DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim appears to be an independent claim but is written in improper form. Applicant needs to amend the claim to list each of the steps of claim 23 instead of reciting “comprising the method of claim 23”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche (US 10,940,999) in view of Inoue Toshihiko (JP 2021-149625 A). Relative to claims 21-22, Kalouche discloses:
A system (see warehouse, Col. 7, lines 18-20) comprising:
a first set of parallel tracks extending in an X-direction (Col. 4, lines 21-30;Col. 9, lines 18-25);
a second set of parallel tracks extending in a Y-direction transverse to the first set in a substantially horizontal plane, the first set and the second set forming a grid pattern comprising a plurality of grid spaces (Col. 4, lines 21-30 Col. 9, lines 18-25)(Fig. 1-2);
a plurality of stacks of storage containers (10, 110) located beneath the first set and the second set and arranged such that each of the plurality of stacks is located within a footprint of a single grid space of the plurality of grid spaces (Col. 4, lines 25-28)(Fig. 1-2);
a transporting device (for instance, robots 200, transporting devices 30) configured to move on the first set and second set in the X and Y directions above the plurality of stacks and transport a storage container from the plurality of stacks (Col. , lines 31-46, Col. 13, lines 55-58; Col. 20, lines 51-53)(Fig. 6C);
a collecting station configured to receive the storage container (110) transported by the transporting device and transfer an item from the storage container into a container (see station or area where containers are transported by a robot and where a manipulator robot 200 transfers an item from a bin 110, to an order bin; Col. 3, lines 55-60)(Fig. 9A); and
the transporting device has a footprint that occupies only the single grid space (Col. 12, lines 30-35)(Fig. 6C).
Kalouche does not expressly disclose: one or more hardware processors programmed to: for each of a plurality of vehicles:
portion a first portion of a vehicle load capacity for filling by a first method; and portion a second portion of the vehicle load capacity for filling by a second method.
Inoue teaches: one or more hardware processors programmed to (included in Ref. 3, Para. 0028): for each of a plurality of vehicles (Para. 0028):
portion a first portion of a vehicle load capacity for filling by a first method (transportation plan reserves a portion of an assigned vehicle for order items in delivery or transportation requests made in advance, Para. 0052 of the English translation of the Specification); and portion a second portion of the vehicle load capacity for filling by a second method (plan also reserves a portion of vehicle for additional delivery or transportation requests made after first transportation requests, see spare capacity portion, Para. 0052), for the purpose of providing an improved program and method for creating transportation plan information that is flexible and can respond to sudden changes (Para. 0001; 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Kalouche with the for each of the vehicles: to portion a first portion of a vehicle load capacity for filling by a first method; and portion a second portion of the vehicle load capacity for filling by a second method, as taught in Inoue for the purpose of providing an improved program and method for creating transportation plan information that is flexible and can respond to sudden changes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23-30, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue Toshihiko (JP 2021-149625 A). Relative to claims 23-30 and 40, Inoue discloses:
A method comprising: for each of a plurality of vehicles (Para. 0028, system includes multiple vehicles): portioning, by one or more hardware processors (included in Ref. 3), a first portion of a vehicle load capacity for filling by a first method (system reserves portion of vehicle capacity for orders or requests placed in advance of a delivery date, Para. 0052 of the English translation of the Specification); and portioning, by the one or more hardware processors, a second portion of the vehicle load capacity for filling by a second method (system reserves another portion of vehicle for orders or request placed after the requests placed in advance, Para. 0052).
processing, by the one or more hardware processors (see Para. 0028 of the English translation of the Specification), first communications made according to the first method prior to a first cut-off time but not after the first cut-off time, the first communications indicating to collect first items (first transportation requests for delivery packages are made by a customer before a deadline or a specific date, Para. 0063, 0010).
subsequent to the first cut-off time, re-portioning, by the one or more hardware processors, a remaining capacity of the first portion of the vehicle load capacity for one of the plurality of vehicles for filling by the second method rather than the first method (remaining portion of the vehicle is reserved to hold packages based on additional requests for items placed after the first transportation requests, Para. 0052).
by the one or more hardware processors, routes for the plurality of vehicles subsequent to the processing the first communications (Para. 0031, 0066 of the English translation of the Specification).
re-optimizing, by the one or more hardware processors, the routes for the plurality of vehicles subsequent to the processing the second communications (Para. 0066 of the English translation of the Specification).
the re-optimizing the routes for the plurality of vehicles is performed based on the second communications (Para. 0066 of the English translation of the Specification).
the routes for the plurality of vehicles are re-optimized so that distributions associated with the second communications are assigned to be made during outward portions of the routes (Para. 0066 of the English translation of the Specification).
non-transitory physical computer storage comprising computer- executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, are configured to implement a process comprising the method described above (Para. 0031-0032 of the English translation of the Specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 31-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Franey et al (US 2022/0397404). Relative to claims 31, 34-39, Inoue discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, including:
loading one of the plurality of vehicles with (i) some of the first items based on the portioning the first portion of the vehicle load capacity and (ii) some of the second items based on the portioning the second portion of the vehicle load capacity (Para. 0052, 0055 of the English translation of the Specification).
portioning, by the one or more hardware processors, to one of the plurality of vehicles (i) some of the first items based on the portioning the first portion of the vehicle load capacity and (ii) some of the second items based on the portioning the second portion of the vehicle load capacity (Para. 0052, 0055 of the English translation of the Specification).
subsequent to the first cut-off time, re-portioning, by the one or more hardware processors, a remaining capacity of the first portion of the vehicle load capacity for one of the plurality of vehicles for filling by the second method rather than the first method (after first deadline for advance requests, a portion of the vehicle capacity is reserved for additional requests for delivery items, Para. 0052, 0055 of the English translation of the Specification); and loading one of the plurality of vehicles with (i) some of the first items based on the portioning the first portion of the vehicle load capacity and (ii) some of the second items based on the portioning the second portion of the vehicle load capacity and the re-portioning the remaining capacity of the first portion of the vehicle load capacity (Para. 0052, 0055 of the English translation of the Specification) .
subsequent to the first cut-off time, re-portioning, by the one or more hardware processors, a remaining capacity of the first portion of the vehicle load capacity for one of the plurality of vehicles for filling by the second method rather than the first method; and
portioning, by the one or more hardware processors (Para. 0028 of the English translation of the Specification), to one of the plurality of vehicles:
(i) some of the first items based on the portioning the first portion of the vehicle load capacity (Para. 0055) and (ii) some of the second items based on the portioning the second portion of the vehicle load capacity and the re-portioning the remaining capacity of the first portion of the vehicle load capacity (Para. 0055, 0053 of the English translation of the Specification).
the second method provides a faster distribution for items collected from a building than the first method (Para. 0063 of the English translation of the Specification, for instance, second transportation requests may be made on a same day as the delivery date as opposed to first transportation requests scheduled in advance).
the first method handles first communications, and the second method handles second communications (Para. 0066 of the English translation of the Specification).
Inoue does not expressly disclose:
the processing the first communications comprises instructing a plurality of transporting devices to collect the first items from a plurality of stacks of storage containers subsequent to the first cut-off time.
the instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the first items comprises instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the first items prior to a second cut-off time, and further comprising processing, by the one or more hardware processors, second communications made according to the second method prior to a second cut-off time but not after the second cut-off time, the second communications indicating to collect second items.
the processing the second communications comprises instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the second items from the plurality of stacks of storage containers prior to the second cut-off time.
Franey teaches:
claim 31 - the processing the first communications comprises instructing a plurality of transporting devices to collect the first items from shelves, bins, or racks of storage containers (Para. 0026) subsequent to the first cut-off time (autonomous vehicles are scheduled to pick assigned items after orders or requests from customers are received, Para. 0033; 0120),
for the purpose of providing a system and method for dynamically routing an autonomous vehicle that is collecting products to fulfill orders to minimize a pickers travel time and reduces labor, and improves efficiency (Para. 0001-0002; 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Inoue with the instructing the transporting devices to collect the first items from storage containers subsequent to the first cut-off time as taught in Franey for the purpose of providing a system and method for dynamically routing an autonomous vehicle that is collecting products to fulfill orders to minimize a pickers travel time and reduces labor, and improves efficiency.
Relative to claims 31, 33, Inoue in view of Franey does not expressly disclose: the items are collected from a plurality of stacks of storage containers.
Inoue in view of Franey teaches: the items are collected from a plurality of stacks of storage containers as a matter of design choice.
Franey teaches that the items are picked from various shelves, racks, or bins (see Ref. 111a-111m; Para. 0026)(Fig. 1).
Storing items in stacked storage containers to be picked by an autonomous vehicle is an obvious variation of storing items in shelves, racks, and bins to by picked in a warehouse, such that items are collected from a plurality of stacks of storage containers. See MPEP §2144.03
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 method of Inoue in view of Franey so that the items are collected from a plurality of stacks of storage containers, as a matter of design choice since stacked storage containers is an obvious variation of shelves, racks, and bins from which items are picked.
Relative to claims 32-33, Inoue in view of Franey (modified as above) discloses all claim limitations, including:
Claim 32- the instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the first items comprises instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the first items prior to a second cut-off time (Para. 0120, autonomous vehicles are instructed to pick assigned items within a maximum time period, such as to meet a deadline for packing and shipping); and
communications for delivering second items (Para. 0052, second items are items placed by customers after first transportation requests).
Inoue in view of Franey does not expressly disclose:
claim 32 - further comprising processing, by the one or more hardware processors, second communications made according to the second method prior to a second cut-off time but not after the second cut-off time, the second communications indicating to collect second items.
Claim 33 - the processing the second communications comprises instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the second items from the stacks of storage containers prior to the second cut-off time.
Inoue in view of Franey teaches:
further comprising processing, by the one or more hardware processors, second communications made according to the second method prior to a second cut-off time but not after the second cut-off time, the second communications indicating to collect second items; and
the processing the second communications comprises instructing the plurality of transporting devices to collect the second items from the stacks of storage containers prior to the second cut-off time, as an obvious matter of design choice.
Franey discloses: by the one or more hardware processors (included in Ref. 122, Para. 0030), communications made prior to a second cut-off time but not after the second cut-off time to collect items to fulfill customer orders (instructions are sent to assigned autonomous vehicles, 106, to pick items before a maximum time in order to meet a certain deadline, but not after the maximum remaining time window, Para. 0119-0120).
Franey also discloses instructing the plurality of transporting devices (106) to collect items from the storage containers prior to the second cut-off time (Para. 0119-0120, see teaching above); and interleaving picking products of various orders to improve overall picking efficiency.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement Inoue’s second, later requested order items to the system of Franey, to collect later-received orders by a certain time to be packed and shipped along with previously received orders, thereby improving picking efficiency and customer satisfaction. See MPEP §2144.03
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 system of Inoue in view of Franey, so that later received orders are collected prior to a second cut-off time to meet a shipment deadline and to improve efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Franey (US 2022/0397912)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights