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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazama et al. US 2020/0299062.
Kazama discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
(Re claim 1) “an interface acquiring warehousing information indicating articles to be stored in a rack including two or more sections having different heights, the rack to be carried by an automated guided vehicle” (DS, AC, 700 figure 1,7). “a processor acquiring property information indicating property of each of the articles, and generating planning information indicating the sections to store the articles based on the property information” (700, 800 figure 7,8, para 0150).
(Re claim 2) “the property relates to weight or price of each of the articles” (704 figure 7).
(Re claim 3) “the property is weight of each of the articles, and the processor allocates the articles to the sections in descending order of weight from the bottom section” (700, 800 figure 7,8, para 0150, 0160).
(Re claim 4) “the processor allocates the articles to the sections of a plurality of the racks in descending order of weight from the lowest sections thereof” (700, 800 figure 7,8, para 0150, 0160).
Kazama discloses an information processing method to be executed with a processor, the method comprising:
(Re claim 9) “acquiring warehousing information indicating articles to be stored in a rack including two or more sections having different heights, the rack to be carried by an automated guided vehicle” (DS, AC, 700 figure 1,7). “acquiring property information indicating property of each of the articles; and generating planning information indicating the sections to store the articles, based on the property information” (700, 800 figure 7,8, para 0150).
Kazama discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed with a processor to achieve:
(Re claim 10) “a function of acquiring warehousing information indicating articles to be stored in a rack including two or more sections having different heights, the rack to be carried by an automated guided vehicle” (DS, AC, 700 figure 1,7). “a function of acquiring property information indicating property of each of the articles; and a function of generating planning information indicating the sections to store the articles, based on the property information” (700, 800 figure 7,8, para 0150).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mountz et al. 2007/0021864.
Mountz discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
(Re claim 11) “an interface acquiring property information indicating property of each of articles stored in a rack including two or more sections having different heights, the rack to be carried by an automated guided vehicle” (20,30 figure 1,2, para 0032). “a processor generating planning information indicating a position to dispose the rack, based on the property information” (figure 5,6,7, para 0054).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama in view of Mountz et al. 2007/0021864.
Kazama discloses the system as rejected above.
(Re claim 5) Kazama does not disclose that the processor generates the planning information further indicating a position to dispose the rack storing the articles, based on the property information.
Mountz teaches that the processor generates the planning information further indicating a position to dispose the rack storing the articles, based on the property information (para 0054).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Kazama to include that the processor generates the planning information further indicating a position to dispose the rack storing the articles, based on the property information because it helps optimize the retrieval processes.
(Re claim 6) Kazama does not disclose that the processor calculates importance of the rack storing the articles, based on the property information, and, determines the position to dispose the rack, based on the importance.
Mountz teaches that the processor calculates importance of the rack storing the articles, based on the property information, and, determines the position to dispose the rack, based on the importance (para 0054) frequency of demand can be considered importance.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Kazama to include that the processor calculates importance of the rack storing the articles, based on the property information, and, determines the position to dispose the rack, based on the importance because it helps optimize the retrieval processes.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama/Mountz in view of Zevengergen US 9,908,696.
Kazama/Mountz discloses the system as rejected above.
(Re claim 7) Kazama/Mountz does not disclose that the importance is a total of weights of the articles stored in the rack.
Zevenbergen teaches the importance is a total of weights of the articles stored in the rack (col 16 lines 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Kazama/Mountz to include that the importance is a total of weights of the articles stored in the rack because it helps avoid unnecessary stress upon the AGVs.
(Re claim 8) Kazama does not disclose that the processor allocates a position closer to a picking station to pick up the articles from the rack to the rack having the higher importance.
Both Mountz and Zevenbergen teach that the processor allocates a position closer to a picking station to pick up the articles from the rack to the rack having the higher importance (para 0054; Mountz)(col 16 lines 3-15; Zevenbergen).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Kazama to include that the processor allocates a position closer to a picking station to pick up the articles from the rack to the rack having the higher importance because it helps optimize the retrieval processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0222439 discloses a system which tracks various item information including but not limited to weight, and sorts goods and storage containers accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights