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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2024 and 11/14/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. A certified copy of application CN 202210410348.2 was filed on 10/10/2024.
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)(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, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (WO 2022/078508 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang a warehouse management method, appliable to a scheduling server in a warehouse system (para. [0002]), the method comprising:
determining attribute information of a target warehouse position of a first container, wherein the attribute information of the target warehouse position comprises position information of the target warehouse position, and the first container is a container on which a robot is to perform a target operation (para. [0090]; position information corresponding to the current position of the target inventory container is generated and sent to robot);
if the target warehouse position is an internal warehouse position of a multiple-deep shelving unit and at least one second container is placed in an external warehouse position corresponding to the target warehouse position, determining at least one first rack from at least two racks in a no-load state of the robot (para. [0090]-[0091]; inclusion of temporary storage location for the blocking container in the operation instruction implies determination of a no-load rack on the robot);
sending a first operation instruction to the robot to control the robot to take out each second container and place the second container in the at least one first rack (para. [0093], [0095]; the blocking container is removed from the shelf and placed on the temporary storage location on robot), and
sending a second operation instruction to the robot to control the robot to perform an operation corresponding to the second operation instruction on the first container, to take out the first container from the target warehouse position or place the first container in the target warehouse position (para. [0093], [0095]; the target container is removed from the shelf and placed on a different temporary storage location on the robot).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses the second operation instruction comprises any following instruction: a storing instruction, and a delivery instruction (para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses the method further comprises: sending a fourth operation instruction to the robot to control the robot to take out each second container from a corresponding first rack and place the second container in a corresponding external warehouse position (para. [0095]; placing the external inventory container at a fifth position (original location).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wang (WO 2022/078508 A1) in view of Wintz et al. (US 2022/0388783), hereinafter “Wintz”.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. However, Wang does not disclose determining at least one first rack from at least two racks in a no-load state of the robot comprises:
determining whether at least one vacant warehouse position exists in a target range;
if the at least one vacant warehouse position exists, for each second container, determining a first duration taken to control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in a corresponding vacant warehouse position and a second duration taken to control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in a corresponding rack in a no-load state; and
comparing the first duration with the second duration corresponding to each second container, and determining the at least one first rack from the at least two racks in a no-load state of the robot according to a comparison result of the first duration being greater than or equal to the second duration.
Wintz discloses a process for selecting a storage location for an item, including determining at least one first rack from at least two racks in a no-load state of the robot comprises: whether at least one vacant warehouse position exists in a target range (para. [0076]-[0078]; availability of multiple storage locations determined);
if the at least one vacant warehouse position exists, for each second container, determining a first duration taken to control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in a corresponding vacant warehouse position and a second duration taken to control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in a corresponding rack in a no-load state (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434);
comparing the first duration with the second duration corresponding to each second container, and determining the at least one first rack from the at least two racks in a no-load state of the robot according to a comparison result of the first duration being greater than or equal to the second duration (para. [0054], [0102]; individual parameters can be compared to determine the most favorable storage destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Wang and incorporate the teachings in Wintz of evaluating multiple candidate storage destinations by determining and comparing respective travel times (durations) associated with placing a container in each of the multiple available storage positions in a warehouse. Wintz recognizes that comparing travel times associated with candidate storage destinations and selecting the more favorable destinations improves operational efficiency and reduces overall travel time required to complete storage and retrieval tasks (para. [0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the value of applying the same known optimization technique to the temporary storage relocation operation of Wang in order to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. The choice of whether to temporarily store a blocking container in a warehouse location or a robot rack constitutes a selection between known alternatives storage locations.
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses the determining at least one first rack from at least two racks in a no-load state comprises: acquiring position information of the at least two racks in a no-load state (para. [0084], [0094]; height information related to the second position and fourth position indicate acquired positional information of at least two racks) , wherein the racks in a no-load state comprise at least two third racks, or comprise at least one second rack and at least two third racks, or comprise at least two second racks and at least one third rack, the second rack is a rack only configured to temporarily store the second container when the robot needs to perform the target operation on the first container (para. [0094]; second rack position is used to temporarily store the second container); when the robot comprises a second rack, the third rack is a rack other than the second rack in the racks of the robot; and when the robot does not comprise a second rack, the third rack is any rack of the robot (para. [0084], [0094]; robot is a multi-box robot where any of the racks can be configured to store the second container).
Wintz further discloses what Wang lacks, specifically, assigning favorability score to candidate storage locations and selecting preferred location based on one or more favorability scores, where height (position) of the storage location is one of the parameters used in determining the score (para. [0046]). Therefore, Wintz recognizes that the position of a storage location affects the suitability of a specific location for storing an item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Wang and incorporate the teachings in Wintz and utilize the robot rack position as an evaluating parameter in determining among the available robot storage racks of Wang. This modification represents a predictable implementation of a known teaching of evaluating candidate storage locations based on position characteristics in order to select a more favorable storage position. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that selecting rack at appropriate position would have the benefit of reducing the time required for completing a transfer operations thereby improving system throughput.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Wintz further discloses assigning favorability score to candidate storage locations and selecting preferred location based on one or more favorability scores, where height of the storage location is one of the parameters used in determining the score (para. [0046]). Therefore, Wintz recognizes that the vertical position of a storage location affects the suitability of a specific location for storing an item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Wang and incorporate the teachings in Wintz and utilize the relative height between the target shelf and each available robot rack position as a height based evaluating parameter when selecting among the available robot storage racks of Wang for comparison. This modification represents a predictable implementation of a known teaching of evaluating candidate storage locations based on height characteristics in order to select a more favorable position, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that selecting the location that minimizes vertical distance travel would have the benefit of reducing the time required for completing a transfer operations thereby improving system throughput. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing warehouse storage location duration to a with a non-optimal robot rack would result in selecting a warehouse location as a destination even though another robot rack position would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from the robot rack locations with minimum height difference and comparing against a warehouse for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Wintz further discloses what Wang lacks, specifically, according to a comparison result of the first duration being less than the second duration, sending a third operation instruction to the robot to control the robot to take out a target second container and place the target second container in a corresponding vacant warehouse position, wherein the target second container is a second container with the corresponding first duration less than the corresponding second duration (para. para. [0054], [0083], [0102]; Fig. 3, 310, instructions can be provided to cause a mechanical moving system to route the storage item to the selected storage location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Wang and incorporate the teachings in Wintz of selecting the storage location with the lower duration and sending an operation instruction to the robot to control the robot to take out a target second container and place the target second container in a corresponding vacant warehouse position, wherein the target second container is a second container with the corresponding first duration less than the corresponding second duration to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0206174), hereinafter “Li”, in view of Wintz et al. (US 2022/0388783).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor (para. [0284]-[0285]; computer with one or more CPUs); and
a memory communicatively connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions executable by the processor, and the instructions, when executed by the processor (para. [0277], [0284]-[0285]; memory), cause the processor to:
receive a task of performing a target operation on a first container (para. [0088]; controller 110 receives task order);
determine whether a target warehouse position of the first container is an internal warehouse position of a multiple-deep shelving unit (para. [0195]; target inventory receptacle 112 is determined to be not in a higher-floor storage space adjacent to the first aisle);
determine, when the target warehouse position of the first container is the internal warehouse, whether there is a second container placed in an external warehouse position in front of the target position (para. [0195]; presence of blocking inventory receptacles outside the target inventory receptacle 112 is determined);
determine whether there is a vacant rack on a robot and whether there is a vacant warehouse position in a target range (para. [0197]; Fig. 16B, the robot has multiple temporary storage spaces and controller selecting a robot in idle state implies a robot with a vacant rack; para. [0227]; controller determines an idle storage space).
Li discloses a warehouse management electronic device that uses both vacant robot racks and vacant storage shelf locations to store blocking container. However, Li does not disclose determining , when there is the vacant rack on the robot and there is the vacant warehouse position in the target range, a first duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant warehouse position, and a second duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant rack;
compare the first duration and the second duration; and
in response to the first duration is greater than or equal to the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant rack; or
in response to the first duration is less than the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant warehouse position.
Wintz discloses a process for selecting a storage location for an item, including determining at least one two vacant warehouse position exists in a target range (para. [0076]-[0078]; availability of multiple storage locations determined);
determine, when there are multiple vacant warehouse position in the target range, a first duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the first vacant warehouse position, and a second duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the second vacant position (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434);
comparing the first duration and the second duration (para. [0054], [0102]; individual parameters can be compared to determine the most favorable storage destination); and
in response to the first duration is greater than or equal to the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the first vacant location; or
in response to the first duration is less than the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the second vacant warehouse position (para. [0083]; Fig. 3, 310, instructions can be provided to cause a mechanical moving system to route the storage item to the selected storage location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management system of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz of evaluating multiple candidate storage destinations by determining and comparing respective travel times (durations) associated with placing a container in each of the multiple available storage positions in a warehouse. Wintz recognizes that comparing travel times associated with candidate storage destinations and selecting the more favorable destinations improves operational efficiency and reduces overall travel time required to complete storage and retrieval tasks (para. [0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the value of applying the same known optimization technique to the temporary storage relocation operation of Li in order to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. The choice of whether to temporarily store a blocking container in a warehouse location or a robot rack constitutes a selection between known alternatives storage locations.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Wintz further discloses when there are more than one vacant candidate storage locations, the quantity of the second duration is more than one, and each second duration corresponds to a duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in each vacant rack; when the processor compares the first duration and the second duration, the processor is configured to compare the first duration with a minimum second duration among the more than one second durations (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz where multiple candidate storage locations are compared based on time duration to relocate the container and selecting the more favorable choice as a storage destination to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing warehouse storage location duration to a robot rack with a non-optimal duration would result in selecting a warehouse location as a destination even though another robot rack position would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from the robot rack locations with minimum-duration and comparing against a warehouse for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Wintz discloses assigning favorability score to candidate storage locations and selecting preferred location based on one or more favorability scores, where height of the storage location is one of the parameters used in determining the score (para. [0046]). Therefore, Wintz recognizes that the vertical position of a storage location affects the suitability of a specific location for storing an item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Wang and incorporate the teachings in Wintz and utilize the relative height between the target shelf and each available robot rack position as a height based evaluating parameter when selecting among the available robot storage racks of Li for comparison. This modification represents a predictable implementation of a known teaching of evaluating candidate storage locations based on height characteristics in order to select a more favorable position, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that selecting the location that minimizes vertical distance travel would have the benefit of reducing the time required for completing a transfer operations thereby improving system throughput. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing warehouse storage location duration to a with a non-optimal robot rack would result in selecting a warehouse location as a destination even though another robot rack position would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from the robot rack locations with minimum height difference and comparing against a warehouse for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Wintz further discloses when there are more than one vacant candidate storage locations, the quantity of the first duration is more than one, and each second duration corresponds to a duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in each vacant rack; when the processor compares the first duration and the second duration, the processor is configured to compare the first duration with a minimum second duration among the more than one second durations (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz where multiple candidate storage locations are compared based on time duration to relocate the container and selecting the more favorable choice as a storage destination to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing a robot rack storage location to a warehouse storage location with non-optimal duration would result in selecting a robot rack position as a destination even though another warehouse location would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from warehouse storage location with minimum-duration among other warehouse storage locations and comparing against the robot rack location for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Li further discloses when there are more than one vacant warehouse positions, a vacant warehouse position is selected from the more than one vacant warehouse positions, and the selected vacant warehouse position has a smallest distance from a warehouse position in which the second container is located (para. [0227]; determines an idle higher-floor storage space closest to the storage space of the blocking inventory receptacle as a storage space for storing the blocking inventory receptacle).
Wintz further discloses what Li lacks, specifically, when the processor compares the first duration and the second duration, the processor is configured to compare a first duration corresponding to the selected vacant warehouse position with the second duration (para. [0054], [0102]; individual parameters can be compared to determine the most favorable storage destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz where multiple candidate storage locations are compared based on distance from a warehouse position in which the second container is located to select the best candidate out of the warehouse storage locations for comparison with the second duration to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing a robot rack storage location to a warehouse storage location with non-optimal duration would result in selecting a robot rack position as a destination even though another warehouse location would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from warehouse storage location with the smallest distance among other warehouse storage locations and comparing against the robot rack location for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Li further discloses a warehouse management electronic device that uses both vacant robot racks and vacant storage shelf locations to store blocking container.
Wintz discloses evaluating candidate storage locations for an item by determining travel-related metrics and selecting a destination based on the evaluation (para. [0052], ][0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management system of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz of evaluating candidate storage locations for an item by determining travel-related metrics and selecting a destination based on the evaluation and use the same destination selection process independently to each blocking container when multiple blocking containers are present because each relocation represents an independent storage decision requiring evaluation of the available temporary storage alternatives. Repeating the known evaluation process for each container merely involves applying a known technique to each member of a set to obtain the predictable result of selecting an efficient temporary storage location for each blocking container.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Li further discloses when the target operation is storing the first container in the target position, after the robot places the second container in the vacant rack or the vacant warehouse position, the processor is configured to control the robot to place the first container in the target warehouse position, and control the robot to take out the second container from the vacant rack or the vacant warehouse position, and place the second container to an original warehouse position of the second container (para. [0128]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Li further discloses when the target operation is delivering the first container, after the robot places the second container in the vacant rack or the vacant warehouse position, the processor is configured to control the robot to take out the first container and place the first container in a rack on the robot, and control the robot to take out the second container from the vacant rack or the vacant warehouse position, and place the second container to an original warehouse position of the second container (para. [0128]).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store computer-executable instructions, and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor, are configured to (para. [0284]-[0286]; computer with one or more CPUs); and
receive a task of performing a target operation on a first container (para. [0088]; controller 110 receives task order);
determine whether a target warehouse position of the first container is an internal warehouse position of a multiple-deep shelving unit (para. [0195]; target inventory receptacle 112 is determined to be not in a higher-floor storage space adjacent to the first aisle);
determine, when the target warehouse position of the first container is the internal warehouse, whether there is a second container placed in an external warehouse position in front of the target position (para. [0195]; presence of blocking inventory receptacles outside the target inventory receptacle 112 is determined);
determine whether there is a vacant rack on a robot and whether there is a vacant warehouse position in a target range (para. [0197]; Fig. 16B, the robot has multiple temporary storage spaces and a controller selecting a robot in idle state implies a robot with a vacant rack; para. [0227]; the controller determines an idle storage space).
Li discloses a warehouse management electronic device that uses both vacant robot racks and vacant storage shelf locations to store blocking container. However, Li does not disclose
determining , when there is the vacant rack on the robot and there is the vacant warehouse position in the target range, a first duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant warehouse position, and a second duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant rack;
compare the first duration and the second duration; and
in response to the first duration is greater than or equal to the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant rack; or
in response to the first duration is less than the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the vacant warehouse position.
Wintz discloses a process for selecting a storage location for an item, including determining at least one two vacant warehouse position exists in a target range (para. [0076]-[0078]; availability of multiple storage locations determined);
determine, when there are multiple vacant warehouse position in the target range, a first duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the first vacant warehouse position, and a second duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the second vacant position (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434);
comparing the first duration and the second duration (para. [0054], [0102]; individual parameters can be compared to determine the most favorable storage destination); and
in response to the first duration is greater than or equal to the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the first vacant location; or
in response to the first duration is less than the second duration, control the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in the second vacant warehouse position (para. [0083]; Fig. 3, 310, instructions can be provided to cause a mechanical moving system to route the storage item to the selected storage location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management system of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz of evaluating multiple candidate storage destinations by determining and comparing respective travel times (durations) associated with placing a container in each of the multiple available storage positions in a warehouse. Wintz recognizes that comparing travel times associated with candidate storage destinations and selecting the more favorable destinations improves operational efficiency and reduces overall travel time required to complete storage and retrieval tasks (para. [0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the value of applying the same known optimization technique to the temporary storage relocation operation of Li in order to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. The choice of whether to temporarily store a blocking container in a warehouse location or a robot rack constitutes a selection between known alternatives storage locations.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Wintz further discloses what Li lacks, specifically, when there are more than one vacant candidate storage locations, the quantity of the second duration is more than one, and each second duration corresponds to a duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in each vacant rack; the computer-executable instructions are configured to compare the first duration with a minimum second duration among the more than one second durations. (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz where multiple candidate storage locations are compared based on time duration to relocate the container and selecting the more favorable choice as a storage destination to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing warehouse storage location duration to a robot rack with a non-optimal duration would result in selecting a warehouse location as a destination even though another robot rack position would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from the robot rack locations with minimum-duration and comparing against a warehouse for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Wintz further discloses what Li lacks, specifically, assigning favorability score to candidate storage locations and selecting preferred location based on one or more favorability scores, where height of the storage location is one of the parameters used in determining the score (para. [0046]). Therefore, Wintz recognizes that the vertical position of a storage location affects the suitability of a specific location for storing an item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Wang and incorporate the teachings in Wintz and utilize the relative height between the target shelf and each available robot rack position as a height based evaluating parameter when selecting among the available robot storage racks of Li for comparison. This modification represents a predictable implementation of a known teaching of evaluating candidate storage locations based on height characteristics in order to select a more favorable position, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that selecting the location that minimizes vertical distance travel would have the benefit of reducing the time required for completing a transfer operations thereby improving system throughput. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing warehouse storage location duration to a with a non-optimal robot rack would result in selecting a warehouse location as a destination even though another robot rack position would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from the robot rack locations with minimum height difference and comparing against a warehouse for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Wintz further discloses what Li lacks, specifically, when there are more than one vacant candidate storage locations, the quantity of the first duration is more than one, and each second duration corresponds to a duration taken by the robot to take out the second container and place the second container in each vacant rack; the computer-executable instructions are configured to compare a minimum first duration among the more than one first durations with the second duration (para. [0102]; Fig. 4C, determining first travel time between current position and first candidate storage location 432; determining second travel time between current position and second respective storage location 434).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz where multiple candidate storage locations are compared based on time duration to relocate the container and selecting the more favorable choice as a storage destination to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing a robot rack storage location to a warehouse storage location with non-optimal duration would result in selecting a robot rack position as a destination even though another warehouse location would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from warehouse storage location with minimum-duration among other warehouse storage locations and comparing against the robot rack location for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Li and Wintz, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Li further discloses when there are more than one vacant warehouse positions, a vacant warehouse position is selected from the more than one vacant warehouse positions, and the selected vacant warehouse position has a smallest distance from a warehouse position in which the second container is located (para. [0227]; determines an idle higher-floor storage space closest to the storage space of the blocking inventory receptacle as a storage space for storing the blocking inventory receptacle).
Wintz further discloses what Li lacks, specifically, the computer-executable instructions are configured to compare a first duration corresponding to the selected vacant warehouse position with the second duration (para. [0054], [0102]; individual parameters can be compared to determine the most favorable storage destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warehouse management method of Li and incorporate the teachings in Wintz where multiple candidate storage locations are compared based on distance from a warehouse position in which the second container is located to select the best candidate out of the warehouse storage locations for comparison with the second duration to reduce task completion time and improve robot utilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the comparing a robot rack storage location to a warehouse storage location with non-optimal duration would result in selecting a robot rack position as a destination even though another warehouse location would have yielded a shorter completion time. Therefore, identifying the candidate from warehouse storage location with the smallest distance among other warehouse storage locations and comparing against the robot rack location for final comparison represents a logical and predictable optimization step to ensure the most optimum location among the plurality of candidate locations is selected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 2022/0332502) discloses a dense storage container handling system in which a robot determines that a target container is blocked by one or more blocking containers, removes the blocking container(s) and temporarily stores the blocking container on a cache mechanism of the robot to enable retrieval of a target container. After the target container is retrieved, the blocking container is returned to the original position , the targets original position or another empty storage position on the rack. Liu also discloses the situation in which multiple blocking containers are present (para. [0098]-[0099], [0109], [0123]; Fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights