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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 14-15, and 19 were amended and claim 20 is new, per a preliminary amendment.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. We note that many of the prior art rejections seen below were enabled due to the application of broadest reasonable interpretation to terms in the instant specification with problematic usage or definition. See Specification below for objections and explanation of the objections, and Claim Interpretation below for the interpretations of terms used in this office action.
Specification
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.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “sorting”, “sorting method”, “sorting station” and “sorting container”.
Regarding the overarching term, “sorting”, there are 386 instances of the word “sorting” in the instant specification. While sorting as an activity is occasionally abstractly disclosed, what it means to sort a container is never explained. A person of ordinary skill in the art may use the word “sorting” in such varied and diverse ways in the context of warehouse containers that without further explanation or definition the word by itself is almost meaningless.
Regarding the term “sorting method”, applicant’s fig. 5 is a flowchart that is stated to disclose a sorting method; the method comprises no evident sorting steps but rather has to do with container transfer to and from a workstation and a movable carrier according to a “sorting instruction”, the nature of which is unclear; the term appears without definition or explanation in the specification, e.g. in [0005]. Regarding “sorting containers”, per [0021] these appear to be containers that undergo sorting in applicant’s sense, but what sorting means and what it means to be “hit by a system order task” is unexplained. Applicant’s “sorting station” appears to be a place for this sorting activity to occur, but again the sorting activity itself is unclear.
Applicant is of course entitled to act as their own lexicographer per MPEP 2173.05(a) III. Such lexicographic definitions must themselves be clear, concise, and exact. Unfortunately, several of applicant’s definitions of pp 6-7 of the instant specification do not satisfy these requirements. These definitions include “sorting method”, “sorting station”, and “sorting container” for the reasons cited above, but also “movable carrier”, “container”, “handling device”, “target sorting container”, “order container” and “target order container” because of applicant’s contingent and circumstantial definitions. For example, a “container” is defined in [0019] only so long as it bears goods and is itself stored at a goods position on a movable carrier. But it is neither sensible nor comprehensible for a container to stop being a container when it is empty or when it is removed from a movable carrier. A “movable carrier” is defined merely as an object being transported by a handling device. It is plain from applicant’s fig. 1 that movable carrier 460 is a transportable storage rack, but this only means that the storage rack exemplifies a movable carrier. Of course, a storage rack is indeed an object, but virtually any object may be transported by some sort of handling device and so the formal definition is almost devoid of meaning. Applicant’s sorting containers and order containers are only defined contingently as temporary designations so long as the container is at a particular station and also is being “hit” by some relevant system task, where the word “hit” is itself unclear and unusual in this context and where the system sorting and order tasks that do the hitting are likewise undefined. None of these definitions are full, clear, concise, and exact.
Claim Interpretation
These terms are lexicographically defined in applicant’s specification, but due to our objection to the specification above, we apply our own interpretations to the terms in this office action as follows, based on applicant’s definitions combined with other aspects of their specification such as their drawings:
movable carrier: a transportable storage device such as a rack capable of carrying containers at goods positions.
handling device: a device capable of transporting a movable carrier (for example, an AGV or a stacking crane).
sorting (per se): organizing and/or transferring a collection of items, for example a container of goods; as “organizing” is a vague and broad term, sorting as a consequence is similarly a vague and broad activity; moreover, we include “transferring” under this heading because applicant’s sorting method of its fig. 5 includes only transferring steps.
sorting container: a warehouse storage container which has undergone sorting or which is to be sorted in applicant’s sense of the term.
sorting station: a place in a warehouse at which sorting in applicant’s sense takes place.
sorting method: a warehouse method that sorts in applicant’s sense of the term.
order container: a container filled (or tasked to be filled) with warehouse goods picked from storage containers for the purpose of order fulfillment.
distribution station: a place in a warehouse from which containers are transported.
These terms appear in claims without formal definition in the specification, but for consistency we offer interpretations here as well:
sorting instruction: any electronic communication from a controller or computer intended to forward a sorting task according to applicant’s sense of sorting.
handling instruction: any electronic communication from a controller or computer associated with handling containers or goods. Sorting in applicant’s sense includes handling containers as a subset of a broader sorting activity.
loading and unloading instruction: any electronic communication from a controller or computer associated with loading and/or unloading containers or goods. Loading and unloading is a subset of handling which is a subset of sorting in applicant’s sense.
placing-back instruction: any electronic communication from a controller or computer associated with stowing or depositing a container on a movable carrier. Placing-back is an example of handling.
Applicant may override these interpretations on amendment either through their claims (presuming written support from the instant specification) or by providing formal definitions in their specification that are full, clear, concise, and exact, without introducing new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite, “…configured to determine items in the container on the movable carrier in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal….” This phrase is ungrammatical and confusing. One possible redrafting is: “…configured to determine items in the container on the movable carrier using an identification device and/or according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal….” 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.
Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-16, and 18-20 recite the word “sorting” as part of terms “sorting container”, “sorting station”, “sorting instruction”, and “sorting method”. Per the objection to the specification above, applicant’s use of the word “sorting” is confusing as we do not understand what it means to sort a container. Because the terms are widely used in the claims, this amounts to a pervasive matter of indefiniteness. As both independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected on this ground, all dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
Claims 8 and 20 are further rejected because claim 8 recites, “wherein the sorting station is adjacent to the distribution station, and the sorting station and the distribution station are docked by at least one operator or automatic device.” Docking is conventionally understood as physically attaching or abutting two structures, as a vehicle to a port, often for purposes of loading or transfer. While we understand how an automatic device can dock with a station, we do not understand how a human operator can dock with anything. This lack of understanding is another point of indefiniteness. Claim 20 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz, et al., US 9,389,609 (hereinafter Mountz) in view of Battles, et al., US 2017/0043953 (hereinafter Battles).
Regarding claim 1,
Mountz discloses:
A warehousing system, (inventory system 10: fig. 1)
comprising: a workstation (workspace 70: fig. 1) Because applicant requires its workstation to comprise multiple stations which are themselves interpreted as places, we characterize the claimed workstation as a place or an area rather than as a discrete structure; this is consistent with applicant’s workstation 420 in its fig. 1, which is depicted as an abstract area. Mountz’s workspace 70 which connects multiple stations 50 thus maps to applicant’s workstation. A similar unnumbered workspace is seen in fig. 7.
and a movable carrier parking area (cells container carrier 30: fig. 1) configured to park a handling device (20: fig. 1) bearing a movable carrier (30: figs. 1,5)Mountz discloses in C2/L57-C3/L15 that parking spaces for mobile drive units (handling devices) may be assigned in workspace 70. Mountz discloses in C2/L43-56 that mobile drive units bear inventory holders and this arrangement is depicted in fig. 5.
wherein the handling device (620: fig. 8) is configured to transport the movable carrier (606: fig. 8) to the movable carrier parking area, and the movable carrier is configured to bear the container (602: fig. 8);The structural arrangement is seen in Mountz’s fig. 8 with handling device 620 transporting movable carrier 606, and various containers depicted as being borne by the movable carrier. Transport to the parking area is disclosed in C2/L57-C3/L15.
However, Mountz does not disclose all aspects of:
comprising a sorting station and a distribution station, the sorting station and the distribution station being configured to process a container;Mountz discloses in C4/L46-C5/L5 that its generic stations 50 perform a variety of tasks, including some that are associated with sorting and some associated with distribution. In effect, these stations may be said to combine applicant’s sorting and distribution station functionality. Moreover Mountz discloses specific stations in C15/L28-48. However, in the absence of any explicit disclosure of the two claimed types of stations, we must invoke a teaching reference to address this limitation.
and provided with a container loading and unloading device
and wherein the container loading and unloading device is configured to move the container between the workstation and the movable carrier.Regarding the above two limitations, while Mountz discloses the possibility of automated operators at its various stations in C4/L46-C5/L5 that would presumably perform loading and unloading tasks, it does not explicitly disclose container loading and unloading devices.
Battles, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
comprising a sorting station (104: fig. 1) and a distribution station (114, 118, 124: fig. 1), the sorting station and the distribution station being configured to process a container;See Claim Interpretation for our understanding of sorting and distribution stations. Battles teaches multiple types of stations including pre-sorting workstation 104 in figs. 1-2, pick-stow station 114 in figs. 1 and 3, packing station 118 in figs. 1 and 6, and shipping station 124 in fig 1. Incoming loads are sorted onto sort pallets 209 at station 104 per [0060]-[0065], and so station 104 constitutes the claimed sorting station. As inventory holders (movable carriers) and containers are routed to and from all the stations, all these stations constitute distribution stations. In combination with Mountz, various of Mountz’s generic stations 50 that perform sorting and distribution tasks might be replaced by Battle’s special-purpose stations.
and provided with a container loading and unloading device (205: fig.2; 301: fig. 3);
and wherein the container loading and unloading device is configured to move the container between the workstation and the movable carrier.Battles teaches this transfer in [0060]-[0062] and [0065]-[0067].
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 Mountz, (i) comprising a sorting station and a distribution station, the sorting station and the distribution station being configured to process a container and (ii) provided with a container loading and unloading device, as taught by Battles, because given a workstation-based facility such that of applicant, Mountz, and Battles, providing stations for sorting and distribution is conventional and commonplace in warehousing art, and because automation of warehousing tasks involving containers naturally requires automation of container loading and unloading in warehouses, again a conventional and commonplace requirement in warehousing art. Moreover, while workstation roles are sometimes interchangeable, it is likewise conventional and commonplace to differentiate workstations of different types with special roles such as sorting.
Regarding claim 2,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the movable carrier comprises a goods position (Battles, 322: fig. 5), and the goods position is configured to store the container;
and the container is a sorting container (Battles, 209: fig. 3) or an order container (Battles, 208: fig. 2; 400: figs. 4a-5d).Battles teaches that containers 209 in its fig. 3 are sort pallets, per [0064]. Battles teaches totes 208 and 400 as order containers in [0025].
Regarding claim 3,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the movable carrier parking area comprises a movable carrier parking sub-area, and one container loading and unloading device corresponds to the movable carrier parking sub-area.Battles teaches in fig. 3 such a sub-area in the form of the parking locations of the three vehicles 303A-C with their respective movable carriers. Loading and unloading device 301 corresponds to the sub-area.
Regarding claim 4,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the workstation comprises a guidance device, and the guidance device is configured to display information for guiding an operator or an automatic device.Mountz discloses issuing instructions to human workers via a display at a station in C15/L49-C16/L17. The display constitutes the claimed guidance device as it displays information for guiding an operator.
Regarding claim 5,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the workstation comprises a temporary storage position, and the temporary storage position is configured to temporarily store the sorting container or the order container.Mountz discloses temporary storage positions for container holders in the grid cells of fig. 7. These locations are disclosed in C14/L58 to C15/L48 with respect to container holders (movable carriers) and their states such as empty holders awaiting assignment, outbound for particular tasks, etc. Mobile drive units (handling devices) place container holders (which bear containers when not empty) in these locations for various inventory tasks and since the placement is in support of such tasks and is not meant as a permanent storage location (i.e. not a conventional warehouse rack) the storage is temporary.
Regarding claim 7,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly, and the loading and unloading assembly is configured to move the container between the sorting station/the distribution station and the movable carrier, move the container between the goods positions of the movable carrier, move the container between the movable carrier and a target movable carrier, move the container between the sorting station and a docking port outside the workstation, move the container between the distribution station and the docking port outside the workstation, or move the container between the movable carrier and the docking port outside the workstation.Since applicant claims its container loading and unloading device comprises its container loading and unloading assembly but provides no other distinguishing features, any component or collection of components of a container loading and unloading device noted in one of the references may constitute the claimed assembly. Loading and unloading devices such as Battles’ 205 in fig. 2 and 301 in fig. 3 evidently comprise the claimed assembly. Of the long list of claimed movement configuration disjuncts, Battles at least teaches “configured to move the container between the sorting station/the distribution station and the movable carrier” in [0065]-[0067] as seen in fig. 3.
Regarding claim 9,
Mountz discloses:
A warehousing system, (inventory system 10: fig. 1)
comprising a control terminal (management module 15: fig 2), a workstation (workspace 70: fig. 1), a movable carrier parking area (cells containing carriers 30: fig. 1), a handling device (20: fig. 1), […] and a movable carrier (30: figs. 1,5) for storing a container (602: fig. 8),
the handling device (620: fig. 8) being configured to move to the movable carrier (606: fig. 8) based on the handling instruction and to transport the movable carrier to the movable carrier parking area;The structural arrangement is seen in Mountz’s fig. 8 with handling device 620 transporting movable carrier 606, and various containers depicted as being borne by the movable carrier. Transport to the parking area is disclosed in C2/L57-C3/L15.
However, Mountz does not disclose all aspects of:
the workstation comprising a sorting station and a distribution station;Mountz discloses in C4/L46-C5/L5 that its generic stations 50 perform a variety of tasks, including some that are associated with sorting and some associated with distribution. In effect, these stations may be said to combine applicant’s sorting and distribution station functionality. Moreover Mountz discloses specific stations in C15/L28-48. However, in the absence of any explicit disclosure of the two claimed types of stations, we must invoke a teaching reference to address this limitation.
a container loading and unloading device
the control terminal being configured to, in a case that a sorting instruction is received, transmit a handling instruction to the handling device and a loading and unloading instruction to the container loading and unloading device according to the sorting instruction;
and the container loading and unloading device being configured to pick and place the container on at least one of the movable carrier, the sorting station, and the distribution station based on the loading and unloading instruction, and move the container between the movable carrier and the sorting station or the distribution station in the workstation.Regarding the above three limitations, while Mountz discloses the possibility of automated operators at its various stations in C4/L46-C5/L5 that would presumably perform loading and unloading tasks, it does not explicitly disclose container loading and unloading devices.
Battles, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
the workstation comprising a sorting station (104: fig. 1) and a distribution station (114, 118, 124: fig. 1);See Claim Interpretation for our understanding of sorting and distribution stations, methods, and instructions. Battles teaches multiple types of stations including pre-sorting workstation 104 in figs. 1-2, pick-stow station 114 in figs. 1 and 3, packing station 118 in figs. 1 and 6, and shipping station 124 in fig 1. Incoming loads are sorted onto sort pallets 209 at station 104 per [0060]-[0065], and so station 104 constitutes the claimed sorting station. As inventory holders (movable carriers) and containers are routed to and from all the stations, all these stations constitute distribution stations. In combination with Mountz, various of Mountz’s generic stations 50 that perform sorting and distribution tasks might be replaced by Battle’s special-purpose stations.
a container loading and unloading device (205: fig.2; 301: fig. 3)
the control terminal being configured to, in a case that a sorting instruction is received, transmit a handling instruction to the handling device and a loading and unloading instruction to the container loading and unloading device according to the sorting instruction;Battles teaches these transfer steps in [0060]-[0062] and [0065]-[0067].
and the container loading and unloading device being configured to pick and place the container on at least one of the movable carrier, the sorting station, and the distribution station based on the loading and unloading instruction, and move the container between the movable carrier and the sorting station or the distribution station in the workstation.Battles teaches various of these steps in [0060]-[0062] and [0065]-[0067] regarding sorting stations and pick-stow stations respectively, the latter being mapped to applicant’s distribution station as distribution occurs from these stations.
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 Mountz, with (i) the workstation comprising a sorting station and a distribution station, (ii) a container loading and unloading device, (iii) the control terminal being configured to, in a case that a sorting instruction is received, transmit a handling instruction to the handling device and a loading and unloading instruction to the container loading and unloading device according to the sorting instruction and (iv) the container loading and unloading device being configured to pick and place the container on at least one of the movable carrier, the sorting station, and the distribution station based on the loading and unloading instruction, and move the container between the movable carrier and the sorting station or the distribution station in the workstation, as taught by Battles, because firstly, given a workstation-based facility such that of applicant, Mountz, and Battles, providing stations for sorting and distribution is conventional and commonplace in warehousing art, secondly, because automation of warehousing tasks involving containers naturally requires automation of container loading and unloading in warehouses, again a conventional and commonplace requirement in warehousing art, and thirdly, because the conveyance of containers between AGVs (handling devices) bearing transportable racks (movable carriers) and warehouse workstations is likewise a conventional and commonplace practice well known to the art.
Regarding claim 10,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein in a case that the loading and unloading instruction is a sorting related loading and unloading instruction, the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine coordinate information of a target goods position of the container on the movable carrier based on the sorting related loading and unloading instruction, pick and place the container based on the coordinate information of the target goods position, and place the container at the sorting station or the distribution station.See Claim Interpretation above for our understanding of sorting instructions and loading and unloading instructions. In effect all instructions that have to do with moving movable carriers, goods containers, and goods may be considered both sorting instructions and loading and unloading instructions.This limitation in effect refines the previously claimed steps of claim 9 with the determination of the precise location of a goods position on the movable carrier for the purpose of transferring containers to and from the carrier and one of the stations. We note that robotic arms such as Battle’s 205 in fig. 2 or 301 in fig. 3 can only pick items whose precise positions are known. Referring to fig. 2, Battles introduces the determination of a goods position of a tote for picking and placing in [0042]-[0044]. Battles also discloses position determination on sort and receive pallets (movable carriers) in [0062].
Regarding claim 11,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to, in a case that a container placing-back instruction transmitted by the control terminal is received, pick and place the container placed at the sorting station or the distribution station according to the container placing-back instruction, and place the container at the target goods position on the movable carrier.This claim simply reverses the direction of picking and placing from the parent claim. Battles teaches in [0068] that its devices may route pallets and holders both to and from workstations as required, i.e. in both directions.
Regarding claim 12,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
The system according to claim 9, wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to pick and place a container to be moved located at a temporary storage position in the workstation, and place the container to be moved at the sorting station, the distribution station, the movable carrier, or a docking port outside the workstation.We note first that the nature of a workstation is such that all storage locations at a workstation are temporary because workstations perform ephemeral inventory and order fulfillment tasks, as compared to warehouse storage racks intended for permanent storage. Thus any placement of a container in any station of Mountz or Battles is at a temporary storage position. Battles discloses the transfer of containers to a station in [0060]-[0062].
Regarding claim 13,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the control terminal is further configured to receive a station substitution instruction, and use the sorting station as the distribution station, or use the distribution station as the sorting station according to the station substitution instruction.Mountz discloses in C15/L28-48 that stations 550 in fig. 7 can be switched between one function or type and another as claimed. Since its less well-defined generic stations 50 of fig. 1 can perform both sorting and distribution functions, that means in combination with Battles, which explicitly discloses sorting and distribution stations, Mountz’s stations 550 may be designated for sorting or for distribution and substituted one for the other.
Regarding claim 16,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to place the container at a temporary storage position contained in the workstation for queuing based on the loading and unloading instruction, in a case that it is determined through an identification device that the container is not placeable at the sorting station or the distribution station.Mountz discloses this method in claim 2, wherein a container is moved to a temporary “mixed storage area” when no suitable station is currently available to receive it.
Regarding claim 17,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the handling device is further configured to generate a travel path based on movable carrier position information contained in the handling instruction, move to the movable carrier according to the travel path, and drive the movable carrier to move to the movable carrier parking area.Mountz discloses parking locations for mobile drive units (handling devices) in C2/L57-C3/L15 wherein the handling devices may pick up and drop off inventory holders (movable carriers) in C3/L16-43 and making use of position information of inventory holders for docking handling devices in C12/L9 to C12/L40. Battles discloses autonomous AGV (handling device) routing in [0019] and discloses moving to pick up an inventory holder (movable carrier) in [0027]-[0028]. Together they teach using position information for pathing handling devices, docking with movable carriers to transport them as claimed.
Regarding claim 18,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein the handling device is further configured to transport the movable carrier back to a movable carrier parking position corresponding to the movable carrier position information, in a case that a sorting task corresponding to the sorting instruction is completed.Mountz discloses the management of empty inventory holders (movable carriers) in C2/L57-C3/L15 and in fig. 7 depicts empty holders E at a parking area of the workspace as disclosed in C15/L8-27.
Regarding claim 19,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
A sorting method, applied to a warehousing system according to claim 1, Per Claim Interpretation above, we do not limit applicant’s method to sorting as conventionally understood in the art because no sorting features are evident in the claimed method of applicant’s fig. 5. Rather, applicant’s method appears to focus entirely on transfer of devices and containers rather than on the sorting of containers. References Mountz and Battles teach their methods throughout their disclosures, but we cite claim 7 of Mountz and Battles’s paragraph [0018]. The combination of references according to the rejection of claim 1 above defines a general combined method.
and comprising: receiving, by a control terminal (Mountz, management module 15: fig. 1), a sorting instruction, and driving, by the handling device, the movable carrier to move to the movable carrier parking area according to a handling instruction in the sorting instruction;Mountz discloses this method in C2/L57-C3/L15.
and picking and placing, by the container loading and unloading device, the container on at least one of the movable carrier, the sorting station, and the distribution station according to the loading and unloading instruction in the sorting instruction, and moving the container between the movable carrier and the sorting station or the distribution station in the workstation.Battles teaches the use of container loading and unloading devices 205 in fig. 2 and [0060]-[0062] for a sorting station, and in for device 301 in fig. 3 and [0065]-[0067] for a pick/stow station which we map to applicant’s distribution station because distribution activity occurs from the station.
Claims 6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Battles, and further in view of Li Hongbo, US 2019/0302787 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 6,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 2 but not:
wherein a substitution relationship is established between a target sorting container and a target order container; and in a case that items contained in the target sorting container have the same attribute as items to be put into the target order container, the target sorting container is used as the target order container based on the substitution relationship; and the sorting station corresponding to the target sorting container is switched to the distribution station.While Mountz discloses station switching, neither Mountz nor Battles disclose container substitution.
Li, an earlier invention of the applicant’s, teaches:
wherein a substitution relationship is established between a target sorting container and a target order container; and in a case that items contained in the target sorting container have the same attribute as items to be put into the target order container, the target sorting container is used as the target order container based on the substitution relationship; and the sorting station corresponding to the target sorting container is switched to the distribution station.Li discloses this substitution in [0042]-[0043], wherein a storage container can be substituted for a picking container when the storage container has items of an appropriate attribute. In combination with Mountz, Mountz’s inventory stations 50 in fig. 1 perform multiple warehousing functions including both sorting and distribution, per C4/L46-C5/L5. Per C15/L28-48 stations 550 in fig. 7 (also inventory stations in a workspace similar to that of fig. 1, but disclosed in greater detail) can be switched between one function or type and another as claimed.
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 Mountz and Battles, wherein a substitution relationship is established between a target sorting container and a target order container; and in a case that items contained in the target sorting container have the same attribute as items to be put into the target order container, the target sorting container is used as the target order container based on the substitution relationship, and the sorting station corresponding to the target sorting container is switched to the distribution station, as taught by Li, because as Li explains in [0043], this method avoids using multiple containers where one suffices and thus results in improved picking efficiency.
Regarding claim 14,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 but not all aspects of:
wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine items in the container on the movable carrier in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal, and use the container as a target order container and place the target order container at the distribution station, in a case that an attribute of the items is the same as an attribute of items to be sorted corresponding to the loading and unloading instruction.While Battles teaches identification of items in containers using identification devices such as barcode or RFID readers in [0020], neither reference teaches the substitution of one container type for another.
Li, an earlier invention of the applicant’s, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine items in the container on the movable carrier in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal, and use the container as a target order container and place the target order container at the distribution station, in a case that an attribute of the items is the same as an attribute of items to be sorted corresponding to the loading and unloading instruction.Li discloses this substitution of containers in [0042]-[0043], wherein a storage container can be substituted for a picking container when the storage container has items of an appropriate attribute.
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 Mountz and Battles, wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine items in the container on the movable carrier in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal, and use the container as a target order container and place the target order container at the distribution station, in a case that an attribute of the items is the same as an attribute of items to be sorted corresponding to the loading and unloading instruction, as taught by Li, because as Li explains in [0043], this method avoids using multiple containers where one suffices and thus results in improved picking efficiency.
Regarding claim 15,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 9 but not all aspects of:
wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine items in a container at the sorting station in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal, and use the container as a target order container and use the sorting station as the distribution station, in a case that an attribute of the items is the same as an attribute of items to be sorted corresponding to the loading and unloading instruction.While Battles teaches identification of items in containers using identification devices such as barcode or RFID readers in [0020] and moreover Mountz teaches the substitution of station types in C15/L28-48, neither reference teaches the substitution of one container type for another. Li, an earlier invention of the applicant’s, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine items in a container at the sorting station in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal, and use the container as a target order container and use the sorting station as the distribution station, in a case that an attribute of the items is the same as an attribute of items to be sorted corresponding to the loading and unloading instruction.Li discloses this substitution of containers in [0042]-[0043], wherein a storage container can be substituted for a picking container when the storage container has items of an appropriate attribute.
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 Mountz and Battles, wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to determine items in the container on the movable carrier in at least one manner of through an identification device and according to an instruction transmitted by the control terminal, and use the container as a target order container and place the target order container at the distribution station, in a case that an attribute of the items is the same as an attribute of items to be sorted corresponding to the loading and unloading instruction, as taught by Li, because as Li explains in [0043], this method avoids using multiple containers where one suffices and thus results in improved picking efficiency.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Battles, and further in view of Durham, et al., US 2018/0082162 (hereinafter Durham) and Morgan, et al., US 2008/0163483 (hereinafter Morgan).
Regarding claim 8,
Mountz in view of Battles teaches the limitations of claim 2 but not:
wherein the sorting station is adjacent to the distribution station,Mountz and Battles do not teach adjacent stations.
and the sorting station and the distribution station are docked by at least one operator or automatic device.Mountz and Battles do not teach docking with stations.
Durham, an invention in the same field as Mountz and Battles, teaches:
wherein the sorting station is adjacent to the distribution station,Durham teaches adjacent stations of the same and different types in fig. 12. In combination with the other references, the stations of Mountz and Battles would be adjacent according to Durham’s teaching.
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 Mountz and Battles, wherein the sorting station is adjacent to the distribution station, as taught by Durham, because where a workflow of two stations is related, as is often the case for warehouse order fulfillment tasks, adjacent workstations minimizes the time and cost of any article or container transfer aspect the workflow.
Morgan, an invention in the field of manufacturing automation, teaches:
and the sorting station and the distribution station (workstation 106: fig. 1) are docked by at least one operator or automatic device (robot 108, fixture 104: fig. 1).Morgan teaches the docking of a mobile robot (an automatic device) and a workstation via a fixture in [0090] and fig. 1. In combination with Mountz and Battles, all their workstations would make use of Morgan’s docking fixture.
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 Mountz and Battles, wherein and the sorting station and the distribution station are docked by at least one operator or automatic device, as taught by Morgan, because docking determines a definite and precise physical position for a mobile robot or AGV with respect to a workstation and may make transfer, loading, or unloading operations between the robot or AGV and the workstation more efficient and reliable.
Regarding claim 20,
Mountz in view of Battles, Durham, and Morgan teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein the sorting station and the distribution station are arranged horizontally or vertically within the workstation.As seen in the figures, the various stations Mountz discloses as 50 (fig. 1) and 550 (fig. 7) are arranged horizontally within the workspace (workstation) area. As an aside we note that given only three spatial dimensions, it is impossible for multiple stations to be arranged in any other manner than horizontally (dimensions X and Y) or vertically (dimension Z). Thus all references teaching a plurality of stations necessarily arrange them as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2013252906 and CN 110092122 were cited by foreign examiners as being anticipatory for aspects of a related foreign application. US 2015/0073589 and US 2018/0364719 teach docking a mobile device with a workstation.
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
Prosecution Insights