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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "it”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (“Li”)(CN 112330249 A)(with text citations to English translation attached hereto).
Li (fig. 2) teaches a warehouse management system and method, comprising
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a control server (210),
a carrying apparatus (240 or 250), and
a workstation (fig. 2 showing work station area near 221, 231), the workstation being provided with a temporary goods storage region (221), wherein:
the control server is configured to
determine a goods inventory location of first goods according to a quantity of the first goods hit by a to-be-processed order set (p. 12-13 teaching control server configured to determine—based on an order task--a location of an inventory container, i.e., first 220 or second 230 storage area, wherein determining a quantity of goods is inherent in teaching of server dividing order task into two distinct sub-orders);
determine a first carrying apparatus for carrying the first goods and a first workstation for picking the first goods (p. 13 teaching control server 210 configured to determine carrying apparatus, such as a shelf conveying or bin conveying robot, based on type of inventory container to be transported to a first workstation 221),
send a first carrying instruction to the first carrying apparatus, and send a first to-be-processed order which hits the first goods in the to-be-processed order set to the first workstation (p. 13 teaching control server configured to send a first conveying instruction and that a first carrying apparatus 240—in response to a first conveying instruction---transports a first inventory container from a first storage area 220 to the first station 221);
the first carrying apparatus is configured to move to the goods inventory location and carry the first goods to the first workstation in response to the first carrying instruction (Id.); and
the first workstation is configured to shelve the first goods to the temporary goods storage region of the first workstation, and pick the first goods from the temporary goods storage region according to the first to-be-processed order (fig. 2 showing first workstation configured to shelve the first goods to a temporary goods area; p. 13 teaching that container conveying device 260 configured to transport first goods from a the first station 221 to the second station 232—thus first station 221 can be regarded as a temporary storage area);
(re: claim 9) wherein the workstation is provided with an operation object and an order picking region, the order picking region is provided with a plurality of order storage locations, and each of the order storage locations is capable of accommodating at least one order container (p. 13 teaching “the first station 221 executing the first sub-order, the goods in the first inventory container is selected to the order container”, wherein Examiner regards the order container as an order storage location of an order picking region and the box or shelf conveying robot as the operation object/manipulator); and
the operation object is configured to take out the first goods from the temporary goods storage region of the first workstation according to the first to-be-processed order, and put the first goods in the order container corresponding to the first to-be-processed order (Id.);
(re: claim 10) wherein: the workstation is further provided with an operating workstation and a container loading/unloading apparatus (p. 13 teaching that order container can be a movable order shelf or the order container itself and the loading/unloading device can be a shelf or box conveying robot);
the container loading/unloading apparatus is arranged between the operating workstation and the order picking region, and is configured to take out the order container corresponding to the first to-be-processed order from the order picking region and put the order container on the operating workstation, or take out the order container from the operating workstation and put the order container in the order picking region (fig. 2 workstations with storage locations that can be regarded as order picking region); and
the operation object is further configured to put the first goods in the order container of the operating workstation (p. 13 teaching shelf or box conveying robot/manipulator);
(re: claim 12) wherein the operation object comprises an operator, a manipulator, or an automated apparatus for goods picking (Id.);
(re: claim 15) wherein at least two workstations share a same temporary goods storage region (fig. 2 showing multiple workstations 231 configured to share temporary storage region 221).
(re: claim 16) The claimed warehouse management method is performed in the normal operation of the device cited above.
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 of this title, 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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”)(CN 112330249 A) in view of Yu (US 2024/0193544).
Li as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 13) wherein the control server is further configured to determine location information of the first goods in the temporary goods storage region of the first workstation according to a preset condition; and
the first workstation is further configured to shelve the first goods to the temporary goods storage region of the first workstation according to the location information;
(re: claim 14) wherein the preset condition comprises at least one selected from a popularity of the first goods, a degree of association between the first goods and other goods in the temporary goods storage region, and a sequence of the to-be-processed orders in the first workstation.
Yu, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated material handling arts to configure the control server
(re: claims 13, 14)
to determine a temporary storage location according to a preset condition, such as popularity or frequency of item delivery, to improve system efficiency (para. 51-53 teaching inventory management based on popularity of goods as parameter for selecting a temporary storage location closer to work station).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Li for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
June 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights