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, 7-9, 14-15, and 19 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed July 31, 2026, with respect to objections to the specification, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn. Applicant has provided satisfactory definitions of unclear terms consistent with the interpretations applied in the previous office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed July 31, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 14-15, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 14-15 have been withdrawn. Applicant has clarified the claim language as requested.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed July 31, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. By amending the specification applicant has eliminated indefiniteness in the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026, regarding the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding overcoming the rejections of the independent claims are reasonable and would be sound except that broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of the instant amendments admits grounds for rejection based on the same references cited in the previous office action.
We concur in principle with applicant’s argument that none of the previously cited references teach a rotatable assembly (such as a robot arm) that accesses all three locations claimed in the new limitations of claims 1 and 9. While Battles’ robot arm can certainly rotate freely to align with any adjacent location (as seen in its fig. 3) to access points all around the arc of a circle, the various points it accesses together constitute only one of the three claimed locations. However, the reason applicant’s argument is unsuccessful is that all three locations are not currently required to be accessible by the claimed assembly.
Attention is drawn to the new limitations of lines 11-15 of claim 1 and lines 16-20 of claim 9. The rotatable assembly is only claimed to align with at least one of the three locations of a sorting station, a distribution station, or a docking port, because the use of the word “or” in the list allows for optionality between the members of the list, and so a reference cited in rejection need only teach one of these locations, not all three. Battles indeed teaches at least one of the claimed stations is accessible to its robot arm. To overcome the teaching of Battles, all three destinations would need to be required to be directly accessible to the rotating assembly, not just at least one, and so the claim might be amended such that the word “and” replaces “or”.
Another problem with the new limitation is that the assembly is only claimed to be “tuned in direction” to align with one of these points, not to have actual access to it or to store or retrieve articles to and from it. The claimed stations and docking port could be any distance from the assembly and the assembly could still rotate to be “tuned in direction” to align with it, which we interpret by plain English meaning as facing the station or the port. The limitation’s phrase (regarding the container) “where it needs to be placed” does not explicitly require placement by the assembly, and so does not solve the problem. Because of this second issue, any rotatable assembly situated anywhere could be tuned to align with all three claimed locations so long as those locations exist. This problem was not cited in the rejections below because Battles’ rotatable assembly is in fact adjacent to one of the claimed locations and because only one of the locations need be taught to be accessed, but the matter still appears to require correction in order to properly express applicant’s intentions for the limitation. In addressing this issue, applicant may find support in their instant specification on P15/L12-32 for the actual access to the claimed locations by their assembly.
Please take note of the corresponding rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 9 below.
We invite an interview intended to advance prosecution of the instant application based on further amendments submitted with an RCE; amendments after final are not recommended in this instance because they would necessitate new search and so would result in an advisory action.
Claim Interpretation
We acknowledge the revised definitions of various terms employed in the claims in applicant’s amended specification in [0016]-[0026], [0029], and [0066].
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.
Note that except as modified by the need to respond to applicant’s amendments, the rejections below are copied from the first action on the merits.
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.
and wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly, and after the loading and unloading assembly grabs the container, the loading and unloading assembly is configured to be adjusted through rotation to be tuned in direction to align with the sorting station, the distribution station, or a docking port outside the workstation where the container needs to be placed.Mountz does not disclose the claimed rotating loading and unloading assembly of this new amendment.
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;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].
and wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly (301: fig. 3), and after the loading and unloading assembly grabs the container, the loading and unloading assembly is configured to be adjusted through rotation to be tuned in direction to align with the sorting station, the distribution station, or a docking port outside the workstation where the container needs to be placed.Battles teaches the claimed assembly as a rotatable robot arm 301 in fig. 3. As seen in the figure it can turn in any direction to actually access any of four different locations for the picking, storage, and transfer of containers. All four of those locations are part of a “pick/stow station” per [0065] which could represent either applicant’s sorting or distribution station as both sorting and distribution activities can take place at it. As noted in the response to arguments above, the presence of “or” in the list of locations means that Battles need only teach access to one of the three locations.
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, and (iii) wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly, and after the loading and unloading assembly grabs the container, the loading and unloading assembly is configured to be adjusted through rotation to be tuned in direction to align with the sorting station, the distribution station, or a docking port outside the workstation where the container needs to be placed, 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. Finally, regarding newly amended limitation (iii), rotating robot arms are commonplace in the art for picking, storing, and transferring containers, such containers often being required to be picked, stored, or transferred from a docking port or for purposes of sorting and/or distribution at warehouse workstations as claimed.
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 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 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.Loading and unloading devices such as Battles’ 205 in fig. 2 and 301 in fig. 3 are configured for the claimed operations. 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.
and wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly, and after the loading and unloading assembly grabs the container, the loading and unloading assembly is configured to be adjusted through rotation to be tuned in direction to align with the sorting station, the distribution station, or a docking port outside the workstation where the container needs to be placed.Mountz does not disclose the claimed rotating loading and unloading assembly.
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);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.
and wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly (301: fig. 3), and after the loading and unloading assembly grabs the container, the loading and unloading assembly is configured to be adjusted through rotation to be tuned in direction to align with the sorting station, the distribution station, or a docking port outside the workstation where the container needs to be placed.Battles teaches the claimed assembly as a rotatable robot arm 301 in fig. 3. As seen in the figure it can turn in any direction to access any of four different locations for the picking, storage, and transfer of containers. All four of those locations are part of a “pick/stow station” per [0065] which could represent either applicant’s sorting or distribution station as both sorting and distribution activities can take place at it. As noted in the response to arguments above, the presence of “or” in the list of locations means that Battles need only teach access to one of the three locations.
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, (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, and (v) and wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a loading and unloading assembly, and after the loading and unloading assembly grabs the container, the loading and unloading assembly is configured to be adjusted through rotation to be tuned in direction to align with the sorting station, the distribution station, or a docking port outside the workstation where the container needs to be placed, 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. Finally, regarding newly amended limitation (v), rotating robot arms are commonplace in the art for picking, storing, and transferring containers, such containers often being required to be picked, stored, or transferred from a docking port or for purposes of sorting and/or distribution at warehouse workstations as claimed.
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.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 the warehousing system according to claim 1, The combination of references according to the rejection of claim 1 above defines a general combined method which includes sorting according to applicant’s sense of the term defined in [0017] of the instant application.
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 a 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 using an identification device and/or 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 using an identification device and/or 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 accessible to at least one operator or automatic device.Mountz and Battles do not teach this accessibility.
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 accessible to 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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