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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 15-20, 31-36, 38, and 40-41 are pending in this application. Clams 1-5, 15-16, 18-20, 31-36, and 38 were amended by preliminary amendment, claims 6-14, 21-30, 37, and 39 were canceled, and claims 40-41 are new.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tallying box” and “tallying shelf” of claim 35 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Note: we consider it possible that the claimed tallying box and tallying shelf are ordinary containers and shelves that are being used for tallying purposes. In that case, if the claim is amended to make the nature of the box and shelf entirely clear, then no drawing amendment is necessary. This objection supposes that the tallying box and tallying shelf are different from other containers and shelves.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 31-35 recite the term “outbound frequency” or “preset frequency” with respect to goods, not lexicographically defined in the instant specification. We interpret this term as representing the rate at which a particular good or type of good is picked, sold, or shipped. It is related to the warehousing and commercial term of art “velocity”.
Many claims recite the terms “mixed workstation” or “mixed work platform”, not lexicographically defined in the instant specification. We consider any workstation capable of processing different types of goods to be a “mixed workstation”; thus, the vast majority of real-world warehouse workstations are mixed workstations. We interpret a “work platform” as a structure of a workstation at which work is performed, typically a tabletop or shelf of a workstation.
Many claims recite the term “carrier”, not lexicographically defined in the instant specification. Per specification paragraph [0006], we interpret carriers as generic structures capable of carrying goods and also capable of being transported. Carriers include containers such as bins as well as transportable shelving units and racks.
Many claims recite the term “transporter”, not lexicographically defined in the instant specification. As transporters are sometimes disclosed (e.g. in claim 2) to comprise multiple independent mobile robots, we do not consider a transporter to be a discrete structure or machine but rather an abstraction level comprising one or more discrete machines. While applicant’s use of this term does not provoke an objection, it appears that the claims might be terser and easier to understand if they only referred to robots and not transporters as transporters per se do not appear to be central to applicant’s invention.
Many claims recite the term “operating area”, not lexicographically defined in the instant specification, with respect to a robot. Based on applicant’s usage of the terms in the claims and the specification, an operating area is interpreted either as a place where a robot operates, for example between two shelves, or else as the structural region in which a robot mounts a transportable carrier such as a shelving unit, for example below the shelving unit; these two types of operating area are frequently recited in the claims. We observe that conventional platform AGVs, well known and widespread in the art, frequently have an operating area below a shelving unit, under which they navigate in order to pick up the shelving unit. Moreover, virtually all mobile warehouse robots have an operating area between shelves as most such robots are configured for mobility in warehouse aisles.
Many claims refer to numbered robots, transports, carriers, shelves, operating areas, and other structures. If a claim fails to distinguish a first from a second structure, for example, a reference that teaches a plurality of that type of structure is considered to teach both structures, assuming the structures otherwise exemplify the requirements of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein one of the followings is met” (emphasis added). The non-word “followings” should be “following” and moreover it appears proper to add a plural noun such as “conditions” following “following”.
Claims 3-5 and 18-20 are objected to because they recite the terms “temporary storage position” and “target goods cache position”, specifying that the cache position is located at the storage position. According to our reading of the instant specification (especially [0121] and [0270], the only paragraphs that mention the two terms together) the target goods cache position is the temporary storage position. The word “cache” of course means “storage”. Moreover, all storage positions of a carrier used to transport articles to a workstation are temporary storage positions because transportation is an ephemeral task. Without a definition to differentiate them, there is no reason to distinguish a cache position from a storage position. We suggest amending the claims to recite only one of the two terms and redacting the requirement that one be located at the other. Applicant may traverse this objection if they can find textual support for the idea that the two positions are different and that they need not be located together.
Claim 19 is further objected to because it recites, “…a target gird opening…” (emphasis added). The word “gird” appears to be a typo for “grid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 15-20, 31-36, 38, and 40-41 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The terms “hit” and “hits” in claims 1, 3, 15-17, 36, 38, and 40-41 are apparently used by the claims to mean “refers to” or “lists” (the meaning is not entirely clear, which is another ground for indefiniteness) while the accepted meaning is “strike” and “strikes”. The terms are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the terms. Claims 2-5 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1, claims 16-20 and 31-36 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 15, and claims 40-41 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 38. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we interpret an order “hitting” goods or types of goods as the order explicitly designating the goods or types of goods as articles to be shipped. We note as an aside that this issue arises in several of applicant’s other applications. Applicant is advised that their usage requires either a clear lexicographic definition in the specification or an explanation in the claims.
The term “specification” in claims 31-32 is used by the claims to mean “quantity” while the accepted meaning is “list of requirements, rules, qualities, or procedures”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It is not entirely clear that a specification is a quantity, and this is another ground for rejection. Applicant’s paragraph [00125], for example, is merely suggestive regarding their term “specification” and is not definitive. Applicant moreover uses the term “specification” in other paragraphs such as [00121] with a different apparent meaning. We speculate that applicant’s goods specification of the claims may be an actual rate of sales or shipping of a SKU, but this value may perhaps be predicted based on historical data, and the specification may in fact be some other type of quantity or numeric metric entirely. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we interpret a goods specification as any numeric quality of goods, including actual inventory count and goods “velocity” or actual or expected rate of sales or shipping. Claims 33-34 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 31-32.
Claim 17 recites, “the second-type carrier is the first shelf, the second-type carrier is the second shelf”. This limitation is self-contradictory and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claims 18-20 and 31-36 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 17. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we interpret the limitation as “the second-type carrier is the first shelf or the second-type carrier is the second shelf”.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “or determining the third shelf as the target shelf…" (emphasis added) in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 33 moreover recites the limitation “controlling the second robot to operate in the sixth operating area…” (emphasis added) in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "obtaining a working state of each workstation and a plurality of outbound orders for a next batch" (emphasis added) in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No first batch has been introduced in this or any parent claim. Moreover, the claim is indefinite because the batching process is undisclosed. No system or method is disclosed to assemble or transmit the batch. As an aside, the batches, if redacted from the claim, would not significantly affect claim interpretation as membership of an order in a particular batch is not evidently relevant to the invention.
Claim 35 also recites the limitation "…controlling the first robot to operate in the first operating area or the fourth operating area" (emphasis added) in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 moreover recites an “automatic tallying mode” that involves the transportation of a target tallying box along with goods to a target workstation. While tallying per se can be interpreted according to its plain English meaning of “counting”, the actual process of tallying using the claimed tallying box and tallying shelf (not depicted in the drawings) would not be sufficiently clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to allow them to replicate applicant’s system or method. We may speculate that items placed or stored in the tallying box or shelf are counted at the workstation, but this interpretation does not appear to be supported by the instant specification and in any event is not explained in the claim itself. See also the objection to the drawings above. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action we suppose that the tallying box is an ordinary container and the tallying shelf is an ordinary transportable shelf, both of which are intended to be taken to a workstation so that the contents can be counted, perhaps as part of inventory control activities unrelated to order fulfillment.
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.
Claims 1-2, 15, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu, et al., CN 112330249 (hereinafter Yu). Note that Yu is a prior publication of the applicant acceptable according to the rules of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) due to a publication date more than one year prior to the earliest priority of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1,
Yu discloses:
A warehousing system (the overall storage management system of fig. 1), comprising:
a workstation area (area of working station 160: fig. 1);We note that any disclosed workstation must necessarily occupy a workstation area.
at least one of at least one mixed workstation (working station 160: fig. 1), at least one first workstation (160 also qualifies as a first workstation) or at least one second workstation, provided in the workstation area and configured to receive an order (order processing, [0010]),We note that the other two options apart from “first workstation” have no additional limiting force over the first (generic) workstation as that choice is sufficient to cover the other possibilities. Yu’s workstation is both a first workstation and a mixed workstation because Yu discloses multiple storage and container types in [0109] and [0137] and multiple goods types in [0023] and [0044], while its workstation of [0035] is shared across two storage areas for different types of containers and thus is mixed.
wherein the order hits at least first type of goods and second type of goods, the first type of goods is different from the second type of goods; (different types of containers, [0137]; different goods in sub-orders of an order, [0023]; different types of goods, [0044])
a storage area, configured to store at least one first-type carrier (140: fig. 1) and at least one second-type carrier (150: fig. 1), wherein the first-type carrier is configured to carry the first type of goods, and the second-type carrier is configured to carry the second type of goods;Yu discloses first and second storage areas in [0035] which store different types of containers and which two areas we consider taken together to comprise applicant’s storage area; this corresponds to the overall situation of fig. 1. Each of Yu’s different container types 140 and 150 is mapped to applicant’s first- and second-type carriers. Per [0023] and [0044], orders may be broken into sub-orders for different good types and per [0035] these may be stored in different containers. Examples of the different carrier types are movable order shelves ([0064]) and movable bins ([0065]). Moreover, in fig. 18 Yu discloses two different shelf-type carriers for a total of at least three different types.
at least one first-type transporter (shelf handling equipment 140: fig. 1, [0110]; equipment is a shelf handling robot [0077]), configured to transport the first-type carrier carrying the first type of goods to the mixed workstation or the second workstation based on a transporting instruction;While some of Yu’s embodiments comprise multiple workstations including a first and a second, at least one (see [0035] and fig. 1) features a single mixed workstation shared across two storage areas.
at least one second-type transporter (bin handling equipment 150: fig. 1, [0111]; bin handling robot [0078]), configured to take out a container from the second-type carrier and transport the container to the mixed workstation or the first workstation based on the transporting instruction, wherein the container stores the second type of goods hit by the order;While some of Yu’s embodiments comprise multiple workstations including a first and a second, at least one (see [0035] and fig. 1) features a single mixed workstation shared across two storage areas.
and a controller (control server 110: fig. 1, controlling handling devices [0107]), connected to the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter, and configured to send transporting instructions to the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter respectively.
Regarding claim 2,
Yu discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein one of the followings [sic] is met:
the at least one second-type transporter comprises a first robot, and the first robot is configured to take out the container from the second-type carrier and transport the container to the mixed workstation or the first workstation based on the transporting instruction;Yu discloses this option in [0038].
or the at least one second-type transporter comprises a first robot and a second robot, the first robot is configured to take out the container from the second-type carrier based on the transporting instruction, and the second robot is configured to receive the container from the first robot and transport the container to the mixed workstation or the first workstation based on the transporting instruction;
or the at least one second-type transporter comprises a first robot and a second robot, the second-type carrier comprises a storage position and a temporary storage position below the storage position, the first robot is configured to transport the container at the storage position to the temporary storage position based on the transporting instruction, and the second robot is configured to transport the container at the temporary storage position to the mixed workstation or the first workstation;
Regarding claim 15,
Yu discloses:
A scheduling method for a warehousing system, comprising:
obtaining an order, wherein the order hits at least first type of goods and second type of goods, the first type of goods is different from the second type of goods;Yu discloses this method in [0010].
calling a first-type transporter (shelf handling equipment 140: fig. 1, [0110]) and a second-type transporter (bin handling equipment 150: fig. 1, [0111]) simultaneously or sequentially based on the order, and controlling the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter to transport a first-type carrier storing the first type of goods hit by the order and a container storing the second type of goods hit by the order to a workstation area (area of working station 160: fig. 1) for picking and processing;Yu discloses this method in [0010].
wherein the workstation area comprises at least one of at least one mixed workstation, at least one first workstation or at least one second workstation, the first-type transporter is configured to transport the first-type carrier carrying the first type of goods to the mixed workstation or the second workstation, and the second-type transporter is configured to transport the container storing the second type of goods hit by the order to the mixed workstation or the first workstation. Yu discloses the configuration of a mixed workstation area 160 in fig. 1. The workstation area is mixed because it serves adjacent storage areas 120 and 130 disclosed in [0035] to stock different types of containers. It is also mixed on the basis of the method involving the transport of containers of different types to a workstation disclosed in [0064]-[0065] and [0070], regarding one of a first workstation, second workstation, or merging workstation. Either bins are transported to the shelf area workstation by a bin-handling robot, shelves are transported to the bin area workstation by a shelf-handling robot, or both types are transported by the two robot types to a merging workstation.
Regarding claim 38,
Yu discloses:
An electronic device (control server 110: fig. 1), comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and when the processor executes the computer program the processor is configured to:All servers comprise memory and processors wherein memory stores a computer program.
obtain an order (order processing [0010]), wherein the order hits at least first type of goods and second type of goods, the first type of goods is different from the second type of goods; (different goods in sub-orders of an order, [0023])
call a first-type transporter (robots 140: fig. 1) and a second-type transporter (robots 150: fig. 1) simultaneously or sequentially based on the order, and control the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter to transport a first-type carrier storing the first type of goods hit by the order and a container storing the second type of goods hit by the order to a workstation area for picking and processing;Yu discloses this method in [0010].
wherein the workstation area comprises at least one of at least one mixed workstation (working station 160: fig. 1), at least one first workstation or at least one second workstation, the first-type transporter is configured to transport the first-type carrier carrying the first type of goods to the mixed workstation or the second workstation, and the second-type transporter is configured to transport the container storing the second type of goods hit by the order to the mixed workstation or the first workstation. (order processing, [0010])We note that the other two options apart from “first workstation” have no limiting force as the “first workstation” choice is sufficient to cover the other possibilities. Yu’s workstation is both a first workstation and a mixed workstation because Yu discloses multiple storage and container types in [0109] and [0137] and multiple goods types in [0023] and [0044], while its workstation of [0035] is shared across two storage areas for different types of containers and thus is mixed.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Kimura, et al, US 2016/0236869 (hereinafter Kimura).
Regarding claim 3,
Yu discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
the storage area comprises a first area (area 120: fig. 1) and a second area (area 130: fig. 1), one side of at least one of the first area and/or the second area is provided with the workstation area;This storage area arrangement is seen in fig. 1, wherein workstation area 160 abuts both first area 120 and second area 130.
the first area comprises a plurality of second-type carriers,Yu discloses in [0106] that the first area 120 is stocked with first containers. Of course, “first” and “second” are arbitrary terms that serve only to distinguish one from the other, and so Yu’s first containers can be mapped to applicant’s second-type carriers.
the controller is configured to obtain an outbound scheduling task of target goods hit by the order, determine a target carrier corresponding to the target goods based on the outbound scheduling task, generate an outbound transporting task, and send the outbound transporting task to a target robot, so that the target robot performs the outbound scheduling task;Yu discloses task assignments for workstations and robots in [0010] that perform the claimed method steps in the context of splitting a complex order task into subtasks.
wherein the target robot is at least one of the first robot, the second robot, or the third robot (order container handling device 260: fig. 2); the target carrier is at least one of the first-type carrier or the second-type carrier, and the outbound transporting task comprises position information of the target goods;In the context of Yu’s disclosure of three robot types and two carrier types in [0064]-[0065] and [0131], and disclosure of a picking task in [0010] performed by a robot according to task instructions sent by the control server, it is plain that the task must comprise position information of the target goods in the order or the goods could not be picked by the robot. Moreover, Yu discloses position information for robot destinations after picking in [0026] and thus it is evident that such information is part of the tasks for Yu’s mobile robots.
However, Yu does not disclose all aspects of:
wherein the second-type carrier comprises a storage position and a temporary storage position below the storage position, the second-type transporter comprises the first robot and the second robot, and the first-type transporter is a third robot;
the first target goods cache position is located at the temporary storage position of the second-type carrier;Regarding the two above limitations, while Yu discloses a plurality of robots and carriers of each type, Yu does not disclose its robots and carriers in sufficient detail as to reveal their internal storage positions. Inasmuch as one of Yu’s carriers is a shelving unit, it is at least compatible with a lower shelf being a temporary storage position like applicant’s. However, Yu does not disclose beyond doubt that its shelving unit comprises multiple vertically stacked shelves. Per the claim objections above, we do not distinguish applicant’s temporary storage position and target goods cache position which according to our interpretation necessarily occupy identical positions.
the first robot, the second robot, and the third robot have different transporting modes;While Yu discloses a plurality of robots, it only definitely discloses two types of robot with plainly different transporting modes, not three. Its third robot type, the order container handling robot 260, may in fact have a different transporting mode from the shelf-handling robot and the bin-handling robot, and indeed this seems likely because otherwise Yu need only disclose two robot types. However, this possible third mode is not plain from its name as is the case for the other two robots because an order container may perhaps be a bin.
a first operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second-type carriers,While its robots must have operating areas related to carriers, Yu does not explicitly disclose this or indeed any particular robot operating area. If Yu’s shelf- robots operate in a warehouse aisle between shelving units, as indeed may be the case but is not explicitly disclosed, then either of Yu’s types would have at least have the claimed capability.
a second operating area for the second robot to operate is provided at bottom of the second-type carrier;While this arrangement is suggested by Yu’s “shelf-carrying robot” which most likely is a conventional platform-type AGV that operates below a carrier shelving unit, this is not explicitly disclosed.
the second area comprises at least one first-type carrier, a third operating area for the third robot to walk is provided at bottom of the first-type carrier, the first-type carrier and the second-type carrier have different structuresYu discloses two carrier types with different structures, bins and shelves. Both these types are conventionally carried atop robot AGVs, and both types conventionally provide “operating areas” below the carriers. However, Yu does not explicitly disclose the structure of its robots nor the physical relation of its robots to its carriers and so a teaching reference must be provided for the purpose.
the first robot is configured to operate in the first operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, obtain a container of the target goods on the second-type carrier, and transport the container of the target goods to a first target goods cache position on the second-type carrier;
the second robot is configured to operate in the second operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, and transport the container of the target goods at the first target goods cache position to the mixed workstation or the first workstation;Regarding the above two limitations, Yu does not disclose the internal structure of its carriers, i.e. it does not disclose a target goods cache position. Again, Yu’s robots and carriers may well possess these features.
the third robot is configured to operate in the third operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, and transport the first-type carrier corresponding to the target goods to the mixed workstation or the second workstation. Again, Yu does not disclose its robot structure apart from the suggestive implication of the robot type names “bin-handling” and “shelf-handling” and so we must also invoke a teaching reference for the operating area of the third robot type “order container handling”.
Kimura, an invention in the same field as Yu and the applicant, teaches:
wherein the second-type carrier comprises a storage position (top shelf of 100a: fig. 3) and a temporary storage position (lower shelves of 100a: fig. 3) below the storage position, the second-type transporter comprises the first robot (robot 200v: fig. 18) and the second robot (robot 200u: fig. 18), and the first-type transporter is a third robot (robot 200w: fig. 18); We note first that temporary storage positions are necessarily also storage positions, and so, considering all storage positions of the carrier to be temporary storage positions, most of the temporary storage positions of fig. 3 are lower than the top shelf storage position as claimed. Referring to fig. 18, the first robot is the central robot 200v, the second robot is the right-hand robot 200u, and the third robot is the left-hand robot 200w. All three carriers may be considered to have cache and/or temporary storage positions because these carriers are used for transportation between permanent storage and workstations and so all their locations are temporary. As all these carriers are shelving units, all depict some temporary storage positions situated below other storage positions (which may also be temporary due to the role of the carrier).
the first target goods cache position is located at the temporary storage position of the second-type carrier;According to our interpretation of the terms “target goods cache position” and “temporary storage position”, these two positions are identical by intension and one must necessarily be at the position of the other.
the first robot, (200v: fig. 18) the second robot (200u: fig. 18), and the third robot (200w: fig. 18) have different transporting modes;Kimura’s three robots of fig. 18 all have different transporting modes as seen in the figure. One robot is a source for articles, another is an intermediary, and a third receives articles.
a first operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second-type carriers,Kimura teaches the claimed arrangement in fig. 18, where the “first robot” is the central robot, and the two “second-type” carriers are to the left and the right. The central robot’s carrier provides a connection between shelves of different levels of the left and right carrier and so its operating area is between them. We note that applicant’s operating-area limitation (similar limitations are seen in many other claims below) allows for broad interpretation. All platform-type AGVs like Kimura’s (commonplace in the art and providing commercially by many vendors) as well as all stacker cranes and indeed most mobile robots in general are capable of operating between shelves in a warehouse aisle, and likewise all carriers may be deployed in a manner that enables an operating area between them again exemplified by a warehouse aisle.
a second operating area for the second robot to operate is provided at bottom of the second-type carrier;As seen in fig. 18, all Kimura’s robots (conventional platform-type AGVs) are configured to operate below shelf-type carriers. This is a standard type of warehouse robot widely commercially available for many years; such combinations of carrier and robot are well known in the art.
the first robot is configured to operate in the first operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, obtain a container of the target goods on the second-type carrier, and transport the container of the target goods to a first target goods cache position on the second-type carrier;As noted above, all Kimura’s carriers are configured with shelves that act as cache positions.
the second robot is configured to operate in the second operating area (area after receiving the outbound transporting task, and transport the container of the target goods at the first target goods cache position to the mixed workstation or the first workstation;We consider Kimura’s right-hand robot 200u of fig. 18 to map to applicant’s second robot as it is depicted as receiving containers to be transported to a workstation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Yu, (i) wherein the second-type carrier comprises a storage position and a temporary storage position below the storage position, the second-type transporter comprises the first robot and the second robot, and the first-type transporter is a third robot; the first target goods cache position is located at the temporary storage position of the second-type carrier, (ii) the first target goods cache position is located at the temporary storage position of the second-type carrier, (iii) the first robot, the second robot, and the third robot have different transporting modes, (iv) a first operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second-type carriers, (v) a second operating area for the second robot to operate is provided at bottom of the second-type carrier; (vi) the first robot is configured to operate in the first operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, obtain a container of the target goods on the second-type carrier, and transport the container of the target goods to a first target goods cache position on the second-type carrier, and (vii) the second robot is configured to operate in the second operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, and transport the container of the target goods at the first target goods cache position to the mixed workstation or the first workstation as taught by Kimura. Limitations (i) and (ii) are obvious because it is commonplace in the art for transportable carriers to comprise temporary storage positions and/or caches for goods being transported; indeed it may be held that all transportable carriers necessarily comprise the claimed temporary storage positions and/or caches because transportable carriers are used for temporary storage during transportation. As regards the shelf structure, it is likewise commonplace for transportable shelving units to comprise multiple tiers of shelves and since all these shelves comprise both storage positions and temporary storage positions, it also follows that all shelves except the top shelf must be below some other storage position as claimed. Limitation (iii) is obvious because myriad examples of prior warehouse art including Yu teach three or more types of robots involved in article handling and order fulfillment, and different types of robot generally have different transporting modes. Limitations (iv) and (v) are obvious because virtually all mobile robots have the capability of limitation (iv) and the cited reference teaches motivation in the form of acting as an intermediary to change the storage level of goods between shelves, but myriad examples of other prior art teach stacking cranes and gantry-type robots that access both sides of a warehouse aisle and thus have an operating area between two carriers, while limitation (v) describes the capability of a well-known platform AGV to carry a transportable shelving unit, taught by Kimura and myriad other references as well. Limitation (vi) is obvious because first of all a robot operating beneath a carrier is the most common type of AGV in the art and secondly because myriad examples of prior art teach robots cooperating to pick an item from storage and then place it in a temporary storage or cache location for transportation to a destination such as a workstation. Limitation (vii) is obvious for much the same reason, that transportation of articles or containers from storage to a workstation is a well-nigh universal requirement for automated warehouses.
Regarding claim 4,
Yu in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
the first robot is further configured to operate in the fourth operating area and the first operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, transport the container of the target goods of the first sub-shelf (Kimura, shelves of carrier 100w: fig. 18) in to a second target goods cache position, (Kimura, shelves of carrier 100u: fig. 18) wherein the second target goods cache position is located at the temporary storage position of the first shelf; the second robot is further configured to operate in the second operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the container of the target goods to the mixed workstation or the first workstation; the first robot is further configured to operate in the fourth operating area and transport the container of the target goods of the first sub-shelf to a target grid opening of the second sub-shelf; the third robot is configured to operate in the third operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the second sub-shelf corresponding to the target goods to the mixed workstation or the second workstation. With the exception of the claimed sub-shelves and grid openings, these limitations essentially recapitulate the limitations of the parent claims. Each robot has its operating area, and in fig. 18 Kimura depicts the transportation of articles from one sub-shelf to another through grid openings in the carriers. As noted above, all storage positions on Yu and Kimura’s transportable carriers are temporary storage and/or target goods cache positions. Either of Kimura’s carriers 100u and 100w may be transported by robot AGVs 200u and 200w respectively to Yu’s mixed workstation.
However, Yu in view of Kimura does not teach all aspects of:
wherein the second-type carrier comprises a first shelf, the first-type carrier comprises a second shelf, the second shelf comprises a first sub-shelf and a second sub-shelf, the first sub-shelf is arranged above the second sub- shelf, the first sub-shelf and the second sub-shelf have different structures, and a grid opening of the first sub-shelf is the same as that of the first shelf, a fourth operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second shelves;
While Kimura teaches all these structures and most of their relations including the claimed operating area between shelves in Kimura’s fig. 18 with its consistent grid openings for all sub-shelves, neither Yu nor Kimura teaches that the sub-shelves of individual carriers have different structures as claimed and indeed their sub-shelves appear to be similar.
We hold, however, that Yu in view of Kimura renders this limitation obvious in view of the provisions of MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), namely that changes in shape are mere routine expedients that are obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant discloses in claim 4 that their sub-shelves have different structures but provides no reason or motivation for the claimed difference, nor does their specification explain this design choice. If such reasoning were provided, depending on the reasoning we might consider that a teaching reference cited in rejection would have to conform to or provide similar motivation. However, in the absence of such reasoning we consider that the different structures of the sub-shelves do not have substantial inventive weight and thus the “changes of shape” rationale of MPEP 2144.04 is relevant to the case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Yu and Kimura, wherein the second-type carrier comprises a first shelf, the first-type carrier comprises a second shelf, the second shelf comprises a first sub-shelf and a second sub-shelf, the first sub-shelf is arranged above the second sub- shelf, the first sub-shelf and the second sub-shelf have different structures, and a grid opening of the first sub-shelf is the same as that of the first shelf, a fourth operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second shelves, as also taught by Yu and Kimura, because as discussed above, an arbitrary “change in shape” per MPEP 2144.04 is considered a “routine expedient” obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Myriad forms and formats of shelves are widely known to the art and many variations could easily have been employed between the first and second sub-shelves of Kimura.
Regarding claim 5,
Yu in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the second area further comprises a third shelf, the third shelf and the first shelf have a same structure;
each third shelf is located on one side of each second shelf, a fifth operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two third shelves, a sixth operating area for the second robot to operate is provided at bottom of the third shelf, the first shelf and the third shelf are configured to store the second type of goods;
the first robot is further configured to operate in the fifth operating area and the fourth operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the container of the target goods of the first sub-shelf to a third target goods cache position of the third shelf;
the second robot is further configured to transport the container of the target goods at the third target goods cache position to the mixed workstation or the first workstation after receiving the outbound transporting task.The above limitations appear to substantially reprise those of the parent claims with the proviso that additional numbered shelves and operating areas similar to those of the parent claims are recited. The numbering of these structures does not distinguish them from other structures unless they are explicitly required to be different and additional. Moreover, references Yu and Kimura cited in rejection disclose unlimited pluralities of shelves and robots, any of which could be first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth so long as they conform to the other aspects of the limitations. In the present case, Kimura’s fig. 18 discloses three robots with three operating areas, three carriers, and three sets of shelves which take part in the transportation of goods and containers to a workstation. These may be numbered first, second, and third, or fourth, fifth, and sixth, or any other combination of three ordinal numbers as claimed.
Claims 16 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Liu, et al., US 2021/0221613 (hereinafter Liu). Liu is a prior publication of the applicant acceptable according to the rules of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) due to a publication date more than one year prior to the earliest priority of the instant application.
Regarding claim 16,
Yu discloses the limitations of claim 15 but not:
wherein calling the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter simultaneously or sequentially based on the order, and controlling the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter to transport the first-type carrier storing the first type of goods hit by the order and the container storing the second type of goods hit by the order to the workstation area, comprise:
determining a position of the first-type carrier and a position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order; determining paths along which the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter move from current positions to the first-type carrier and the container, and to the corresponding workstations after picking the first-type carrier and the container;
and calling the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter that are closest to the first- type carrier and the container and that are idle based on the order to transport the first-type carrier and the container to the corresponding workstations. While Yu discloses the general method of the claim, directing robots to transport goods to workstations, it does not explicitly disclose the claimed details of position determination, proximity, and pathing. While it could be argued that these steps must take place in order for articles to be transported by robots in a warehouse, we rely on another reference to teach them explicitly.
Liu, an invention in the same field as Yu and the applicant, teaches:
determining a position of the first-type carrier and a position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order; determining paths along which the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter move from current positions to the first-type carrier and the container, and to the corresponding workstations after picking the first-type carrier and the container;Liu teaches the determination of robot positions in [0049]; the determination which robot is nearest to a given shelf location necessarily requires the determination of all eligible robot positions. Liu teaches path planning and optimization in [0021]-[0023]. In combination with Yu, Liu’s pathing approach would be employed along with Yu’s robots and carriers to select robots and path them to their destinations.
and calling the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter that are closest to the first- type carrier and the container and that are idle based on the order to transport the first-type carrier and the container to the corresponding workstations. Again Liu teaches the considerations of robot nearness and idleness in [0049]. In combination with Yu, Yu’s actual movement of its robots would occur according to the claimed nearness and idleness criteria.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Yu, with determining a position of the first-type carrier and a position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order; determining paths along which the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter move from current positions to the first-type carrier and the container, and to the corresponding workstations after picking the first-type carrier and the container, and calling the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter that are closest to the first- type carrier and the container and that are idle based on the order to transport the first-type carrier and the container to the corresponding workstations, as taught by Liu, because first of all mobile robots must be provided with paths in order to move at all, secondly it is plainly preferable to select robots closest to their destinations for tasks in order to minimize task time, and thirdly it is plainly preferable to choose idle robots for tasks so as not to interrupt other tasks or so as not to have to wait for active robots to complete their current tasks. Considerations of robot proximity and idleness are commonplace in the art.
Regarding claim 40,
Yu discloses the limitations of claim 38 but not:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a position of the first-type carrier and a position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order;
determine paths along which the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter move from current positions to the first-type carrier and the container, and to the corresponding workstations after picking the first-type carrier and the container;
and call the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter that are closest to the first-type carrier and the container and that are idle based on the order to transport the first-type carrier and the container to the corresponding workstations.While Yu discloses the general method of the claim, directing robots to transport goods to workstations, it does not explicitly disclose the claimed details of position determination, proximity, and pathing. While it could be argued that these steps must take place in order for articles to be transported by robots in a warehouse, we rely on another reference to teach them.
Liu, an invention in the same field as Yu and the applicant, teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a position of the first-type carrier and a position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order; determine paths along which the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter move from current positions to the first-type carrier and the container, and to the corresponding workstations after picking the first-type carrier and the container;Liu teaches the determination of robot positions in [0049]; the determination which robot is nearest to a given shelf location necessarily requires the determination of all eligible robot positions. Liu teaches path planning and optimization in [0021]-[0023]. In combination with Yu, Liu’s pathing approach would be employed along with Yu’s robots and carriers to select robots and path them to their destinations.
and call the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter that are closest to the first-type carrier and the container and that are idle based on the order to transport the first-type carrier and the container to the corresponding workstations.Again Liu teaches the considerations of nearness and idleness in [0049]. In combination with Yu, Yu’s actual movement of its robots would occur according to the claimed nearness and idleness criteria.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Yu, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a position of the first-type carrier and a position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order; determine paths along which the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter move from current positions to the first-type carrier and the container, and to the corresponding workstations after picking the first-type carrier and the container; and call the first-type transporter and the second-type transporter that are closest to the first-type carrier and the container and that are idle based on the order to transport the first-type carrier and the container to the corresponding workstations as taught by Liu, because first of all mobile robots must be provided with paths in order to move at all, secondly it is plainly preferable to select robots closest to their destinations for tasks in order to minimize task time, and thirdly it is plainly preferable to choose idle robots for tasks so as not to interrupt other tasks or so as not to have to wait for active robots to complete their current tasks. Considerations of robot proximity and idleness are commonplace in the art.
Claims 17-19, 31, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Liu and further in view of Kimura.
Regarding claim 17,
Yu in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 16, and also:
wherein determining the position of the first-type carrier and the position of the second-type carrier corresponding to the first type of goods and the second type of goods hit by the order comprises:
determining a target shelf corresponding to target goods based on an outbound scheduling task of the target goods hit by the order, wherein the target shelf comprises a first shelf located in a first area and a second shelf located in a second area, and the first shelf and the second shelf have different structures;Yu discloses this method in [0036]. The first and second storage areas determined by Yu comprise shelves, per [0041].
and determining a target robot for executing the outbound scheduling task based on the target shelf, sending an outbound transporting task to the target robot to cause the target robot to execute the outbound scheduling task within a target operating area,Yu discloses the claimed designation of robots (handling equipment) for task execution in [0035]-[0036].
the target robot is at least one of a first robot, a second robot or a third robot, the second-type transporter comprises the first robot and the second robot, the first-type transporter is the third robot; the second-type carrier is the first shelf, the second-type carrier is the second shelf. Yu discloses the various claimed structures, for example in fig. 18 with respect to the three robots 200u-w. The nature and composition of the abstract “transporter” systems are irrelevant to the rest of the claim, but it is evident that a transporter either is a robot or comprises robots and so various combinations of Yu’s robots may qualify as being the first and second-type transporters. The claimed carriers likewise play no part in the action of the claim, but again Yu’s several carrier types qualify as first and second carriers as noted in the limitation above.
However, Yu in view of Liu does not teach all aspects of:
wherein the target operating area is at least one of a first operating area, a second operating area or a third operating area, the first operating area is an area between each two first shelves, the second operating area is an area at bottom of the first shelf, the third operating area is an area at bottom of the second shelf;Conventional AGVs often have “operating areas” below their carriers (or above upper surfaces of the AGVs which carry carriers). The three operating areas may correspond to Yu’s three robot types. However, Yu does not explicitly disclose the structure of its robots nor the physical relation of its robots to its carriers and so a teaching reference must be provided for the purpose. Moreover although they are presumably capable of it, Yu does not explicitly disclose robots operating between two shelves for any of its robot types.
Kimura, an invention in the same field as Yu and the applicant, teaches:
wherein the target operating area is at least one of a first operating area, a second operating area or a third operating area, the first operating area is an area between each two first shelves, the second operating area is an area at bottom of the first shelf, the third operating area is an area at bottom of the second shelf;Kimura teaches all three operating areas in fig. 18 (though we note that due to the “at least one” phrasing only one must necessarily be taught). The two shelf carriers 100u and 100w are carried above AGVs 200u and 200w and thus their operating areas are at the bottom of shelves, and the shelf carrier 600v born by AGV 200v is situated between two carriers and thus between two shelves as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Yu and Liu, wherein the target operating area is at least one of a first operating area, a second operating area or a third operating area, the first operating area is an area between each two first shelves, the second operating area is an area at bottom of the first shelf, the third operating area is an area at bottom of the second shelf, as taught by Kimura, because firstly AGVs that carry shelves are widespread and commonplace in the art, secondly it is almost universal that AGVs carrying shelves have “operating areas” below the shelves because they navigate beneath the shelves in order to lift them, and thirdly, stacker cranes and gantry-type AGVs commonly operate between warehouse shelves while a robot such as Kimura’s that transfers articles between two shelf-type carriers may most conveniently do so from a position between the two carriers.
Regarding claim 18,
Yu in view of Liu and Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein determining the target robot for executing the outbound scheduling task based on the target shelf, sending an outbound transporting task to the target robot to cause the target robot to execute the outbound scheduling task, comprise:
in a case where the target shelf is the first shelf, determining the first robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the first robot to cause the first robot to operate in the first operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task, obtain the container of the target goods on the first shelf, and transport the container of the target goods to a first target goods cache position on the first shelf, wherein the first target goods cache position is located at a temporary storage position of the first shelf; Yu discloses the determination of a first robot for a task associated with a first shelf in [0110]. Kimura teaches the claimed first operating area in its fig. 18. All Kimura carrier shelves are temporary storage positions and target goods cache positions as previously noted because all storage positions of carriers employed for transporting articles are temporary storage positions and because cache is the same as storage.
when the first robot transports the container of the target goods to the first target goods cache position on the first shelf, determining the second robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the second robot to cause the second robot to operate in the second operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the container of the target goods placed on the first target goods cache position to the mixed workstation or the first workstation in the workstation area, wherein the first workstation is a workstation for picking target goods transported by the second robot, the mixed workstation is a workstation for picking the target goods transported by the second robot or target goods transported by the third robot;This arrangement is seen in fig. 18 wherein multiple robots cooperate to transfer articles from one carrier to another. Kimura’s robots, like Yu’s, eventually deliver their articles to workstations as claimed per [0014]-[0015].
in a case where the target shelf is the second shelf, determining the third robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the third robot to cause the third robot to operate in the third operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the second shelf corresponding to the target goods to the mixed workstation or the second workstation in the workstation area, wherein the second workstation is a workstation for picking the target goods transported by the third robot. This case mirrors the first case for a different target shelf. As Yu discloses two different storage areas with two different robot types 140 and 150 in fig. 1, based on whichever robot is designated as the first for the first limitation, the other type can be designated as the third in this limitation, but their ability to transport articles from target shelves to workstations is the same.
Regarding claim 19,
Yu in view of Liu and Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 18 and also:
and the method further comprises: in a case where the target shelf is the first sub-shelf, determining the first robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the first robot to cause the first robot to operate in the fourth operating area and the first operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the container of the target goods of the first sub-shelf to a second target goods cache position, or to cause the first robot to operate in the fourth operating area and transport the container of the target goods of the first sub-shelf to a target gird [sic] opening of the second sub-shelf;Kimura teaches the last alternative in fig. 18, the first robot 200v transferring the target goods of a first sub-shelf on the left through a grid opening of the second sub-shelf on the right.
when the first robot transports the container of the target goods to the second target goods cache position, determining the second robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the second robot to cause the second robot to operate in the second operating area and transport the container of the target goods to the first workstation or the mixed workstation;In fig. 18, the second robot 200u will transport the target goods to a workstation per [0014]. As already explained, all shelf positions on all Kimura’s robots are both temporary storage positions and target goods cache positions.
in a case where the target shelf is the second sub-shelf and the container of the target goods is placed at the target grid opening, determining the third robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the third robot to cause the third robot to operate in the third operating area after receiving the outbound transporting task and transport the second shelf corresponding to the target goods to the second workstation or the mixed workstation. This case is not substantially different from the cases above except in the matter of the numbered shelf and robot. As any of Kimura’s robots and shelves may assume any numbered position so long as they satisfy other limitation criteria, we hold this limitation was taught per the explanation above. As seen in fig. 18, the carrier 100u of the right-hand robot 200u has the claimed grid openings in its shelves or sub-shelves.
However, Yu in view of Liu and Kimura does not explicitly teach all aspects of:
wherein the second shelf comprises a first sub-shelf and a second sub-shelf, the first sub-shelf is arranged above the second sub-shelf, the first sub-shelf and the second sub-shelf have different structures, and a grid opening of the first sub-shelf and a grid opening of the first shelf have a same size, a fourth operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second shelves;Kimura does not teach that the sub-shelves of individual carriers have different structures as claimed and indeed Kimura’s sub-shelves appear to be similar. However, referring to fig. 18, Kimura teaches the other aspects of this limitation including the same size grid openings and the operating area between two second shelves.
We hold, however, that Yu in view of Liu and Kimura renders this limitation obvious in view of the provisions of MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), namely that changes in shape are mere routine expedients that are obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant discloses in claim 19 that their sub-shelves have different structures but provides no reason or motivation for the claimed difference, nor does their specification explain this design choice. If such reasoning were provided, depending on the reasoning we might consider that a teaching reference cited in rejection would have to conform to or provide similar motivation. However, in the absence of such reasoning we consider that the different structures of the sub-shelves do not have substantial inventive weight and thus the “changes of shape” rationale of MPEP 2144.04 is relevant to the case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Yu, Liu, and Kimura, wherein the second shelf comprises a first sub-shelf and a second sub-shelf, the first sub-shelf is arranged above the second sub-shelf, the first sub-shelf and the second sub-shelf have different structures, and a grid opening of the first sub-shelf and a grid opening of the first shelf have a same size, a fourth operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two second shelves, as also taught by Yu, Liu, and Kimura, because as discussed above, an arbitrary “change in shape” per MPEP 2144.04 is considered a “routine expedient” obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Myriad forms and formats of shelves are widely known to the art and many variations could easily have been employed between the first and second sub-shelves of Kimura.
Regarding claim 20,
Yu in view of Liu and Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 19 and also:
wherein the second area comprises a third shelf, the third shelf and the first shelf have a same structure, each third shelf is located on one side of each second shelf, a fifth operating area for the first robot to operate is provided between each two third shelves, a sixth operating area for the second robot to operate is provided at bottom of the third shelf,
and the method further comprises: in a case where the target shelf is the first sub-shelf, determining the first robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the first robot to cause the first robot to operate in the fifth operating area and the fourth operating area and transport the container of the target goods of the first sub-shelf to a third target goods cache position of the third shelf, wherein the third target goods cache position is located at the lowest layer of the third shelf;
when the first robot transports the container of the target goods to the third target goods cache position, determining the second robot as the target robot, and sending the outbound transporting task to the second robot to cause the second robot to transport the container of the target goods at the third target goods cache position to the first workstation or the mixed workstation. With respect to the above limitations, applicant has added numbered shelves, operating areas and target goods cache positions not present in parent claims, but these do not appear to distinguish the claim in any substantive manner from parent claims with similar robots, shelves, operating areas and target goods cache positions. Given the plurality of robots and other structures disclosed by the rejecting references, especially Kimura, unlimited numbered instances of each type of structure may be found. Kimura’s fig. 18 teaches the arrangement in which one robot assists in the transfer of good from one shelf carried by a robot to another carried by another robot and the receiving robot subsequently transports the goods to a workstation.
Regarding claim 31,
Yu in view of Liu and Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 18 and also:
further comprising: obtaining, by the controller, an inbound scheduling task of the target goods; Yu teaches inbound tasks (i.e. storing) as well as outbound tasks (i.e. picking and order fulfillment) in [0110].
obtaining goods information of each goods to be put on shelves based on the inbound scheduling task, wherein the goods information comprises a goods specification and an outbound frequency of the goods to be put on shelves during a historical time period;Liu teaches the claimed historical data analysis in [0034].
determining a target shelf corresponding to each goods to be put on shelves based on the goods information of the goods to be put on shelves, and controlling a target robot corresponding to each target shelf to execute the inbound scheduling task to store the goods to be put on shelves into the corresponding target shelf. Liu teaches the shelf determination in [0034]. In combination with Yu, Yu’s transporting system and method would make use of Liu’s historical data and shelf determination.
Regarding claim 32,
Yu in view of Liu and Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 31 and also:
wherein determining the target shelf corresponding to each goods to be put on shelves based on the goods information of the goods to be put on shelves, and controlling the target robot corresponding to each target shelf to execute the inbound scheduling task to store the goods to be put on shelves into the corresponding target shelf, comprise:
in a case where the goods specification of the goods to be put on shelves is greater than a preset size, determining the second shelf as the target shelf, controlling the third robot to transport the second shelf to a first shelfing work platform, and controlling the third robot to transport the target shelf back to an original position after storing the goods to be put on shelves into the target shelf;
in a case where the goods specification of the goods to be put on shelves is less than or equal to the preset size, determining the target shelf corresponding to each goods to be put on shelves based on the outbound frequency of the goods to be put on shelves, controlling the target robot corresponding to each target shelf to execute the inbound scheduling task to store the goods to be put on shelves into the corresponding target shelf.Regarding the storage of inbound items, this claim is distinguished from parent claims in requiring the application of a threshold (we interpret the term “specification” as most likely a kind of quantity, possibly a predicted velocity) in determining which shelf to store the goods. Differentiation between low- and high-velocity shelves for inventory storage based on expected shipping or sales volume is commonplace in the art. Liu teaches consideration of sales volume or “frequency” in [0034]-[0035] for shelf selection for storage, and Liu teaches the application of thresholds in [0110]-[0120] and throughout much of the rest of its specification (e.g. [0350] et seq., [0410], et seq., and elsewhere), with particular attention drawn to [0110]. Liu’s notion of “hitting” is presumably similar to applicant’s given that first inventor Liu Kai of publication Liu is also first inventor for the instant application. Liu also teaches a shelf and location popularity thresholds in [0147] and [0165], and due to the indefiniteness of the term “specification” in the instant application, the good specification may be related to this threshold as well.
Regarding claim 33,
Yu in view of Liu and Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 32 and also:
wherein determining the target shelf corresponding to each goods to be put on shelves based on the outbound frequency of the goods to be put on shelves, and controlling the target robot corresponding to each target shelf to execute the inbound scheduling task to store the goods to be put on shelves into the corresponding target shelf, comprise:
in a case where the outbound frequency of the goods to be put on shelves is greater than a preset frequency threshold, determining the second shelf as the target shelf, controlling the third robot to transport the second shelf corresponding to the goods to be put on shelves to the first shelfing work platform of the workstation, and controlling the third robot to transport the target shelf back to the original position when storing the goods to be put on shelves into the target shelf;
in a case where the outbound frequency of the goods to be put on shelves is not greater than the preset frequency threshold, determining the first shelf as the target shelf, controlling the second robot to operate in the second operating area and transport a first target container in the first shelf to a second shelfing work platform of the workstation, and controlling the second robot to transport the first target container back to the first shelf when storing the goods to be put on shelves into the first target container;
or determining the third shelf as the target shelf, controlling the second robot to operate in the sixth operating area to transport a second target container corresponding to the goods to be put on shelves to the second shelfing work platform of the workstation, and controlling the second robot to transport the second target container back to the third shelf when storing the goods to be put on shelves into the second target container.
Regarding claim 41,
Yu in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 40, and also:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a target shelf corresponding to target goods based on an outbound scheduling task of the target goods hit by the order, wherein the target shelf comprises a first shelf located in a first area and a second shelf located in a second area, and the first shelf and the second shelf have different structures;Yu discloses this method in [0036]. The first and second storage areas determined by Yu comprise shelves, per [0041], but are different from one another per [0009].
the target robot is at least one of a first robot, a second robot or a third robot, the second-type transporter comprises the first robot and the second robot, the first-type transporter is the third robot; the second-type carrier is the first shelf, the second-type carrier is the second shelf. Yu discloses the various claimed structures. All Yu’s target robots must be one of its three robot types. The nature and composition of the abstract “transporter” systems are irrelevant to the rest of the claim, but it is evident that a transporter either is a robot (one of the three types) or comprises robots (also one or more of the three types) and so Yu’s types qualify as being the first and second-type transporters. The claimed carriers likewise play no part in the action of the claim, but again Yu’s carriers qualify as first and second carriers as noted in the limitation above.
However, Yu in view of Liu does not disclose:
and determine a target robot for executing the outbound scheduling task based on the target shelf, send an outbound transporting task to the target robot to cause the target robot to execute the outbound scheduling task within a target operating area, wherein the target operating area is at least one of a first operating area, a second operating area or a third operating area, the first operating area is an area between each two first shelves, the second operating area is an area at bottom of the first shelf, the third operating area is an area at bottom of the second shelf;The references do not explicitly disclose the claimed operating areas; neither reference discloses the structure of robots and shelves with sufficient detail. However, they are at least compatible with the claimed robot structures and operating areas as introduced below from another teaching references.
Kimura, an invention in the same field as Yu and the applicant, teaches:
and determine a target robot for executing the outbound scheduling task based on the target shelf, send an outbound transporting task to the target robot to cause the target robot to execute the outbound scheduling task within a target operating area, wherein the target operating area is at least one of a first operating area, a second operating area or a third operating area, the first operating area is an area between each two first shelves, the second operating area is an area at bottom of the first shelf, the third operating area is an area at bottom of the second shelf;Yu discloses the claimed designation of robots (handling equipment) for task execution in [0035]-[0036]. While Yu does not explicitly disclose operating areas, Kimura teaches all three operating areas in fig. 18 (though we note that due to the “at least one” phrasing only one must necessarily be taught). Per Kimura, the two shelf carriers 100u and 100w are carried above AGVs 200u and 200w and thus their operating areas are at the bottom of shelves, and the shelf carrier 600v born by AGV 200v is situated between two carriers and thus between two shelves as claimed. As noted in other rejections, myriad other references teach both types of operating areas for their mobile robots
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Yu and Liu, to determine a target robot for executing the outbound scheduling task based on the target shelf, send an outbound transporting task to the target robot to cause the target robot to execute the outbound scheduling task within a target operating area, wherein the target operating area is at least one of a first operating area, a second operating area or a third operating area, the first operating area is an area between each two first shelves, the second operating area is an area at bottom of the first shelf, the third operating area is an area at bottom of the second shelf, as taught by Kimura, because firstly AGVs that carry shelves are widespread and commonplace in the art, secondly it is almost universal that AGVs carrying shelves have “operating areas” below the shelves, and thirdly, stacker cranes and gantry-type AGVs commonly operate between warehouse shelves while a robot such as Kimura’s that transfers articles between two shelf-type carriers may most conveniently do so from a position between the two carriers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-34 and 35-36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claim 33, the references cited in rejection of parent claims do not disclose the claimed second shelfing work platform of the claimed workstation, nor do they fully disclose the association of an outbound frequency (a term interpreted as the more common term of art “goods velocity”) with a preset threshold to determine which shelf to deliver goods to. While both these independent elements are known to the art, the combination of Yu, Kimura, and Liu used to demonstrate the obviousness of parent claims from 15 to 32 was deemed sufficiently rigid that the introduction of yet additional teaching references for the untaught elements would have the appearance of an unmotivated design by hindsight, an indicator for non-obviousness. As no superior set of references to Yu, Kimura, and Liu was discovered to teach the parent claims, the matter of claim 33 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claim 34 inherits the potential allowability of claim 33.
Regarding dependent claim 35, while prior art such as applicant’s own publication US 2020/0377299 teaches carrying articles such as containers or shelves to a workstation so that their contents may be tallied or counted, the claim further specifies that the workstation’s idle state is determined and a box or shelf is brought to the workstation for counting only if the workstation is currently idle. In effect, this means that work of order fulfillment which the instant application is principally concerned with is given higher priority than tallying and counting stored goods, an aspect of inventory control. This counting-only-when-idle workstation feature appears to be novel. Thus the matter of claim 35 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claim 36 inherits the potential allowability of claim 35.
Applicant is advised that the many grounds for rejection due to indefiniteness found in the claim tree of claims 33 and 35 may result in additional search finding new grounds for prior art rejection after amendments to repair the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are docketed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0377299 and US 2003/0105552 teaching counting or tallying items at a warehouse workstation. US 2014/0137773 teaches detecting when a workstation is idle or inactive. US 7,584,017 teaches vehicle proximity as a consideration in selecting a vehicle for a task.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
