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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “motorized units” and “container units” of claims 8-9, 13, and 19 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
While this issue does not rise to the level of an objection, we note that applicant’s fig. 1C has no reference characters, and so its diagram does not properly support any disclosed structures of the claims. Moreover, since the specification does not refer to any feature of fig. 1C except vaguely and indirectly in [0034], applicant may wish to reconsider the inclusion of fig. 1C in their application. Alternatively, applicant may wish to amend fig. 1C to include reference characters consistent with the text specification.
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.
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 observe that a substantial percentage of the claim limitations in the instant application pertain to the features and elements of a conventional “pick to light” warehousing system, which typically comprises mobile robots along with indicator lights and quantity displays that show human workers where and what to pick or put to fulfill an order. To the extent that applicant agrees with the basis for the prior-art rejections cited below, they may wish to amend the claims with disclosed methods or devices not associated with conventional pick to light systems (without, of course, introducing new matter). We note that the desirable features that applicant lists in their paragraphs [0018]-[0020] are not currently present in the claims, though it is not entirely clear if they are otherwise supported by the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 disclose an AMR controller mounted on an AMR (autonomous mobile robot) wherein the AMR controller is responsible for travel, but not for pathing (determining where and how to travel). Rather, the “pick-put” controller is disclosed to be responsible both for pathing and for actuating illuminating lights on the robot and on a storage bay. The pick-put controller of claim 1 (for example) is not necessarily mounted on the robot, but in claim 2 is required to be mounted on the robot. Since lights on a storage bay separate from a robot cannot sensibly be actuated directly by a controller not part of the bay itself, we interpret applicant’s term “actuate” as “causing the activation of”, possibly indirectly through data communication. Thus, for claim 1, a central computer issuing instructions to the AMR to turn on selected lights would be actuating the AMR’s lights according to our interpretation.
Moreover, still regarding the claimed controllers, we do not interpret any claim as necessarily requiring multiple distinct controllers as no claim explicitly requires this distinction. Of course, if the pick-put controller is remote from the AMR then plainly it must be distinct from the AMR controller, but if it is present on the AMR as is optional in claim 1 and required in claim 2 then we consider that a single controller that combines the claimed functionalities may be sufficient to teach the matter of both controllers. In such a case a pick-put controller may be in communication with an AMR controller via software interaction of modules in a computer rather than through wireless data communication as in the case where the pick-put controller is remote. Moreover, regarding the questionable “AMR light assembly controller” of claim 5 (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) below), a single controller could teach it as well.
To amplify this combined-controller interpretation, a controller in the art is usually a PLC or general-purpose computer, and a controller’s special claimed functionality is generally implemented by the software of the controller, as the hardware is generic. Of course, multiple software programs or modules may run in a single computer at the same time. We also note that applicant may certainly choose to amend their claims to explicitly require physically distinct controllers if this distinction is supported by their specification.
All this said, we note as an aside that reference Galluzzo, employed in all prior art rejections except that of claim 19, teaches a pick-put controller remote from its AMR while myriad other examples of prior art also teach a plurality of controllers mounted on the same robot for such purposes as generating robot paths, actually navigating a robot, and directly or indirectly actuating indicator lights on a robot or on a storage bay, these being the capabilities ascribed in the claims to applicant’s controllers.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 16, and 19 recite the term “bay”. This term is not formally defined in the instant specification. We consider a bay to be any storage area, structure or substructure in a warehouse or logistics center or similar facility capable of storing a container. As such, a bay may or may not be an element of a transportable structure. Thus, bays include conventional shelving and rack systems (as exemplified in [0011] of the instant specification) as well as various types of cart and carrier. Even designated positions on a warehouse floor may constitute bays. Of course, applicant’s bays also comprise controllers and indicator lights as claimed.
Claims 1, 9, 10-11, and 14-22 disclose either the illumination of locations to be picked from or put to, or else the display of quantities to be picked or put at the locations. While picking and putting are distinct operations (albeit ones often performed by the same worker or the same robot as part of order fulfillment), there is no physical difference between the indication of locations for picking or putting nor is there a physical difference between the display of quantities for picking or putting. We consider that any system or device capable of indicating a location or displaying a quantity for picking may also do so for putting and vice versa.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “…wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to … communication with a bay controller….” The word in boldface should be “communicate”.
Moreover, claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 are objected to because they all recite, “wherein the AMR controller is adapted to travel to the destination”. A controller is not adapted for travel or capable of traveling; a vehicle such as applicant’s AMR travels. It is true that since the AMR controller is mounted on the AMR it necessarily travels with the AMR, but the claim language would be clearer if the AMR were designated as traveling rather than one of its comprised components that has no travel capabilities. Alternatively, the AMR controller may be said to direct or control AMR movement.
Claim 1 is further objected to because it recites, “…to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a [sic] carried by the AMR….”A term is missing in the position marked [sic], which may perhaps be “cart” or “cart shelf” per [0039] of the instant specification.
Claims 9, 13, and 19 recite the term “motorized unit”. We believe this term should be “AMR” (autonomous mobile robot) in these claims. In claim 8, however, which also recites the term, we can more definitely interpret “motorized unit” as a driving portion of an AMR and believe the term is apt (although unsupported by drawings and specification). Note also the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below for lack of written support associated with this term.
Claims 10, 14-15, and 17-18 recite the word “indicated” in a position in which it should be “indicating”.
Claim 12 recites, “wherein the travel path is a optimized travel path to minimize an aggregate travel distance”. The boldface word “a” should be “an”.
Claim 19 recites, “actuate a put to indicate a location where to put the item”. This clause is ungrammatical and confusing. One possible correction might be “actuate a light to indicate a location where to put the item.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites “an AMR light assembly controller”. While the instant specification provides copious support for an “AMR controller”, no mention is made of an “AMR light assembly controller”. Since claim 6 discloses that an AMR controller can perform the same function as the AMR light assembly controller of claim 5, we must suppose that in applicant’s invention they are not simply alternate names for the same device (which conflation would lead to a claim objection rather than this rejection). If this supposition is mistaken, then claim 5 is a duplicate of claim 6 and claim 5 should be canceled in favor of the more readily understood term of claim 6.
Claim 11 is further rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 11 recites, “wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to determine a set of orders according to a travel path through a facility”. The only relevant paragraph of the instant specification is [0061], which discloses not that the pick-put controller determines a set of orders, but rather than orders are selected by some other entity (presumably a WMS central server) to be sent to the pick-put controller. Moreover paragraph [0061] discloses that the path is determined according to the orders, not the orders according to the path. For the purpose of examination on the merits in this office action, we suppose that the claim actually reads, “wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to determine a travel path through a facility according to a set of orders”.
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 19 are also rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims recite “motorized units” and “container units” which do not appear in the text of the instant specification and are not referenced in any figure.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
As noted above, we do not find written support for applicant’s “AMR light assembly controller”. This lack of support is also a point of indefiniteness because we can only speculate as to its structure and implementation. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we suppose that whereas an AMR controller is a general-purpose controller or PLC for a mobile robot (as is commonplace in the art) responsible for all control functions of the robot, instead, the claimed AMR light assembly controller is a PLC or similar device whose only purpose is to control the claimed indicator lights of the AMR light assembly.
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected because their recitation of “motorized units” and “container units” are unsupported by the instant specification and because our plain-language interpretation of the terms is not certain. A motorized unit could perhaps be a synonym for AMR and could perhaps be the driving portion of an AMR. Similarly a container unit could be a structure that carries containers or it could be a container. In this office action we interpret a “motorized unit” as the driving portion of a mobile robot and a “container unit” as a portion of a mobile robot that carries containers (possibly a fixed and integrated structure and possibly a transportable rack structure or cart).
Claim 13 is further rejected because it recites, “where the aggregate travel distance is an aggregate of multiple motorized units.” A distance cannot be an aggregate of machines. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, We interpret the limitation as suggested by applicant’s [0073]-[0075]. Our interpretation requires that travel distance be optimized for multiple AMRs, i.e. over an aggregate of multiple motorized units. Because it is not clear whether this interpretation is correct, we consider it a point of indefiniteness and not a matter for a mere objection due to informality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elazary, et al., US 9,120,622 (hereinafter Elazary).
Regarding claim 19,
Elazary discloses:
An autonomous augmentation to a pick-put fulfillment system (system, C3/L1-16) comprising: a pick-put controller (computer 320: fig. 3) having a set of orders (computer receiving orders, C3/L38-52);
an AMR controller (also computer 320: fig. 3) in communications with the pick-put controller and carried by a motorized unit (robot 210: fig. 2);
a container (bin 470: fig. 4) carried by the motorized unit;
a bay controller in communications with the pick-put controller;Elazary discloses the actuation of lights on a “smarttable” (bay) in interaction with its robot as claimed in (C8/L39-51).
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to
transmit a destination to the AMR controller according to the set of orders,A fully autonomous mobile robot as Elazary discloses in (C3/L18-21) must necessarily be able to determine its own travel path. The autonomous movement disclosed in (C7/L13-21) can only come about from the robot’s on-board computer (combined AMR and pick-put controller). Elazary discloses path determination in response to orders in C10/L36-45.
communication with the bay controller to actuate a bay light to indicate an item to be picked,Elazary discloses the actuation of lights on a “smarttable” (bay) in interaction with its robot as claimed in (C8/L39-51).
actuate a put [light] to indicate a location where to put the item,The same reference and mapping applies to this limitation as to the above. As discussed above in Claim Interpretation, the actuation of lights on a bay may be used to indicate a location for either picking or putting depending on the step in an order fulfillment operation a worker is performing.
and wherein the AMR controller is adapted to travel to the destination according to the pick-put controller. Again, Elazary discloses autonomous movement of its AMR as part of order fulfillment in (C7/L13-21).
Regarding claim 22,
Elazary discloses the limitations of claim 19, and also:
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to instruct the AMR to travel to a shipping location upon completion and/or partial completion of fulfillment of the set of orders.Elazary discloses the claimed travel in C12/L4-21, navigating to a distribution shelf (shipping location) where an order can be assembled after first navigating to storage shelves from which items can be picked to the robot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazary in view of Galluzzo, et al., US 2024/0004391 (hereinafter Galluzzo).
Regarding claim 1,
Elazary discloses:
An autonomous augmentation to a pick-put fulfillment system (system, C3/L1-16) comprising: a pick-put controller (computer 320: fig. 3) having a set of orders (computer receiving orders, C3/L38-52) to be fulfilled;
an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (robot 210: fig. 2) having an AMR controller (also computer 320: fig. 3) in communications with the pick-put controller having a container (bin 470: fig. 4) for receiving a picked item;See the Claim Interpretation section above regarding the distinction between applicant’s AMR controller and pick-put controller and regarding communication between software programs or modules.
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to
determine a travel path through a facility according to the set of orders, transmit a destination to the AMR controller according to the travel path,A fully autonomous mobile robot as Elazary discloses in (C3/L18-21) must necessarily be able to determine its own travel path. The autonomous movement disclosed in (C7/L13-21) can only come about from the robot’s on-board computer (combined AMR and pick-put controller). Elazary discloses path determination in response to orders in C10/L36-45.
communication with a bay controller to actuate a bay light assembly to indicate an item to be picked,Elazary discloses the actuation of lights on a “smarttable” (bay) in interaction with its robot as claimed in (C8/L39-51).
and wherein the AMR controller is adapted to travel to the destination according to the pick-put controller and travel to a shipping location according to a completion of a pick-put process according to the set of orders.Again, Elazary discloses autonomous movement of its AMR as part of order fulfillment in (C7/L13-21).
However, Elazary does not disclose all aspects of:
provide instructions to a display indicating a quantity of the item to be picked,While Elazary’s system tracks quantities and also uses lights to indicate to workers where to place items, Elazary does not explicitly disclose displaying quantities to workers.
actuate an AMR light assembly to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a carried by the AMR where to put the item, Elazary’s system activates lights on a “smarttable” (bay) and not on the robot itself.
Galluzzo, an invention in the field of collaborative order fulfillment teaches:
actuate an AMR light assembly (indicator bar 49: fig. 2A) to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a [sic] carried by the AMR where to put the item,Galluzzo teaches the use of the indicator bar comprising lights on its AMR in [0116]-[0124].
provide instructions to a display indicating a quantity of the item to be picked,Galluzzo teaches the display of item quantities to workers in [0132].
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 Elazary, to (i) actuate an AMR light assembly to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a carried by the AMR where to put the item, and (ii) with a controller is adapted for communication with a bay controller to actuate a bay light assembly to indicate an item to be picked, as taught by Galluzzo, because firstly pick-to-light systems for indicating picking and placing locations to human workers have been known to the art for over 40 years and are commonplace, and secondly for an order to be picked and fulfilled item quantities must be known for both picking and placing.
Regarding claim 2,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1, and also:
wherein the pick-put controller is carried by the AMR. Elazary discloses its robot is fully autonomous in C3/L18-22. For a robot to be fully autonomous, it must carry all its controllers on board. In combination with Galluzzo, any additional control functions taught by Galluzzo would also be carried on board Elazary’s robot.
Regarding claim 3,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
including a set of containers (Galluzzo, plurality of unnumbered containers on intelligent shelves 40: fig. 1) that are carried by the AMR (100: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
including a set of containers (Galluzzo, plurality of unnumbered containers on intelligent shelves 40: fig. 1) that are carried by a cart (Galluzzo, intelligent shelves 40: fig. 1) wherein the cart is carried by the AMR. We consider Galluzzo’s intelligent shelves to constitute a cart because it is a transportable structure that can carry a plurality of containers. The combination of Galluzzo’s robot 100 with intelligent shelves 40 also constitutes a wheeled cart.
Regarding claim 5,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the actuation of an AMR light assembly results from a pick-put controller communication with an AMR light assembly controller. Galluzzo teaches this arrangement in [0011] wherein its on-board pick-to-light controller (AMR light assembly controller) is instructed to actuate lights by a processor of the mobile base (pick-put controller).
Regarding claim 6,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the actuation of an AMR light assembly results from a pick-put controller communication with an AMR controller. Galluzzo teaches this arrangement in [0011] wherein its on-board pick-to-light controller (AMR controller) is instructed to actuate lights by a processor of the mobile base (pick-put controller).
Regarding claim 7,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to determine a container size and/or a container type needed for the set of orders, instruct the AMR to travel to a container inventory area and indicate containers to be placed on the AMR.Galluzzo teaches the choice of tote (container) size as part of order optimization in [0171].
Regarding claim 8,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the AMR includes a motorized unit (Galluzzo, 100: fig. 1) and a container unit (Galluzzo, 40: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9,
Elazary discloses:
An autonomous augmentation to a pick-put fulfillment system (system, C3/L1-16) comprising: a pick-put controller (computer 320: fig. 3) having a set of orders (computer receiving orders, C3/L38-52) to be fulfilled;
an AMR controller (also computer 320: fig. 3) in communications with the pick-put controller having a container (bin 470: fig. 4) for receiving a picked item;See the Claim Interpretation section above regarding the distinction between applicant’s AMR controller and pick-put controller and regarding communication between software programs or modules.
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to
communication with a bay controller to actuate a bay light assembly to indicate an item to be picked,Elazary discloses the actuation of lights on a “smarttable” (bay) in interaction with its robot as claimed in (C8/L39-51).
determine a travel path through a facility according to the set of orders, transmit a destination to the AMR controller according to the travel path,A fully autonomous mobile robot as Elazary discloses in (C3/L18-21) must necessarily be able to determine its own travel path. The autonomous movement disclosed in (C7/L13-21) can only come about from the robot’s on-board computer (combined AMR and pick-put controller). Elazary discloses path determination in response to orders in C10/L36-45.
and, wherein the AMR controller is adapted to travel to the destination according to the pick-put controller and communication with the bay controller to determine the location where a motorized unit should be positioned. Again, Elazary discloses autonomous movement of its AMR as part of order fulfillment in (C7/L13-21). Elazary discloses in (C10/L66-C11/L11) that the robots navigate the site to the location where the robot (motorized unit) should be positioned based on RF beacons affixed to the shelves (bays). Such beacons must be controlled by a bay controller in order to operate.
However, Elazary does not disclose all aspects of:
provide instructions to a display indicating a quantity of the item to be picked,While Elazary’s system tracks quantities and also uses lights to indicate to workers where to place items, Elazary does not explicitly disclose displaying quantities to workers.
actuate an AMR light assembly to indicate a location where to put the item, Elazary’s system activates lights on a “smarttable” (bay) and not on the robot itself.
Galluzzo, an invention in the field of collaborative order fulfillment teaches:
actuate an AMR light assembly (indicator bar 49: fig. 2A) to indicate a location where to put the item,Galluzzo teaches the use of the indicator bar comprising lights on its AMR in [0116]-[0124].
provide instructions to a display indicating a quantity of the item to be picked,Galluzzo teaches the display of item quantities to workers in [0132].
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 Elazary, to (i) actuate an AMR light assembly to indicate a location where to put the item, and (ii) with a controller is adapted for communication with a bay controller to actuate a bay light assembly to indicate an item to be picked, as taught by Galluzzo, because firstly pick-to-light systems for indicating picking and placing locations to human workers have been known to the art for over 40 years and are commonplace, and secondly for an order to be picked and fulfilled item quantities must be known for both picking and placing.
Regarding claim 11,
Elazary discloses:
An autonomous augmentation to a pick-put fulfillment system (system, C3/L1-16) comprising: a pick-put controller (computer 320: fig. 3) having a set of orders (computer receiving orders, C3/L38-52) to be fulfilled;
an AMR controller (also computer 320: fig. 3) in communications with the pick-put controller having a container (bin 470: fig. 4) for receiving a picked item;See the Claim Interpretation section above regarding the distinction between applicant’s AMR controller and pick-put controller and regarding communication between software programs or modules.
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to
wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to determine a set of orders according to a travel path through a facilityNote that per the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) we interpret this limitation as “wherein the pick-put controller is adapted to determine a travel path through a facility according to a set of orders”.A fully autonomous mobile robot as Elazary discloses in (C3/L18-21) must necessarily be able to determine its own travel path. The autonomous movement disclosed in (C7/L13-21) can only come about from the robot’s on-board computer (combined AMR and pick-put controller). Elazary discloses path determination in response to orders in C10/L36-45.
communication with a bay controller to actuate a bay light assembly to indicate an item to be picked,Elazary discloses the actuation of lights on a “smarttable” (bay) in interaction with its robot as claimed in (C8/L39-51).
wherein the AMR controller is adapted to travel to the destination according to the pick-put controller.Again, Elazary discloses autonomous movement of its AMR as part of order fulfillment in (C7/L13-21).
However, Elazary does not disclose all aspects of:
actuate an AMR light assembly to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a carried by the AMR where to put the item, Elazary’s system activates lights on a “smarttable” (bay) and not on the robot itself.
provide instructions to a display indicating a quantity of the item to be picked,While Elazary’s system tracks quantities and also uses lights to indicate to workers where to place items, Elazary does not explicitly disclose displaying quantities to workers.
Galluzzo, an invention in the field of collaborative order fulfillment teaches:
actuate an AMR light assembly (indicator bar 49: fig. 2A) to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a [sic] carried by the AMR where to put the item,Galluzzo teaches the use of the indicator bar comprising lights on its AMR in [0116]-[0124].
provide instructions to a display indicating a quantity of the item to be picked,Galluzzo teaches the display of item quantities to workers in [0132].
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 Elazary, to (i) actuate an AMR light assembly to indicate a position on the AMR and/or a carried by the AMR where to put the item, and (ii) with a controller is adapted for communication with a bay controller to actuate a bay light assembly to indicate an item to be picked, as taught by Galluzzo, because firstly pick-to-light systems for indicating picking and placing locations to human workers have been known to the art for over 40 years and are commonplace, and secondly for an order to be picked and fulfilled item quantities must be known for both picking and placing.
Regarding claim 12,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
wherein the travel path is a optimized travel path to minimize an aggregate travel distance. Elazary teaches travel path optimization over distance in C10/L36-45.
Regarding claim 13,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
where the aggregate travel distance is an aggregate of multiple motorized units. As Elazary teaches robot path optimization over distance in C10/L36-45, and as it teaches that its system comprises a plurality of robots in C3/L1-16, it follows that its aggregated travel distance for multiple robots is also optimized.
Claims 10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazary in view of Galluzzo and further in view of Drapeau, Raoul E., US 3,908,800 (hereinafter Drapeau).
Regarding claims 10, 14, and 17,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 9 (parent of claim 10), claim 11 (parent of claims 14 and 17) but not:
(claims 10, 14) wherein the pick-put controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to pick.
(claim 17) wherein the pick-put controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to put.While Galluzzo teaches the display of item quantities to workers in [0132], this display is not on the robot itself (i.e. included by the pick-put controller) but is rather on a worker’s device.
Drapeau, an invention in the field of item selection, teaches:
wherein the pick-put controller includes a display (19: fig. 1a) indicated the quantity of an item to pick.
wherein the pick-put controller includes a display (19: fig. 1a) indicated the quantity of an item to put.Regarding both these limitations, Drapeau teaches an item selection quantity display on a mobile cart 10 in (C3/L55-C4/L8). Moreover, in combination with Galluzzo, Drapeau’s fixed display indicator replaces Galluzzo’s wearable device which is also capable of displaying quantities for both picking and putting.
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 Elazary, wherein the pick-put controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to pick [or put], as taught by Drapeau, because Drapeau’s approach obviates the need for the worker to carry a special display device as required by Galluzzo for the same purpose.
Regarding claims 15 and 18,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 11 but not:
(claim 15) wherein the AMR controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to pick.
(claim 18) wherein the AMR controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to put. While Galluzzo teaches the display of item quantities to workers in [0132], this display is not on the robot itself (i.e. included by the AMR controller) but is rather on a worker’s device.
Drapeau, an invention in the field of item selection, teaches:
wherein the AMR controller includes a display (19: fig. 1a) indicated the quantity of an item to pick.
wherein the AMR controller includes a display (19: fig. 1a) indicated the quantity of an item to put.Regarding both these limitations, Drapeau teaches an item selection quantity display on a mobile cart 10 in (C3/L55-C4/L8). In general, as part of an order fulfillment process, a worker only engages with a particular storage location (whether it is on a bay, a cart, a workstation, or an AMR) for picking or putting. Thus, the same display can always serve both purposes. Moreover, in combination with Galluzzo, Drapeau’s fixed display indicator replaces Galluzzo’s wearable device which is also capable of displaying quantities for both picking and putting.
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 Elazary, wherein the AMR controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to pick [or put], as taught by Drapeau, because Drapeau’s approach obviates the need for the worker to carry a special display device as required by Galluzzo.
Regarding claim 16,
Elazary in view of Galluzzo teaches the limitations of claim 11 but not:
wherein the bay light includes a display adapted to display a quantity of items to pick. While Galluzzo teaches the display of item quantities to workers in [0132], this display is not on a storage bay but is rather on a worker’s device.
Drapeau, an invention in the field of item selection, teaches:
wherein the bay light includes a display (19: fig. 1a) adapted to display a quantity of items to pick.Drapeau teaches an item selection quantity display on a mobile cart 10 in (C3/L55-C4/L8). Per Claim Interpretation above, a transportable storage cart conveys a plurality of storage bays.
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 Elazary wherein the bay light includes a display adapted to display a quantity of items to pick, as taught by Drapeau, because Drapeau’s approach obviates the need for the worker to carry a special display device as required by Galluzzo.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazary in view of Drapeau.
Elazary discloses the limitations of claim 19 but not:
(claim 20) wherein the pick-put controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to pick.
(claim 21) wherein the pick-put controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to put.Elazary does not disclose the display of item quantities.
Drapeau, an invention in the field of item selection, teaches:
wherein the pick-put controller includes a display (19: fig. 1a) indicated the quantity of an item to pick.
wherein the pick-put controller includes a display (19: fig. 1a) indicated the quantity of an item to put.Regarding both these limitations, Drapeau teaches an item selection quantity display on a mobile cart 10 in (C3/L55-C4/L8).
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 Elazary, wherein the pick-put controller includes a display indicated the quantity of an item to pick [or put], as taught by Drapeau, because a worker filling an order by picking or putting items plainly needs to be instructed how many articles to pick or put to fill the order.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,741,345 teaches the display of item quantity information on shelves as guidance for workers. US 2015/0213695 and US 2017/0087731 are two of many examples of “pick to light” systems that illuminate storage locations either as guidance for picking or putting or for both operations.
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