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 11/14/2024, 02/13/2026, and 03/03/2026 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 JP 2022-088599 was filed on 11/26/2025.
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)(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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobutaka et al. (JP 2019/ 137543A), hereinafter “Nobutaka”.
Regarding claim 11, Nobutaka discloses an information processing method executed by a processor (para. [0148]), the method comprising:
acquiring a retrieval order for picking articles from cases (para. [0148]);
selecting two of the cases stored at different heights based on the retrieval order (para. [0230]-[0231]; Fig. 32, cases 103A and 103C at different heights); and
causing a takeout device configured to swap the cases to swap the selected two cases (para. [0230]-[0231]; Fig. 32, cases 103A and 103C are swapped by the robot 110).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutaka (JP 2019/ 137543A).
Regarding claim 1, Nobutaka discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a first interface configured to acquire a retrieval order for picking articles from cases (para. [0044]-[0045], [0148]; Fig. 7, information processing apparatus 116 with communication device 706 to communicate with higher-level system 115);
a second interface connected to a takeout device configured to swap the cases stored at different heights (para. [0208]; information processing apparatus 116 transmits sorting instruction to robot 110); and
a processor (para. [0044]; Fig. 7, processor 702) configured to: select two of the cases stored at different heights based on the retrieval order (para. [0230]-[0231]; Fig. 32, cases 103A and 103C at different heights); and
cause the takeout device to swap the selected two cases through the second interface (para. [0230]-[0231]; Fig. 32, cases 103A and 103C are swapped by the robot 110).
Nobutaka does not explicitly disclose retrieval orders are received through a first interface while a takeout device is connected through a second interface.
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 communication device of Nobutaka and implement the controller using separate communication interfaces for communication with the WMS and communication with the takeout device. This modification would merely divide the communication functionality of Nobutaka’s controller into separate interfaces corresponding to different communication endpoints and therefore represents a predictable design choice that yields no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nobutaka further discloses, the processor is configured to select, as the two cases, the case that stores the article indicated by the retrieval order and the case that is stored at a position lower than a predetermined height (para. [0230]; Fig. 32, case 103A, that stores articles to be picked up and case 103C is at a position lower than predetermined height, i.e. height accessible by worker) .
Regarding claim 3, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Nobutaka further discloses, the predetermined height is a height within reach of an operator picking the articles (para. [0066], [0230]; Fig. 32).
Regarding claim 6, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nobutaka further discloses, the processor is configured to select, as the two cases, two of the cases that are stored on a same rack (See Fig. 32, the two cases are positioned on the same rack).
Regarding claim 7, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Nobutaka further discloses, the processor is configured to select, as the two cases, two of the cases that are positioned on a same side in the rack (See Fig. 32, the two cases are positioned on the same side in rack).
Regarding claim 8, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nobutaka further discloses, a third interface connected to a rack transport system transporting a rack that stores the cases, wherein the processor is configured to cause, through the third interface, the rack transport system to transport a rack that stores the two cases to the takeout device (para. [0190]).
Regarding claim 9, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Nobutaka further discloses, the processor is configured to cause, through the third interface, the rack transport system to transport the rack to a station where the articles are picked (para. [0191]).
Regarding claim 12, Nobutaka discloses a system comprising a takeout device and an information processing apparatus, the takeout device comprising:
a communication interface connected to the information processing apparatus (para. [0208]; information processing apparatus 116 transmits sorting instruction to robot 110, the ability of robot accepting instructions from apparatus 116 contemplates a communication interface on the robot);
a gripping mechanism configured to grip cases storing articles (para. [0038]; Fig. 5, gripping mechanisms 502A, 502B); and
a first processor configured to swap two of the cases stored at different heights using the gripping mechanism under a control of the information processing apparatus (para [0039], [0230]; Even though not explicitly disclosed, a processor is a known and necessary component of a robot, and robot actions are executed using a processor on the robot),
the information processing apparatus (116) comprising:
a first interface configured to acquire a retrieval order for picking the articles (para. [0044]-[0045], [0148]; Fig. 7, information processing apparatus 116 with communication device 706 to communicate with higher-level system 115);
a second interface connected to the takeout device (para. [0208]; information processing apparatus 116 transmits sorting instruction to robot 110 through communication device 706); and
a second processor configured to: select the two cases stored at different heights based on the retrieval order; and cause the takeout device to swap the selected two cases through the second interface (para. [0230]; Fig. 32, case 103A, that stores articles to be picked up and case 103C is at a position lower than predetermined height, i.e. height accessible by worker).
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 communication device of Nobutaka and implement the controller using separate communication interfaces for communication with the WMS and communication with the takeout device. This modification would merely divide the communication functionality of Nobutaka’s controller into separate interfaces corresponding to different communication endpoints and therefore represents a predictable design choice that yields no unexpected result.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutaka (JP 2019/ 137543A), in view of Jung et al. (US 11097898), hereinafter “Jung”.
Regarding claim 4, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Nobutaka does not disclose a processor configured to select the two cases based on article information indicating a risk of the articles being stolen.
Jung discloses a warehouse with a storage management system that assigns particular storage locations for items by considering article characteristic information like sales rate, risk of damage, price, loss rate and risk of the articles being stolen (col. 8, lines 46-60; col. 10, lines 58-63).
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 information processing apparatus of Nobutaka and incorporate the teaching of Jung of assigning storage locations for items by taking in to consideration article information indicating a risk of the articles being stolen to reduce the risk of theft or risk of loss by assigning a more secure preset location within a warehouse that is identified to be suitable for the specified item (Jung: col. 10, lines 58-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily identify that one suitable location for an item with a risk of being stolen would be a shelf location in Nobutaka with a height that is not accessible by the worker.
Regarding claim 5, Nobutaka in view of Jung, disclose all limitations of claim 4. Nobutaka does not disclose the processor is configured to select, as the two cases, the case that stores an article having the risk equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value and the case that is stored at a position higher than the predetermined height.
Jung discloses a warehouse with a storage management system that assigns particular storage locations for items by considering article characteristic information like a price equal to or greater than a particular value, a risk of damage, a theft rate equal to or greater than a particular value, and a loss rate equal to or greater than a particular value (col. 8, lines 46-60; col. 10, lines 58-63).
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 information processing apparatus of Nobutaka and incorporate the teaching of Jung of assigning storage locations for items by taking in to consideration a theft rate equal to or greater than a particular value to reduce the risk of theft or risk of loss by assigning a more secure preset location within a warehouse that is identified to be suitable for the specified item (Jung: col. 10, lines 58-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the benefit of swapping a case that stores an article having the risk equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value and the case that is stored at a position higher than the predetermined height would help to secure the high-risk item by keeping it out of the reach of the worker.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutaka (JP 2019/ 137543A), in view of Grissom et al. (US 9613335), hereinafter “Grissom”.
Regarding claim 10, Nobutaka discloses all the limitations of claim 9. However, Nobutaka does not disclose the processor is configured to cause, through the second interface, the takeout device to swap the selected two cases in a period in which picking of the articles is not performed.
Grissom discloses a system of automatic reorganization of storage locations or pick slots in a warehouse where a takeout device swaps the selected two cases in a period in which picking of the articles is not performed (col. 2, lines 34-45).
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 information processing apparatus of Nobutaka and incorporate the teaching of Grissom of swapping the selected two cases in a period in which picking of the articles is not performed to improve picking efficiency by ensuring items already scheduled to be picked are not relocated to a different storage position (Grissom: col. 4, lines 1-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Theobald et al. (US 11427405) discloses a system with a drawer swapping robot that works in a hybrid environment used for prestaging articles in particular locations taking. Item characteristics like weight and shape, worker's characteristics like height and strength are considered during assigning storage locations to items (col. 14, lines 6-44; col. 31, line 65 to col. 32, line 33; Figs 1-2, 11 ).
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