefiniteness. For purposes of examination on the merits, however, we read the limitation in this office action as “and determining a storage space or storage shelf] for the to-be-stored container [in] the available rack according to the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack.” Again, all dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of the independent claims.
A further ground for the indefiniteness of claims 4-5 and 18-19 is the term “rack interval”, not formally defined in the specification. By its plain English meaning, this term seems to suggest a distance between racks, perhaps the width of an aisle or “streetlet”. However, applicant’s claims and specification appear to suggest a different and unclear meaning having to do with the placement of storage containers in a single rack. We do not understand how storage containers can be placed or how a “matching degree” can be determined according to a rack interval. Conceivably applicant intends to describe an interval between storage containers placed on a rack, but we could not definitely establish this interpretation based on the unclear language of the specification. Moreover, to the extent the specification does describe rack intervals in [0017]-[0020], [0042]-[0044], and [0092]-[0095], we do not understand how the rack interval of a storage container relates to a recommended rack level number. This last term appears by plain English meaning to indicate which of a plurality of vertically stacked horizontal shelves of a rack is preferred for a storage container, but how that relates to a rack interval is unclear. This lack of clarity is another point of indefiniteness in the claims. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider a “rack interval” to be any sort of interval or spacing whatsoever associated with either a storage rack system or a storage container intended to be placed on a storage rack.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
9. Claims 1, 8-9, 11, 16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, et al., CN 109325716 (hereinafter Chen).
[Note that Chen does not provide reference characters for structures such as storage containers or shelves. For this reason our explanation of the mappings between Chen’s disclosure and applicant’s claims must be wordier than usual.]
10. Regarding claim 1,
Chen discloses:
A method for storing a container (turnover box, [0013]) in a warehouse, comprising: determining ranking of a first click volume of a to-be-stored container in a first click volume of a stored container at a target streetlet, the first click volume being configured to characterize a retrieval frequency of a container;Chen discloses analyzing “outbound frequency” of inventory units in [0016]. We map Chen’s “outbound frequency” to applicant’s “first click volume” as applicant’s click volume is based on the frequency of retrieval of a container, i.e. the frequency with which a container and/or its stored goods is designated for delivery or shipping, which is an “outbound” direction of movement from a warehouse. Chen further discloses the relation of inventory units to storage units and “turnover boxes” (which we map to applicant’s containers) in [0020]-[0022]. Streetlets or warehouse aisles are the interstices between shelves or racks, and warehouse shelves or racks define streetlets. The disclosure of a target shelf therefore implies a target streetlet. Chen discloses the use of shelves in [0014] and in [0028] discloses that the location of a box on a shelf is determined by its outbound frequency, i.e. click volume. Together this means that the “first click volume” of stored containers at a “target streetlet” is analyzed when determining container placement. These disclosures relate to the already-stored container and its first click volume. As regards the to-be-stored container, Chen discloses the assignment of new boxes (“containers”) to a shelf (i.e. a target “streetlet”) based on the same outbound frequency (“first click-volume”) factor in [0038]-[0039]. Chen discloses a sorting (“ranking”) method for its boxes on a shelf based on outbound frequency in [0039].
determining a matching degree between the to-be-stored container and an available rack of the target streetlet according to the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet;We consider that the sorting process Chen discloses in [0039] determines a matching degree between the outbound frequencies (first click volumes) of a stored container and a to-be-stored container because the containers on the shelf are sorted for proximity to a shipping outlet point based on first click volumes and so a to-be-stored container and an already-stored container will be adjacent if they have similar (“matching”) degrees.
and determining a storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “determining a storing rack … from the available rack” as “determining a storage space or storage shelf … in the available rack”. Chen discloses in [0039] that to-be-stored containers are placed on an available rack according to a matching degree of their outbound frequencies or first click volumes in comparison with the first click volumes of other containers on the rack.
11. Regarding claim 8,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein determining the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet comprises: determining a second click volume of a stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and a second click volume of a stock keeping unit in the stored container, the second click volume being configured to characterize a retrieval frequency of the stock keeping unit;Chen discloses in [0031] that the outbound frequency (“first click volume”) of turnover box (mapped to applicant’s “container”) is based on the outbound frequencies (“second click volume”) of the storage units (“stock keeping unit”) contained in the box. Thus, Chen determines the claimed second click volumes as part of determining first click volumes.
determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container according to the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container;Chen discloses in [0031] that the first click volume is based on a computation involving the second click volumes, and so the first click volume is determined according to the second click volume as claimed.
and determining the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet according to the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container.This limitation reprises a similar limitation of claim 1, which Chen discloses in [0039], determining a “matching degree” or ranking of storage containers according to their outbound frequencies or click volumes.
12. Regarding claim 9,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container comprises: determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container according to a sum of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container;
and determining the first click volume of the stored container according to a sum of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container.Regarding both these limitations, Chen discloses in [0031] that the first click volume is based on a computation involving a sum of second click volumes. This applies to both to-be-stored and already-stored containers.
13. Regarding claim 11,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 8, and also:
wherein determining the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container comprises: determining the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container according to an initial click volume of the stock keeping unit and a click volume of the stock keeping unit within a configured time window.Chen discloses both a planned outbound frequency based on historical data (“initial click volume”) and an outbound frequency associated with a predetermined outbound period (“click volume … within a configured time window”) in [0009] and [0016].
14. Regarding claim 16,
Chen discloses:
A device for storing a container in a warehouse, comprising: a processor;Chen discloses the processor in [0160].
and a memory, having stored thereon instructions that, when being executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform acts comprising: determining ranking of a first click volume of a to-be-stored container in a first click volume of a stored container at a target streetlet, the first click volume being configured to characterize a retrieval frequency of a container;Chen discloses that its processor uses instructions in [0160]. No processor can process instructions without memory, and moreover all commercial processors comprise memory at least in the form of registers if not cache.Chen discloses analyzing “outbound frequency” of inventory units in [0016]. We map Chen’s “outbound frequency” to applicant’s “first click volume” as applicant’s click volume is based on the frequency of retrieval of a container, i.e. the frequency with which a container and/or its stored goods is designated for delivery or shipping, which is an “outbound” direction of movement from a warehouse. Chen further discloses the relation of inventory units to storage units and “turnover boxes” (which we map to applicant’s containers) in [0020]-[0022]. Streetlets or warehouse aisles are the interstices between shelves or racks, and warehouse shelves or racks define streetlets. The disclosure of a target shelf therefore implies a target streetlet. Chen discloses the use of shelves in [0014] and in [0028] discloses that the location of a box on a shelf is determined by its outbound frequency, i.e. click volume. Together this means that the “first click volume” of stored containers at a “target streetlet” is analyzed when determining container placement. These disclosures relate to the already-stored container and its first click volume. As regards the to-be-stored container, Chen discloses the assignment of new boxes (“containers”) to a shelf (“streetlet”) based on the same outbound frequency (“first click-volume”) factor in [0038]-[0039]. Chen discloses a sorting (“ranking”) method for its boxes on a shelf based on outbound frequency in [0039].
determining a matching degree between the to-be-stored container and an available rack of the target streetlet according to the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet;We consider that the sorting process Chen discloses in [0039] determines a matching degree between the outbound frequencies (first click volumes) of a stored container and a to-be-stored container because the containers on the shelf are sorted for proximity to a shipping outlet point based on first click volumes and so a to-be-stored container and an already-stored container will be adjacent if they have similar (“matching”) degrees.
and determining a storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “determining a storing rack … from the available rack” as “determining a storage space or storage shelf … in the available rack”. Chen discloses in [0039] that to-be-stored containers are placed on an available rack according to a matching degree of their outbound frequencies or first click volumes in comparison with the first click volumes of other containers on the rack.
15. Regarding claim 21,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 16 and also:
wherein determining the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet comprises: determining a second click volume of a stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and a second click volume of a stock keeping unit in the stored container, the second click volume being configured to characterize a retrieval frequency of the stock keeping unitChen discloses in [0031] that the outbound frequency (“first click volume”) of turnover box (mapped to applicant’s “container”) is based on the outbound frequencies (“second click volume”) of the storage units (“stock keeping unit”) container in the box. Thus, Chen determines the claimed second click volumes as part of determining first click volumes.
determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container according to the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container;Chen discloses in [0031] that the first click volume is based on a computation involving the second click volumes, and so the first click volume is determined according to the second click volume as claimed.
and determining the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet according to the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container.This limitation reprises a similar limitation of claim 16, which Chen discloses in [0039], determining a “matching degree” or ranking of storage containers according to their outbound frequencies or click volumes.
16. Regarding claim 22,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 21, and also:
wherein determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container comprises at least one of: determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container according to a sum of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container, and determining the first click volume of the stored container according to a sum of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container;Chen discloses in [0031] the first of the two claimed alternative limitations: Chen’s outbound frequency or first click volume of all its containers (both stored and to-be-stored) is based on a computation of a sum involving the second click volumes in its target boxes or storage containers, and so the first click volume is determined according to the second click volume as claimed.
or determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and determining the first click volume of the stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container.While Chen does not disclose this method based on maximum values, it does disclose the first of the two alternatives.
17. Regarding claim 23,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 21, and also:
wherein determining the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container comprises: determining the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container and the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container according to an initial click volume of the stock keeping unit and a click volume of the stock keeping unit within a configured time window.Chen discloses both a planned outbound frequency based on historical data (“initial click volume”) and an outbound frequency associated with a predetermined outbound period (“click volume … within a configured time window”) in [0009] and [0016].
18. Regarding claim 24,
Chen discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable storage mediumChen discloses a processor and instructions in [0160]. We consider that the processor would be useless without a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and moreover that the disclosed instructions must be stored in such a medium.
having stored thereon instructions that, when being executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform acts comprising: determining ranking of a first click volume of a to-be-stored container in a first click volume of a stored container at a target streetlet, the first click volume being configured to characterize a retrieval frequency of a container;Chen discloses analyzing “outbound frequency” of inventory units in [0016]. We map Chen’s “outbound frequency” to applicant’s “first click volume” as applicant’s click volume is based on the frequency of retrieval of a container, i.e. the frequency with which a container and/or its stored goods is designated for delivery or shipping, which is an “outbound” direction of movement from a warehouse. Chen further discloses the relation of inventory units to storage units and “turnover boxes” (which we map to applicant’s containers) in [0020]-[0022]. Streetlets or warehouse aisles are the interstices between shelves or racks, and warehouse shelves or racks define streetlets. The disclosure of a target shelf therefore implies a target streetlet. Chen discloses the use of shelves in [0014] and in [0028] discloses that the location of a box on a shelf is determined by its outbound frequency, i.e. click volume. Together this means that the “first click volume” of stored containers at a “target streetlet” is analyzed when determining container placement. These disclosures relate to the already-stored container and its first click volume. As regards the to-be-stored container, Chen discloses the assignment of new boxes (“containers”) to a shelf (“streetlet”) based on the same outbound frequency (“first click-volume”) factor in [0038]-[0039]. Chen discloses a sorting (“ranking”) method for its boxes on a shelf based on outbound frequency in [0039].
determining a matching degree between the to-be-stored container and an available rack of the target streetlet according to the ranking of the first click volume of the to-be-stored container in the first click volume of the stored container at the target streetlet;We consider that the sorting process Chen discloses in [0039] determines a matching degree between the outbound frequencies (first click volumes) of a stored container and a to-be-stored container because the containers on the shelf are sorted for proximity to a shipping outlet point based on first click volumes and so a to-be-stored container and an already-stored container will be adjacent if they have similar (“matching”) degrees.
and determining a storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “determining a storing rack … from the available rack” as “determining a storage space or storage shelf … in the available rack”. Chen discloses in [0039] that to-be-stored containers are placed on an available rack according to a matching degree of their outbound frequencies or first click volumes in comparison with the first click volumes of other containers on the rack; in other words their storage space is determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
19. Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xiao, Peng-Yu, CN 109544054 (hereinafter Xiao).
20. Regarding claims 2 and 17,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 2) and claim 16 (parent of claim 17), but not:
wherein determining the storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack comprises: determining a matching value between the to-be-stored container and the available rack according to a matching weight and the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack;
determining a weighted total cost of storing the to-be-stored container at the available rack according to the matching value between the to-be-stored container and the available rack and a cost term of the available rack;
and determining the storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the weighted total cost of storing the to-be-stored container at the available rack.Regarding all these limitations, Chen does not disclose analyzing a weighted cost (or indeed any cost) of storing a container; rather, Chen places its containers according to container retrieval frequency. Note per the objection to the claim above, we interpret the ”matching value” and “matching weight” of the first limitation as an example or instance of the “weighted total cost” subsequently introduced.
Xiao, an invention in the field of stock management, teaches the limitations:
wherein determining the storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack comprises: determining a matching value between the to-be-stored container and the available rack according to a matching weight and the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack;Where Chen performs these determinations by sorting container outbound frequency values with respect to their distance from a distribution point on the rack, in combination with Xiao, Chen’s procedure would make use of a total weighed cost taught by Xiao (see mapping and explanation below).
determining a weighted total cost of storing the to-be-stored container at the available rack according to the matching value between the to-be-stored container and the available rack and a cost term of the available rack;Xiao teaches a weighted total cost of storage in [0012] as weighting the “handling cost”. A variety of different kinds of weighted cost elements are taught in [0013] including cost terms for racks such as rack height. In combination with Chen’s system, which discloses sorting containers by outbound frequency or applicant’s click volume, Xiao’s weighted handling costs would be used instead to establish applicant’s “matching value” relation between a to-be-stored container and a rack with other containers onto which the container should be deposited.
and determining the storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the weighted total cost of storing the to-be-stored container at the available rack.As per the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and following our interpretation of “determining the storing rack … from the available rack”, we consider that this limitation determines a storage space in or shelf of the available rack. Chen has disclosed this procedure for its outbound frequency values in its [0039], but in combination with Xiao weighted total cost values would be used instead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Chen, wherein determining the storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack comprises: determining a matching value between the to-be-stored container and the available rack according to a matching weight and the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack; determining a weighted total cost of storing the to-be-stored container at the available rack according to the matching value between the to-be-stored container and the available rack and a cost term of the available rack; and determining the storing rack for the to-be-stored container from the available rack according to the weighted total cost of storing the to-be-stored container at the available rack, as taught by Xiao, because as Xiao explains in [0008]-[0010], its goal is to increase warehouse efficiency by means of optimizing container placement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Xiao’s goal and that by using weighted total costs for storage in determining where to store goods, operational costs of a warehouse can be reduced, which is plainly an advantageous benefit of the method.
21. Regarding claim 3,
Chen in view of Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 2, and also:
wherein the cost item comprises at least one of a handling cost of a container lifter, a level-changing cost, and a commodity distributing cost.Xiao teaches the consideration of level changing costs with respect to both vertical distance and the availability of a shuttle (lifter) in [0013] and [0015].
22. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Mountz, et al., US 2007/0017984 (hereinafter Mountz).
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
further comprising, before determining the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack: determining the available rack in a rack of the target streetlet.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “determining the available rack in a rack” as “determining an available storage location or shelf of a rack” While it could be argued that the first step of evaluating the storage of an object at a storage location or on a shelf necessarily involves determining the location or shelf, Chen does not explicitly disclose this step, so we rely on a secondary reference.
Mountz, an invention the field of inventory holder storage, teaches the missing aspects of:
further comprising, before determining the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack: determining the available rack in a rack of the target streetlet.Mountz teaches in [0118] that its management module determines a storage location in response to a request for storage. In flowchart fig. 7, step 720 identifies available storage locations, and subsequent step 730 calculates item velocities for the locations to determine the most suitable. In combination with Chen which determines a storage location by the matching degree of outbound frequency or applicant’s “first click volume”, Mountz’s flowchart would determine the matching degree in step 730.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Chen, further comprising, before determining the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack: determining the available rack in a rack of the target streetlet, as taught by Mountz, because is plain that one cannot evaluate a storage location or storage shelf by matching degree of some quality (or indeed in any other way) without first identifying the storage location or storage shelf.
23. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Mountz and further in view of Chen, et al., CN 112215532 (hereinafter Chen-II).
24. Regarding claim 7,
Chen in view of Mountz teaches the limitations of claim 6, but not all aspects of:
wherein determining the available rack in the rack of the target streetlet comprises: determining a first rack to be the available rack in response to determining that a loading rate of the first rack of the target streetlet is less than a target loading rate and the first rack comprises an empty buffering location, the empty buffering location being configured to store the to-be-stored container.While Chen discloses consideration of the “outbound frequency” of a rack or shelf, and while an “available” rack or storage shelf or storage location necessarily implies the presence of an empty buffering location for storage of a container (or else the rack would not be available), neither Chen nor Mountz teaches the analysis of a loading rate according to a target loading rate or threshold.
Chen-II, an invention in the field of warehouse information management, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
wherein determining the available rack in the rack of the target streetlet comprises: determining a first rack to be the available rack in response to determining that a loading rate of the first rack of the target streetlet is less than a target loading rate and the first rack comprises an empty buffering location, the empty buffering location being configured to store the to-be-stored container.Chen-II teaches in [0014] that entry/exit frequency (which we map to applicant’s loading rate, i.e. the rate at which the storage shelf or location is loaded) is compared to a threshold for determination where to store goods. Areas B and C are reserved for entry/exit frequencies lower than one or another threshold, which we map to applicant’s comparison of an actual loading rate with a target loading rate. As noted above, the selection of an available storage location or storage locations, taught by both Chen and Mountz, implies the presence of an empty buffering location in the storage rack and its associated “streetlet” because without such a location or shelf the container or item could not be stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Chen and Mountz, wherein determining the available rack in the rack of the target streetlet comprises: determining a first rack to be the available rack in response to determining that a loading rate of the first rack of the target streetlet is less than a target loading rate and the first rack comprises an empty buffering location, the empty buffering location being configured to store the to-be-stored container, as taught by Chen-II, because storing items in areas that have lower access frequencies balances the distribution of “velocity” in a warehouse, which will tend to reduce the amount of congestion around high-access-frequency locations increasing operational efficiency of the warehouse. As noted above, the presence of a buffering location configured to store a container on a rack is inherent in the notion of availability of a rack for storing a container. If there were no such buffering location the rack would not be available.
25. Regarding claim 20,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 16, but not all aspects of:
wherein the acts further comprise, before determining the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack: determining the available rack in a rack of the target streetlet,Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “determining the available rack in a rack” as “determining an available storage location or shelf of a rack” While it could be argued that the first step of evaluating the storage of an object at a storage location or on a shelf necessarily involves determining the location or shelf, Chen does not explicitly disclose this step, so we rely on a secondary reference.
and wherein determining the available rack in the rack of the target streetlet comprises: determining a first rack to be the available rack in response to determining that a loading rate of the first rack of the target streetlet is less than a target loading rate and the first rack comprises an empty buffering location, the empty buffering location being configured to store the to-be-stored container.While Chen discloses consideration of the “outbound frequency” of a rack or shelf, and while an “available” rack or storage shelf or storage location necessarily implies the presence of an empty buffering location for storage of a container (or else the rack would not be available), Chen does not disclose the analysis of a loading rate according to a target loading rate or threshold.
Mountz, an invention the field of inventory holder storage, teaches the missing aspects of:
wherein the acts further comprise, before determining the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack: determining the available rack in a rack of the target streetlet,Mountz teaches in [0118] that its management module determines a storage location in response to a request for storage. In flowchart fig. 7, step 720 identifies available storage locations, and subsequent step 730 calculates item velocities for the locations to determine the most suitable. In combination with Chen which determines storage location by the matching degree of outbound frequency or applicant’s “first click volume”, Mountz’s flowchart would determine the matching degree in step 730.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Chen, wherein the acts further comprise, before determining the matching degree between the to-be-stored container and the available rack: determining the available rack in a rack of the target streetlet, as taught by Mountz, because is plain that one cannot evaluate a storage location or storage shelf by matching degree of some quality (or indeed in any other way) without first identifying the storage location or storage shelf.
Chen-II, an invention in the field of warehouse information management, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
and wherein determining the available rack in the rack of the target streetlet comprises: determining a first rack to be the available rack in response to determining that a loading rate of the first rack of the target streetlet is less than a target loading rate and the first rack comprises an empty buffering location, the empty buffering location being configured to store the to-be-stored container.Chen-II teaches in [0014] that entry/exit frequency (which we map to applicant’s loading rate, i.e. the rate at which the storage shelf or location is loaded) is compared to a threshold for determination where to store goods. Areas B and C are reserved for entry/exit frequencies lower than one or another threshold, which we map to applicant’s comparison of an actual loading rate with a target loading rate. As noted above, the selection of an available storage location or storage locations, taught by both Chen and Mountz, implies the presence of an empty buffering location in the storage rack and its associated “streetlet” because without such a location or shelf the container or item could not be stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Chen and Mountz, and wherein determining the available rack in the rack of the target streetlet comprises: determining a first rack to be the available rack in response to determining that a loading rate of the first rack of the target streetlet is less than a target loading rate and the first rack comprises an empty buffering location, the empty buffering location being configured to store the to-be-stored container, as taught by Chen-II, because storing items in areas that have lower access frequencies balances the distribution of “velocity” in a warehouse, which will tend to reduce the amount of congestion around high-access-frequency locations increasing operational efficiency of the warehouse. As noted above, the presence of a buffering location configured to store a container on a rack is inherent in the notion of availability of a rack for storing a container. If there were no such buffering location the rack would not be available.
26. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Qin Heng-le, CN 106934577 (hereinafter Qin).
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 8, but not all aspects of:
wherein determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container comprises: determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container; and determining the first click volume of the stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container.While Chen discloses the method of these limitations with respect to computation of outbound frequency (“click volume”) associated with a sum over the items in a container, it does not disclose the method using a maximum over the items in a container.
Qin, an invention the field of cargo layout, teaches the missing aspects of:
wherein determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container comprises: determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container; and determining the first click volume of the stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container.Qin teaches in [0010] that outbound frequency (“first click volume”) of a container may be computed on the basis of the maximum outbound frequency over the inventory units (“second click volume”) stored in a container. In combination with Chen, Chen’s sum-based formula would be replaced by Qin’s max-based formula.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Chen, wherein determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container and the first click volume of the stored container comprises: determining the first click volume of the to-be-stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the to-be-stored container; and determining the first click volume of the stored container according to a maximum value of the second click volume of the stock keeping unit in the stored container, as taught by Qin, because a maximum SKU access frequency can readily be used as the basis for establishing the expected access frequency for a container based on matching SKUs in customer or client orders to SKUs in containers intended to be stored or retrieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
27. Claims 4-5 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claims 4 and 18, while various examples of prior art evaluate storage positions for containers according to one or another of a recommended shelf height (“rack level number”) for storing a container, a recommended rack interval (according to the broad interpretation of the term employed in this office action), and preconfigured confidence parameters, the combination of these three requirements was neither found, nor taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. An attempt to combine multiple teaching references for these different elements would have yielded a combination mutually modifying the various references’ teachings, yielding what would seem to be a design by hindsight and not a legitimate obviousness rationale under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 5 and 19 inherit the allowability of claims 4 and 18.
Despite this statement of possible allowability, we caution applicant that because of the grounds of indefiniteness found for these claims, amendments that remedy rejections in the instant office action under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may have the effect of enabling subsequent prior art rejections to the same claims and so the allowability of these claim limitations in future office actions is not a certainty.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,351,346 is one of many other examples of prior art that teaches the use of access or utilization frequencies in determining the proper locations of stored units. CN 110414879 is another example of prior art that teaches thresholds or target levels for storage utilization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655