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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant application, claims 1-7 and 11-13 are directed to a management apparatus for a collection and delivery system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of acquiring information relating to the position of supports/shelfs; calculating a spacing between supports and planning a collection strategy of a package based on the spacing information (see e.g., claims 1)—process steps which can be grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) as these steps of acquiring information, calculating a spacing and planning a strategy can all be performed in the human mind. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III (describing a “mental process” as “thinking” that “can be performed in the human mind and may include “observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions” wherein claims to collecting information and analyzing said information have been held to be a mental process).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the control unit merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the control unit and robot in claims 1, 3, 7 and 11-13 perform(s) the steps or functions of acquiring information related to the delivery shelf and package features and then planning a strategy for controlling the robot movement—the claims do not actually involve physically collecting or delivering a package--only information processing, calculating and planning related to collecting or delivery of a package with said robot, or a control unit configured to control a robot. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a generic computer configured to perform basic information processing and robot control functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a generic computer/control unit to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of acquiring spacing information and planning a package collection strategy. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of planning a package collection strategy and the elements do not positively recite an actual step requiring real-world manipulation of an actual package. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 11-13 further describe the abstract idea of planning a collection strategy by more steps related to acquiring different types of information. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
For these reasons, claims 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are not patent eligible.
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 3, 6 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 3, the language “a control unit” has improper antecedent basis and is thus indefinite as this element has already been defined in base claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the language “wherein the planning unit creates a collection plan for a next collection of the collection package by changing rates at which the information indicating the spacing when the collection package is collected relative to the information indicating the height of the collection package input by the requester is reflected based on the difference between the height of the collection package based on the detection information of the detection sensor and the height of the collection package input by the requester” is non-sensical and thus indefinite as it seems to be a collection of sentence fragments. Here, the language “by changing rates at which the information indicating the spacing when the collection package is collected relative to” does not appear to have a definite boundary and appears relative to an indeterminate value defined by three separate variables. This portion of claim 6 is regarded as unexaminable.
Regarding claim 7, the language “the third support part” lacks proper antecedent basis and is thus indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the language “if there is another support part in a region lower than the height position where the third support part for supporting the delivery package within the collection and delivery shelf is disposed, the robot to detect a state around a height position where the third support part is disposed within the collection and delivery shelf using the detection sensor mounted on the robot in order to detect the state inside the collection and delivery shelf” is non-sensical and thus indefinite as it seems to also be a collection of sentence fragments with multiple conditional statements based on a limitation “third support part” that lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 7 is still regarded as unexaminable as it is not clear what actual process Applicant is defining.
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.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gil (US 2021/0179357 A1).
Gil teaches a management apparatus for a collection and delivery system that
collects a package stored in a collection and delivery shelf and move the package to a collection and delivery base using a robot (fig. 5, 6 showing delivery base near 15 and fig. 13 showing collection base near 700; para. 73-81, 97, 165) or
delivers a package from the collection and delivery base to the collection and delivery shelf using the robot (Id.),
the management apparatus comprising:
(re: claims 1, 8) a first identification information acquisition unit configured to acquire identification information associated with information indicating height positions of a plurality of support parts disposed in the collection and delivery shelf with adjustable height positions and capable of supporting the package (fig. 3, 6 showing collection and delivery shelf configured with adjustable shelving/support parts 110; para. 56-58, 153 teaching adjustable shelving/support parts configured to form custom-sized shelves for individual packages 300 via integrated movement means, wherein “the vertical position of each shelving bracket 110 may be monitored and/or selected”; fig. 9 and para. 74-76 teaching controller, wherein Examiner regards said controller as including a first acquisition module to acquire/receive information relating to the selected height positions);
a second identification information acquisition unit configured to acquire the identification information, from among the plurality of support parts, of a first support part that supports the package, as collection package,to be collected by the robot (fig. 8A-8G and para. 62, 153, 172-174 wherein second acquisition module configured to acquire the specific shelve location of the package to be delivered is inherent in controller that “may store data indicative of the location of the various packages 300 within the cargo area 14 (e.g., on respective shelves therein), the controller is configured to maneuver a picking robot 500 to a position adjacent the particular package 300 for the upcoming delivery to retrieve the package 300”—wherein Applicant’s specification in para. 71 teaches that a height position of a tray can be regarded as identification information of a support part);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a spacing in an up-down direction of the collection and delivery shelf between the first support part and a second support part disposed directly above the first support part among the plurality of support parts (fig. 3 showing packages stacked in the vertical direction on adjustable shelves/support parts and para. 58 teaching that vertical position of adjustable support parts is selected to form “custom-sized shelves for individual packages 300. Shelves for individual packages 300 may thus be formed and placed to minimize the distance between adjacent packages 300” thus it is inherent that a calculation module that determines a proper spacing between respective support parts and adjacent packages is inherent);
a planning unit configured to create a collection plan for the collection package so that the robot can collect the collection package based on the information indicating the spacing (para. 58, 174 teaching that controller is configured to maneuver picking robot to specific shelf area to collect package therein and that “a minimum distance of separation between packages” is maintained to enable the picking robot 500 to automatically retrieve packages—thus a planning module that allows package collection based on proper spacing is inherent);
a control unit configured to control the robot to collect the collection package from the collection and delivery shelf based on the collection plan (Id. teaching controller configured to collect packages according to a plan with para. 174 teaching that controller “configured to identify a next package 300 for delivery…”);
(re: claim 2) an empty height information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating an empty height of a storage unit for storing the package in the robot,
wherein the planning unit creates a collection plan for the collection package so that the robot capable of collecting the collection package collects the collection package based on the information indicating the spacing and the information indicating the empty height of the storage unit in the robot (para. 56-58, 138-139, 153 teaching that dimensional data—including height, length and width-- is useable “to determine a relative size for a shelf to support the package” thus it is inherent that empty height information of a shelf/support is acquired as the system uses package dimension data to configure a shelf height to allow the robot to properly collect a package);
(re: claim 3) a first height information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating a height of the package based on detection information of a detection sensor mounted on the robot for detecting a state inside the collection and delivery shelf (para. 61, 66-68 teaching robot configured with position, pressure and proximity sensors to monitor vertical position and to detect a package as well as a package identification unit configured to scan, read and identify a package, wherein a package height is regarded as acquired when package is identified as package attributes have been previously scanned/entered); and
the control unit configured to control the robot, wherein the control unit controls the robot to detect the package stored in the collection and delivery shelf using the detection sensor while the robot raises a delivery package, which is the package to be delivered by the robot, above the package stored in the collection and delivery shelf when the package is stored in the collection and delivery shelf (fig. 9 and para. 66-68, 73-77 teaching controller 520 configured to control robot movements related to placement and/or retrieval of packages based on system information, wherein sensor is regarded as operational during placement and/or retrieval processes);
(re: claim 4) a first height information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating a height of the package based on detection information of a detection sensor mounted on the robot for detecting a state inside the collection and delivery shelf (Cf. fig. 6 and 7; para. 61, 66-68, 73, 135-139, 172-174 teaching robot configured with pressure and proximity sensors to allow automatic detection and identification of a package during retrieval processes when package is located in the delivery shelf);
a second height information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating a height of a delivery package to be delivered by the robot (para. 135-139 teaching that a variety of sensors as well as user input may be used to acquire package information including package attributes such as length, width and height);
a reception completion information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating completion of receiving the delivery package input by a requester who requested the delivery of the delivery package (Id. teaching that computer—after receiving package information input—may perform validation operations, thus a reception complete module is inherent);
a storage state information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating a storage state of the package within the collection and delivery shelf based information indicating the height of the delivery package, and the information indicating the completion of receiving the delivery package (para. 138-140, 156-159, 172-174 teaching that controller tracks package status throughout processes in real-time including dimensions and location of package on each support part, thus an updated status—including a completion status—is regarded as inherent); and
a storage state information update unit configured to update the information indicating the storage state of the package within the collection and delivery shelf based on the detection information of the detection sensor (Id.);
(re: claim 5) wherein the planning unit creates a delivery plan for the delivery package so that the delivery package, along with a third support part supporting the delivery package, can be stored in the collection and delivery shelf based on the updated information indicating the storage state of the package within the collection and delivery shelf (Id. with para. 156-159 teaching that computer determines appropriate placement—i.e., delivery—of a package that involves adjusting the support parts to accommodate different package sizes, thus a planning module that creates a delivery plan, i.e., determining positions for all support parts engaged in delivery, based on updated information is regarded as inherent);
(re: claim 6) a first height information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating a height of the package based on detection information of a detection sensor mounted on the robot for detecting a state inside the collection and delivery shelf (para. 61, 66-68 teaching robot configured with position, pressure and proximity sensors to monitor vertical position and to detect a package as well as a package identification unit configured to scan, read and identify a package, wherein a package height is regarded as acquired when package is identified as package attributes have been previously scanned/entered); and
a second height information acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating a height of the collection package input by a requester who requested the collection of the collection package (para. 135-139 teaching that user may input package information including package attributes such as length, width and height);
(re: claim 11) wherein the planning unit selects, from among a plurality of robots, a robot having an empty height in a storage unit of the robot that is greater than the spacing between the first support part and the second support part, and creates the collection plan so that the selected robot collects the collection package (fig. 5-6 showing a plurality of robots and para. 172-174 and 184-186 teaching controller configured to maneuver a specific robot to collect a specific package or packages);
(re: claim 13) wherein the planning unit creates a travel route for the robot between the collection and delivery base and the collection and delivery shelf based on map information and location information of the collection and delivery base, and includes information indicating the travel route in the collection plan (para. 60, 76-77, 154-156 teaching controller configured to plan starting and ending points of respective robots and configured to determine “an optimal package arrangement”, “spacing between packages” and “appropriate locations for placing all of the packages” using a “dimensional system”).
(re: claims 9-10, 14, 16, 17 and 19) The claimed method and program execution steps are performed in the normal operation of the system described 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 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil (US 2021/0179357 A1) in view of Jarvis et al. (“Jarvis”)(US 202/0207250).
Gil as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 12, 15 and 18) wherein the first identification information acquisition unit acquires the identification information from a reading unit disposed in the collection and delivery shelf, the reading unit being configured to read the identification information of the first support part and associate the identification information with information indicating a height position of the first support part within the collection and delivery shelf.
Jarvis, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage arts to use a sensor to acquire identification information, such as shelf height, to allow more efficient storage of items based on size or height, when using adjustable vertical shelves (para. 80 teaching use of marker to provide height information when using a plurality of adjustable vertical shelves and para. 81 teaching that shelf may be selected based on size, height and weight capacity).
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 and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., sensor and tag combination with related controller features) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). 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 Gil for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 rejections, Examiner notes that the control unit in claim 1 is merely generic and is not sufficient to obviate the 101 rejection. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not addressed the 112 rejections relating to claims 6 and 7 and these claims are still regarded as indefinite.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the formulated prior art rejection set forth above. Further, Applicant’s argument relating to the “calculation unit configured to calculate a spacing in an up-down direction of the collection and delivery shelf” is undermined by a review of the prior art. Gil expressly teaches the formation of custom-sized shelves for individual packages and describes the need to “minimize the distance between adjacent packages” to allow a robot to collect said packages (fig. 3 and para. 57-58), thus Gil can be interpreted as calculating the required spacing needed for storage of a package in the up-down direction and then the addition of a spacing, i.e., margin, to allow package collection. Applicant’s interpretation—wherein a spacing between two shelving parts is not contemplated— can be seen as counter to the teachings of Gil and would not lead to the shelf spacing shown in figure 3. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s argument, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus 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
------
September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights