DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 09/09/2024, wherein claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in Japan. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-046875, filed on March 23, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1 and 9 invoke 112(f) describing an “instruction device.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned is defined as software installed on a computer or multiple devices such as a server, computer 500, CPU 501, ROM 502, RAM 503, storage 504, an input interface 505, an output interface 506, a communication interface 507, warehouse managing part 91, equipment execution controller 92, transport device group controller 93, work area controller 94, database managing part 95, and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15 invoke 112(f) describing a “take-out device.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned is defined as a base 221, a drive mechanism 222, and a holding part 223 (a support mechanism 224, a suction-grasping part 225, a drive mechanism 226, and a loading platform 227), and equivalents thereof.
Claims 10 invokes 112(f) describing a “auxiliary device.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned is defined as take-out device 200, a staircase, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “a number of the standby sections set for the one of the plurality of second areas is greater than a number of the standby sections set for the one of the plurality of first areas.” The specification describes only the opposite relationship at par. [0145]: “the number of standby sections set in the first area 10 is greater than the number of standby sections set in the second area 20,” and explains the reason at par. [0147] as “By setting more standby sections in the first area 10, of which the picking task is performed more quickly, the picking task can be more reliably performed continuously.” The specification contains no support for a greater number of standby sections in the second area than in the first. Applicant is required to point to written-description support or to amend. Claim 7 is nonetheless examined over the prior art below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for reciting both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus in a single claim. Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus -- “A handling system, comprising”—but recites acts performed by a worker within the apparatus: “the worker transferring the article with a portion of the plurality of transport devices at the first section” and “the worker using an auxiliary device to transfer the article with another portion of the plurality of transport devices at the second section.” A single claim that covers both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus is indefinite, because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the system is assembled or only when the worker in fact performs the recited transfer. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II); IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claims 11-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation (emphasis added) “the one of the plurality of transport devices and the other one of the plurality of transport devices transport a rack that can store the article, and the other one of the plurality of transport devices.” Similarly, claim 13 recites the limitation “the other one of the plurality of transport devices.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claim 10, from which claims 11 and 13 depend, introduces “a portion of the plurality of transport devices” and “another portion of plurality of transport devices.” It is indeterminate whether a single transport device or the earlier-recited “portion” (which may comprise multiple devices) is required, rendering the scope of the transporting/removing steps indeterminate. Claim 12 is rejected as depending from an indefinite claim. Applicant is required to amend for consistency.
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;
(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, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al. (JP 2020-050479 A) (Cited on IDS provided 9/9/2024), hereinafter “Hitachi.” Citations are to the EPO Patent Translate English translation of record. Hitachi is relied upon for the warehouse 100 disclosure of Fig. 1 and the expressly linked configurations of Figs. 11-14.
Regarding Claim 1,
Hitachi discloses an instruction device, in shipping processing, the instruction device (see Fig. 1, Fig. 11, and Fig. 14):
causing a plurality of transport devices transporting articles to move respectively to a first area and a second area (See FIG. 14, the, central control device 632 using transport robot (AGV) 102 to move storage shelf 111 to outgoing gate 206 at step S702, Hitachi Par. [0055], and moving sorting shelf 810 to the sorting position of sorting gate 806 at step S704, Hitachi Par. [0056]; a plurality of transport robots 102 being present in both spaces, Hitachi Pars. [0017]–[0018]);
the first area and the second area facing each other with a work area interposed (See FIG. 1, sorting space 802 and storage space 202 divided from work space 203 by wire mesh walls 804 and 204, Hitachi Par. [0012]);
a worker being in the work area (See FIG. 1, “a work space 203 where workers, arm robots and stacker cranes (not shown) work,” Hitachi Par. [0012]);
causing one of the plurality of transport devices to transfer the article with the worker in a first section adjacent to the first area (See FIG. 1, sorting gate 806 formed in wire mesh wall 804; “A worker or an arm robot places the item on the shelf through the sorting gate 806,” Hitachi Par. [0028]);
causing another one of the plurality of transport devices to transfer the article with the worker via a take-out device in a second section adjacent to the second area (See FIG. 1, exit gate 206 formed in wire mesh wall 204; “A worker or an arm robot removes an item from the shelf through the out-of-stock gate 206,” Hitachi Par. [0027]);
the take-out device removing the article from the other one of the plurality of transport devices (See FIG. 11, stacker crane 562 provided at the outgoing gate 206, having extraction arm 564 and extraction mechanism 566, removing bucket 482 from storage shelf 111 held in a lifted state by transport robot 102, Hitachi Pars. [0046]–[0047], [0027]).
Hitachi separates the transfer at the outgoing gate 206 into two operations – withdrawing the bucket 482 from the storage shelf 111, and taking the target article from the withdrawn bucket – and discloses a limited set of alternatives for each. The withdrawal may be performed by a robot arm 502 or by the stacker crane 562 (Hitachi Pars. [0045]-[0046]), and Hitachi expressly incorporates the Fig. 11 stacker-crane configuration into the Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 arrangement (Hitachi Par. [0058]). The transfer of the article at the outgoing gate 206 and at the sorting gate 806 may be performed by “a worker or an arm robot” (Hitachi Pars. [0027]-[0028]).
Accordingly, the worker performing the article transfer while the stacker crane 562 performs the bucket withdrawal is one of the limited number of combinations expressly contemplated by Hitachi and would have been at once envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2131.02(III). The worker alternative is elected as an expressly disclosed species.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, “the take-out device removing the article” encompasses removing, from the rack carried by the transport device, the container in which the article is stored.
The election and claim construction set forth above apply to each claim rejected in this ground.
Regarding Claim 3, Hitachi discloses:
The instruction device according to claim 1, wherein,
The article is stored in a container of a rack (See FIG. 11, bucket 482 placed on each shelf of storage shelf 111, Hitachi Par. [0044]), and
in receiving processing, the instruction device instructs a storage, in the container that can be removed from the rack, of the article that can be handled by a picking robot (See Hitachi Par. [0052]: “when an item to be picked is to be placed in the storage shelf 111, the central control device 632 determines in which bucket 482 of the storage shelf 111 the item to be picked is to be placed”; bucket 482 being removable by stacker crane 562, Hitachi Par. [0049]; the article being handled by arm robot 501 having robot arm 502 and robot hand 504, Hitachi Par. [0045], [0050]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hitachi discloses:
The instruction device according to claim 1, which are met as set forth above, and further wherein, the article is stored in a rack, and the take-out device is raised or lowered according to a position of the article stored in the rack (See FIG. 11, stacker crane 562 having “a function for raising and lowering the extraction arm 564 in the vertical direction,” Hitachi Par. [0046]; central control device 632 controlling the stacker crane 562 “to move the extraction arm 564 to the position of the bucket 482 containing the desired article,” Hitachi Par. [0049]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 incorporates the limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Hitachi further discloses the plurality of transport devices (transport robots 102, Hitachi Par. [0017]–[0018]) and
the take-out device (stacker crane 562, Hitachi Par. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hitachi discloses:
A handling system (see FIG. 1 and FIG. 11), comprising:
a plurality of transport devices transporting articles (See FIG. 1, a plurality of transport robots 102 being present in both spaces slipping into the space under a shelf, lifting the shelf from below and moving the shelf in state, Hitachi Pars. [0017]–[0018]);
a first area and a second area set so that the plurality of transport devices can move to the first and second areas (See FIG. 1, sorting space 802 and storage space 202, in each of which one or more transport robots 102 are present and move the shelves 810 and 111 respectively, Hitachi Pars. [0017]–[0018]);
the first area and the second area facing each other with a work area interposed (See FIG. 1, sorting space 802 and storage space 202 divided from work space 203 by wire mesh walls 804 and 204, Hitachi Par. [0012]);
a worker being in the work area (See FIG. 1, “a work space 203 where workers, arm robots and stacker cranes (not shown) work,” Hitachi Par. [0012]);
a first section set adjacent to the first area (See FIG. 1, sorting gate 806 formed in wire mesh wall 804 at the boundary of the sorting space 802,” Hitachi Par. [0012]);
the worker transferring the article with a portion of the plurality of transport
devices at the first section (See Fig. 1, “A worker or an arm robot places the item on the shelf through the sorting gate 806,” the shelf 810 being held in a lifted state by a transport robot 102, Hitachi Par. [0028]); and
a second section set adjacent to the second area (See FIG. 1, exit gate 206 formed in wire mesh wall 204 at the boundary of the storage space 202, Hitachi Par. [0012]);
the worker using an auxiliary device to transfer the article with another portion of the plurality of transport devices at the second section (See FIG. 11, stacker crane 562 provided at the outgoing gate 206, removing bucket 482 from storage shelf 111 held in a lifted state by transport robot 102, Hitachi Pars. [0046]–[0047]; “A worker or an arm robot removes an item from the shelf through the out-of-stock gate 206,” Hitachi Par. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 incorporates the limitations of claim 10, which are met as set forth above. Hitachi discloses “the auxiliary device is a take-out device removing the article from the other one of the plurality of transport devices” (construed per paragraph 7 above as the transport device or devices of the “another portion” recited in claim 10) (See FIG. 11, stacker crane 562 removing bucket 482 from storage shelf 111 held by transport robot 102, Hitachi Par. [0046]–[0047]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hitachi discloses:
A handling method, comprising:
moving a plurality of transport devices respectively to a first area and a second area, the plurality of transport devices transporting articles (See FIG. 14, the central control device 632 using transport robot (AGV) 102 to move storage shelf 111 to outgoing gate 206 at step S702, Hitachi Par. [0055], and moving sorting shelf 810 to the sorting position of sorting gate 806 at step S704, Hitachi Par. [0056]; a plurality of transport robots 102 being present in both spaces, Hitachi Pars. [0017]–[0018]);
the first area and the second area facing each other with a work area interposed (See FIG. 1, sorting space 802 and storage space 202 divided from work space 203 by wire mesh walls 804 and 204, Hitachi Par. [0012]);
a worker being in the work area (See FIG. 1, “a work space 203 where workers, arm robots and stacker cranes (not shown) work,” Hitachi Par. [0012]);
causing one of the plurality of transport devices to transfer the article with the worker in a first section adjacent to the first area (See FIG. 1, sorting gate 806 formed in wire mesh wall 804; “A worker or an arm robot places the item on the shelf through the sorting gate 806,” Hitachi Par. [0028]); and
causing another one of the plurality of transport devices to transfer the article with the worker via a take-out device in a second section adjacent to the second area (See FIG. 1, exit gate 206 formed in wire mesh wall 204; “A worker or an arm robot removes an item from the shelf through the out-of-stock gate 206,” Hitachi Par. [0027]),
the take-out device removing the article from the other one of the plurality of transport devices (See FIG. 11, stacker crane 562 provided at the outgoing gate 206, having extraction arm 564 and extraction mechanism 566, removing bucket 482 from storage shelf 111 held in a lifted state by transport robot 102, Hitachi Pars. [0046]–[0047], [0027])..
Regarding Claim 15, Hitachi discloses:
A storage medium storing a program (See Hitachi Par. [0035], central control device 632 having memory unit 633, wherein “the central processing unit 634 becomes the main body of operations executed by the central control device 632 by reading necessary programs”),
the program causing a computer to transmit an instruction (See Hitachi Par. [0043]: “the central control device 632 instructs the transfer robot 102”) to:
cause a plurality of transport devices transporting articles to move respectively to a first area and a second area (See FIG. 14, the, central control device 632 using transport robot (AGV) 102 to move storage shelf 111 to outgoing gate 206 at step S702, Hitachi Par. [0055], and moving sorting shelf 810 to the sorting position of sorting gate 806 at step S704, Hitachi Par. [0056]; a plurality of transport robots 102 being present in both spaces, Hitachi Pars. [0017]–[0018]);
the first area and the second area facing each other with a work area interposed (See FIG. 1, sorting space 802 and storage space 202 divided from work space 203 by wire mesh walls 804 and 204, Hitachi Par. [0012]);
a worker being in the work area (See FIG. 1, “a work space 203 where workers, arm robots and stacker cranes (not shown) work,” Hitachi Par. [0012]);
cause one of the plurality of transport devices to transfer the article with the worker in a first section adjacent to the first area (See FIG. 1, sorting gate 806 formed in wire mesh wall 804; “A worker or an arm robot places the item on the shelf through the sorting gate 806,” Hitachi Par. [0028]); and
cause another one of the plurality of transport devices to transfer the article with the worker via a take-out device in a second section adjacent to the second area (See FIG. 1, exit gate 206 formed in wire mesh wall 204; “A worker or an arm robot removes an item from the shelf through the out-of-stock gate 206,” Hitachi Par. [0027]);
the take-out device removing the article from the other one of the plurality of transport devices (See FIG. 11, stacker crane 562 provided at the outgoing gate 206, having extraction arm 564 and extraction mechanism 566, removing bucket 482 from storage shelf 111 held in a lifted state by transport robot 102, Hitachi Pars. [0046]–[0047], [0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takeda et al. “Hitachi” (JP 2020-050479 A) (Cited on IDS provided 9/9/2024), in view of LIU et al. (US 2021/0323800 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 9/9/2024), hereinafter “LIU.” LIU is relied upon for the sorting zone embodiment of Figs. 12 and 15 and the sorting station arrangement of Figs. 19–20, which LIU expressly links at LIU Par. [0266].
Regarding Claim 4, Hitachi discloses:
Claim 4 incorporates the limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Hitachi further discloses:
the first section is set to be adjacent to the work section of the first area (See Fig. 1, the worker-side portion of sorting gate 806 being immediately adjacent across wire mesh wall 804 to the transport-robot work position on the sorting-space side of sorting gate 806, Hitachi Pars. [0012] and [0028]), and
the second section is set to be adjacent to the work section of the second area (See Fig. 1, the worker-side portion of the outgoing gate 206 being immediately adjacent across wire mesh wall 204 to the transport-robot work position on the storage-space side of outgoing gate 206, Hitachi Pars. [0012], [0027]); the transport robot 102 moving the storage shelf 111 storing the target article “to the front of the outgoing gate 206,” Hitachi Par. [0047].
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose that “an entry line and an exit line are set in each of the first and second areas,” that the transport devices “move to work sections along the entry lines,” or that the transport devices “move from the work sections along the exit lines.” Hitachi does disclose a coordinate grid governing transport-robot movement (Hitachi Par. [0015]-[0016]); however Hitachi does not designate dedicated entry and exit lines within that grid.
In the field of endeavor, LIU teaches:
wherein an entry line and an exit line are set in each of the first and second areas (See FIG. 15, entrance passage 1211 terminating in entrance grid 1231 and exit passage 1212 terminating in exit grid 1232, the entrance passage and the exit passage forming the two lateral sides of the U-shaped sorting passage 121, LIU Par. [0182]; see also LIU Par. [0042]);
the plurality of transport devices that exit move from the work sections along the exit lines” (See FIG. 15, sorting robot 40 travelling to sorting point 122 through entrance passage 1211 and direction changeover passage 1213, and, after sorting is completed, moving out of sorting station 1 along exit passage 1212, LIU Par. [0185]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second areas of Hitachi to include an entry line and an exit line, as taught by LIU, in order to provide unidirectional traffic through each transfer position and thereby reduce counterflow between arriving and departing transport devices and simplify routing at the transfer sections. Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(D).
As so modified, the transport robots 102 of Hitachi that enter each area would move to the work section at the gate along an entry line and would depart from that work section along an exit line, the first section and second section remaining adjacent to the work sections of the first and second areas respectively, as disclosed by Hitachi.
Regarding Claim 5, Hitachi/LIU discloses:
Claim 5 incorporates the limitations of claims 1 and 4, which are met as set forth above.
Hitachi discloses a single storage space 202, a single work space 203, and a single sorting space 802 (See FIG. 1, Hitachi Par. [0012]).
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose that the first area, the work area, and the second area are repeatedly set, or that a common entry line among the entry lines is set at one of a plurality of the first areas and one of a plurality of the second areas that are adjacent to each other.
In the field of endeavor, LIU teaches:
wherein the first area, the work area, and the second area are repeatedly set (See FIG. 12, sorting zone 10 comprising a plurality of sorting stations 1 arranged side by side along the first direction, LIU Par. [0178]; FIGS. 19–20, the two sorting passages 121 of each sorting station 1 being spaced apart from each other with the sorting work zone 11 for the sorting operator formed between them, LIU Par. [0268]), and
a common entry line among the entry lines is set at one of a plurality of the first areas and one of a plurality of the second areas that are adjacent to each other (See LIU FIGS. 19–20, Par. [0270]: “one sorting passage 121 is arranged clockwise, and the other sorting passage 121 is arranged counterclockwise. That is, both entrance passages 1211 of the two sorting passages 121 are located on a side of the sorting passage 121 adjacent to the sorting work zone 11, or both exit passages 1212 of the two sorting passages 121 are located on a side of the sorting passage 121 adjacent to the sorting work zone 11.”); In the configuration in which the entrance passages 1211 lie adjacent to the sorting work zone 11, the passage shared between two adjacent sorting stations 1 is exit passage 1212, shared “to improve the compactness of the arrangement of the sorting stations 1 in the sorting zone 10 and save space” (LIU Par. [0272]). Thus, in the alternative circulation arrangement in which the exit passages are adjacent to the sorting work zone, the shared outer passage is the entrance passage 1211 and constitutes the claimed common entry line.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second areas of Hitachi, as already modified in view of LIU with respect to claim 4, so that the first area, the work area, and the second area are repeatedly set and a single entry line is shared between the adjacent areas of two such repeated arrangements, as taught by LIU, in order to eliminate a redundant inbound passage and thereby improve the compactness of the arrangement and save space, which LIU identifies as the purpose of sharing a passage between adjacent stations (LIU Par. [0272]). Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield the predictable result that a single inbound passage serves two adjacent transport-device areas. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(D).
As so modified, a single-entry line would serve the adjacent first and second areas of the repeated arrangement.
Regarding Claim 6, Hitachi/ LIU discloses:
Claim 6 incorporates the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 5, which are met as set forth above.
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose that standby sections, at which one or more of the plurality of transport devices waits, are set respectively in a plurality of the entry lines.
In the field of endeavor, LIU teaches:
wherein standby sections, at which one or more of the plurality of transport devices waits, are set respectively in a plurality of the entry lines (See FIG. 15, the two-dimensional grid 123 located between the entrance grid 1231 of the sorting passage 121 and the sorting point 122 forming a waiting area for the sorting robot 40 to travel and wait, each waiting area accommodating one sorting robot 40 waiting to move to the sorting point 122, LIU Par. [0186]; see also LIU Par. [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set standby sections in the entry lines of the modified system of Hitachi, as taught by LIU, in order to stage a succeeding transport device immediately upstream of each work section so that it can advance as soon as the preceding transport device departs, thereby maintaining a continuous supply of transport devices to the worker. Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(D).
As so modified, one or more transport robots 102 would wait in standby sections set in the entry lines of each of the first and second areas.
Regarding Claim 7, Hitachi/ LIU discloses:
Claim 7 incorporates the limitations of claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, which are met as set forth above.
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose wherein a number of the standby sections set for the one of the plurality of second areas is greater than a number of the standby sections set for the one of the plurality of first areas.
In the field of endeavor, LIU recognizes that the number of standby sections provided for a station determines how many transport devices can be accommodated and affects the routes of other transport devices. LIU teaches that “the number of robots that can be accommodated in the fixed queuing zone is limited, and the robots that cannot be accommodated stay on a passage and obstruct routes of other robots” (LIU Par. [0005]); that the availability of a station is determined by comparing “a number of mobile robots that are currently transporting shelves for a station” with “a size of a station queuing zone of the station” (LIU Par. [0011]; see also LIU Par. [0111]); and that positioning the sorting point farther along the entrance passage permits “the first two two-dimensional grids 123 … to be used for the sorting robot 40 to enter the sorting passage 121 and wait in the sorting passage 121, thereby increasing the number of sorting robots 40 that may wait in the sorting passage 121” (LIU Par. [0273]).
The number of standby sections set for an area is therefore a variable recognized in the prior art as affecting queue capacity, obstruction of adjacent routes, and station utilization, and is accordingly a result-effective variable. In the combination, the second area is served by the take-out device, which performs a container-extraction operation before the worker completes the transfer, whereas the transfer at the first area is direct.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second area with a greater number of standby sections than the first area because the second section requires the additional operation of extracting the article-containing container before the worker completes the transfer, whereas transfer at the first section is direct. Providing additional designated standby capacity at the extraction-assisted area would accommodate transport devices waiting through the longer multi-operation service cycle and prevent those transport devices from spilling back into and obstructing adjacent travel routes. Determining the appropriate number of standby sections necessary to accommodate the expected queue would have involved routine optimization of a recognized result-effective variable that LIU expressly recognizes as affecting queue capacity and route obstruction. See In re Aller; MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takeda et al. “Hitachi” (JP 2020-050479 A) (Cited on IDS provided 9/9/2024), in view of Mathi et al. (US 2013/0073076 A1), hereinafter “Mathi.” Mathi is relied upon for the order picking facility 1 embodiment of Figs. 1–5.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 incorporates the limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Hitachi discloses:
wherein the article is stored in a rack (See FIG. 11, bucket 482 placed on each shelf of the storage shelf 111, Hitachi Par. [0044]), and
in receiving processing, the instruction device determines the position within the rack at which the article is to be stored (See Hitachi Par. [0052]: “when an item to be picked is to be placed in the storage shelf 111, the central control device 632 determines in which bucket 482 of the storage shelf 111 the item to be picked is to be placed”).
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose that the instruction device instructs a storage of a first article at a first position of the rack; and instructs a storage of a second article at a second position of the rack, the second position being higher than the first position, the second article having a lower shipping frequency than the first article.
In the field of endeavor, Mathi teaches:
in receiving processing, instructs a storage of a first article at a first position of the rack; and instructs a storage of a second article at a second position of the rack, the second position being higher than the first position (See FIG. 1, the different product types being delivered by truck or rail to the order picking facility 1 and stored in the high-rack storage H1, each of the high racks R1 to R4 having 23 levels one above the other, Mathi Par. [0017]; a warehouse administration computer being provided “to assign one or several suitable storage sites in the high-rack storage H1 to each product type delivered to the order picking facility 1 and to store the products P … on the assigned storage site/s,” Mathi Par. [0019].
Mathi further teaches:
assigning those positions according to the frequency with which the article is expected to be retrieved, and teaches the direction of that assignment (See Mathi Par. [0028], the warehouse administration computer “may also determine the storage site … in regard to how often the painkillers will be presumably order picked, this is the size of the collecting frequency for this product type,” and “Product types that are to be collected more frequently, might be stored in the lower rack levels and nearer to the order picking stations in storage sites of the high-rack storage H1”). Mathi’s “collecting frequency” is the frequency with which the product type is expected to be order picked to fulfil a customer’s picking or purchase order (Mathi Par. [0017]), and therefore corresponds to the claimed shipping frequency.
Applying Mathi’s expressly disclosed assignment rule to two articles having different collecting frequencies places the more frequently collected article at a lower rack level and the less frequently collected article at a relatively higher rack level, which is the arrangement recited in claim 2.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the instruction device of Hitachi to assign received articles to positions of the storage shelf 111 according to their expected shipping frequency, as taught by Mathi, such that a first article of higher shipping frequency is stored at a first position and a second article of lower shipping frequency is stored at a second position higher than the first. The motivation would have been to minimize the storing and collecting distances and times incurred for the articles that are retrieved most often, which Mathi identifies as the object of its assignment rule (Mathi Par. [0028]), thereby increasing order-picking throughput. Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of reduced cumulative retrieval time. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(D).
As so modified, the central control device 632 of Hitachi would instruct storage of the higher-shipping-frequency article at the first position of the storage shelf 111 and storage of the lower-shipping-frequency article at the second, higher position of the storage shelf 111.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takeda et al. “Hitachi” (JP 2020-050479 A) (Cited on IDS provided 9/9/2024), in view of Christman (US 5,190,171).
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 incorporates the limitations of claim 10, which are met as set forth above.
Hitachi discloses the one of the plurality of transport devices and the other one of the plurality of transport devices transport a rack that can store the article (See FIG. 1, transport robot 102 slipping into the space under shelf 111, lifting the shelf from below and moving the shelf in that state, Hitachi Par. [0017]; shelves 111 and 810 arranged in the storage space 202 and the sorting space 802 respectively, Hitachi Par. [0017]–[0018]).
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose that a transport device also transports an additional rack added at a higher position than the rack. Hitachi does disclose a shelf 111 having a plurality of shelf levels on which buckets 482 are placed (Hitachi Par. [0044]), however Hitachi describes that shelf as a single unit and does not disclose a further rack added above it.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem, Christman discloses:
an additional rack added at a higher position than the rack (See FIG. 1, upper shelf 12 having four vertical tubular members 30 mounted at its corners, the tubular members 30 of the upper shelf 12 being “received in the sockets formed by the upper ends of the tubular members 32” that are mounted on lower shelf 10, so that the upper shelf unit is removably added above the lower shelf unit; “Additional shelves may be mounted on the rack if so desired”),
the assembled multi-tier rack being transported as a unit (See FIG. 1, casters 36 received in the lower ends of the tubular members 30 of the lower shelf to make the rack mobile; alternatively “to be moved by a fork truck,” Christman Col. 1, Line 38), and being expressly intended “for the transportation of banker type boxes from an office to a warehouse, and for storing the boxes at the warehouse,” Christman Col. 1, Line 8).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional rack above the rack transported by the transport device (and the other one of the plurality of transport devices) of Hitachi, as taught by Christman, in order to increase the number of articles that can be stored on a single transported rack without increasing the floor area that rack occupies. Such modification would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of increased storage capacity per transported rack. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(A).
As so modified, the transport robot 102 of Hitachi would slip beneath and lift the lower rack together with the additional rack added at a higher position thereon, transporting both to the exit gate 206.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 incorporates the limitations of claims 10 and 11, which are met as set forth above.
However, Hitachi does not appear to disclose wherein the additional rack stores a container that can be removed.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem, Christman discloses:
wherein the additional rack stores a container that can be removed (See FIG. 1, upper shelf 12 supporting banker type boxes, each shelf being mounted with its angle iron sides and ends extending upwardly “to form a flange to hold the boxes or other products in place” or, alternatively, reversed “for easy slide on and off of the boxes or other products,” Christman Col. 1, Line 30).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 2020/0198894 A1 (Staples), disclosing velocity-based routing of articles between a pick-to-cart area 302 and a high-density storage area 304 flanking a pick-cell station 316 at which a picker is positioned. US 9,551,987 B1 (Amazon), disclosing mobile drive units delivering inventory holders and container holders to operator stations. US 2020/0316786 A1 (IAM Robotics), disclosing storage and picking of high-frequency items to and from high-frequency storage locations and low-frequency items to and from low-frequency storage locations, wherein a storage location is defined by x, y and z coordinates and the z coordinate provides the height of the shelf.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights