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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s IDS of January 10, 2025, was not accompanied by a proper certification statement, nor was it signed and dated. See MPEP § 609 for the requirement to sign an IDS: “In order to have information considered by the Office during the pendency of a patent application, an information disclosure statement must be (1) in compliance with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98, (2) filed in accordance with the procedural requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and (3) signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.33(b) (e.g., a separate signed page which references and accompanies the IDS).”
For this reason the IDS could not be formally acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
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.
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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 recites the nonstandard terms “(n+1)-ary container” and “n-ary container”. We understand these to refer to containers stored in other containers per P4/L33-P5/L2 of the instant specification.
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, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miles, et al., US 2006/0122858 (hereinafter Miles).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-12,
Miles discloses:
An article management system (item management system 300: fig. 3, [0022]), comprising:
a camera (monitoring system 316: fig. 3, including camera [0035]) configured to image a space, the space being prescribed;
a container (container 930: fig. 9) configured to store an article, the article being a management object;A “management object” is an object to be managed per applicant’s P5/L10-15. All articles handled by an item management system such as that of Miles are ipso facto management objects.
a rack (storage rack system 936: fig. 9) located inside the space, the rack being configured to store the container;
a storage part (storage 306 of system 300: fig. 3) configured to store article identification information, container identification information, and rack identification information as identification information to respectively and uniquely identify the article, the container, and the rack;Miles discloses the claimed identification information in [0031]. This information is variously acquired from articles, containers, and racks and managed by the item management system. A “storage part” is evidently not physical storage but rather the memory of a computer, and all this information is stored by Miles’ computer system.
and a controller (control aspects of item management system: fig. 3),Miles’ item management system is implemented by a computer that constitutes a controller.
the rack including an identification code (rack storage location identifier: [0031]), the identification code being identifiable by the camera, ([0035] and [0095])
the storage part storing a first association of rack identification information assigned to the rack or container identification information assigned to the container, and container identification information assigned to another container stored at the rack or in the container,Miles discloses identifier association of articles, racks, and containers in [0071].
and a second association of the rack identification information assigned to the rack or the container identification information assigned to the container, and article identification information assigned to the article stored at the rack or in the container,Miles discloses identifier association of articles, racks, and containers in [0071].
the controller detecting a position of the article inside the space based on imaging data and the first and second associations,Miles discloses positioning information determination in [0071].
the imaging data being imaged by the camera. Miles discloses camera imaging in [0035]. Of course, all digital cameras generate image data.
Independent claims 10-11 are information processing device and information processing method claims that parallel the limitations of article management system claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds, mutatis mutandis, because the invention of Miles comprises an information processing device with associated method.
Independent claim 12 is identical to claim 1 except that it does not disclose containers to be handled, only generic articles. The absence of explicitly disclosed containers does not invalidate Miles’ anticipation of the claim because the articles of the claim may be containers themselves. Claim 12 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2,
Miles discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising: an article tag attached to the article, the article tag including the article identification information; a container tag attached to the container, the container tag including the container identification information; a rack tag attached to the rack, the rack tag including the rack identification information;Miles discloses item identification tags in [0022] that may contain barcodes, and rack and container identifiers along with associated tags in [0071].
and a reader configured to read the article identification information, the container identification information, or the rack identification information from the article tag, the container tag, or the rack tag. The cameras Miles discloses are known in the art to be usable as barcode readers. Miles also discloses non-camera barcode and RFID readers in [0035].
Regarding claim 7,
Miles discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein at least one of the article tag, the container tag, or the rack tag is implemented using a RFID or a barcode, and the reader includes at least one of a handheld type or a gate type. Miles discloses RFIDs and barcodes in [0035] and both handheld and fixed imaging devices in [0095].
Regarding claim 9,
Miles discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein a plurality of the cameras overlooks the space. Miles discloses a plurality of still cameras in [0035], and moreover the combination of the disclosed video and still cameras also constitutes a plurality. The monitoring system of [0035] “overlooks the space” of the item management system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Dejong, et al., US 2020/0167711 (hereinafter Dejong).
Miles discloses the limitations of claim 2 but not:
wherein the container includes a primary container stored at the rack, and a (n+1)-ary container stored in an n-ary container, n being a natural number, the controller generates management hierarchical data by using the rack identification information assigned to the rack as a reference, container identification information assigned to the primary container stored at the rack is located in a lower level of the management hierarchical data, or article identification information assigned to the article stored at the rack is located in the lower level of the management hierarchical data, container identification information assigned to a secondary container stored in the primary container to which the container identification information located in the lower level is assigned is located in an even lower level of the management hierarchical data, or article identification information assigned to the article stored in the primary container to which the container identification information located in the lower level is assigned is located in the even lower level of the management hierarchical data, and a depth of levels of the management hierarchical data is arbitrarily settable. Miles does not disclose a data hierarchy for nested containers.
Dejong, an invention in the field of warehouse management, teaches:
wherein the container includes a primary container stored at the rack, and a (n+1)-ary container stored in an n-ary container, n being a natural number, the controller generates management hierarchical data by using the rack identification information assigned to the rack as a reference, container identification information assigned to the primary container stored at the rack is located in a lower level of the management hierarchical data, or article identification information assigned to the article stored at the rack is located in the lower level of the management hierarchical data, container identification information assigned to a secondary container stored in the primary container to which the container identification information located in the lower level is assigned is located in an even lower level of the management hierarchical data, or article identification information assigned to the article stored in the primary container to which the container identification information located in the lower level is assigned is located in the even lower level of the management hierarchical data, and a depth of levels of the management hierarchical data is arbitrarily settable. Dejong teaches the management of data associated with nested containers in [0100] and fig. 8. Dejong discloses in [0100] the use of a tree data structure for its data. A tree data structure is known in the art to comprise an arbitrary number of levels as claimed. In combination with Miles’ information management system that stores data regarding racks, containers, and articles in containers, Dejong’s tree data structure applies the claimed hierarchy for an unlimited number of levels of nested containers stored in racks and at the “leaves” of the tree eventually possibly storing non-container articles (although the final article level may also be containers, containers themselves being articles).
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 Miles, wherein the container includes a primary container stored at the rack, and a (n+1)-ary container stored in an n-ary container, n being a natural number, the controller generates management hierarchical data by using the rack identification information assigned to the rack as a reference, container identification information assigned to the primary container stored at the rack is located in a lower level of the management hierarchical data, or article identification information assigned to the article stored at the rack is located in the lower level of the management hierarchical data, container identification information assigned to a secondary container stored in the primary container to which the container identification information located in the lower level is assigned is located in an even lower level of the management hierarchical data, or article identification information assigned to the article stored in the primary container to which the container identification information located in the lower level is assigned is located in the even lower level of the management hierarchical data, and a depth of levels of the management hierarchical data is arbitrarily settable, as taught by Dejong because industrial and commercial article handling processes in warehouses and distribution facilities commonly have to handle nested containers, and because accurate information modeling of such nested containers is plainly necessary in order to obtain an accurate view of inventory and in order to assemble and ship customer orders when their desired articles are stored in nested containers. Moreover, Dejong’s tree structure hierarchy is a standard and commonplace approach to representing indefinitely recursive data such as claimed by applicant that has been known in the art for many years.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Dejong and further in view of Lahiri, Sandip, US 2009/0051536 (hereinafter Lahiri).
Regarding claim 4,
Miles in view of Dejong teaches the limitations of claim 3 but not:
further comprising: a tag container configured to receive the article tag attached to the article after completing a prescribed task related to the article, the reader being located at the tag container, the controller detecting information related to the article based on the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container. Miles and Dejong do not disclose a special container intended for tags.
Lahiri, an invention in the field of tag decommissioning, teaches:
further comprising: a tag container (decommissioning bin 100: fig. 1) configured to receive the article tag attached to the article after completing a prescribed task related to the article, the reader (reader 150: fig. 1) being located at the tag container, the controller detecting information related to the article based on the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container. Lahiri teaches this activity throughout its disclosure, but especially see [0020]-[0028]. The association of the tag with a particular article (and subsequent dissociation) is disclosed in [0028].
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 Miles and Dejong, further comprising: a tag container configured to receive the article tag attached to the article after completing a prescribed task related to the article, the reader being located at the tag container, the controller detecting information related to the article based on the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container, as taught by Lahiri, because identifying tags associated with various warehousing tasks such as order fulfillment no longer serve any purpose after their particular tasks are completed, and such tags can be removed and recycled for later reuse at that time. Scanning such tags at a particular location such as container meant to hold the tags may also serve as an indication of task completion.
Regarding claim 5,
Miles in view of Dejong and Lahiri teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the controller deletes, from the management hierarchical data, the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container. Lahiri teaches this step in [0028] with respect to “decommissioning” a tag in a decommissioning bin (tag container of claim 4) and in [0023], equating decommissioning with record deletion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Dejong and Lahiri and further in view of Jones, et al., US 2014/0320265 (hereinafter Jones).
Miles in view of Dejong and Lahiri teaches the limitations of claim 4 but not:
wherein the controller detects a status related to the prescribed task as the information related to the article based on the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container. The references do not detect or determine task status on the basis of the tag article identification information.
Jones, an invention in the field of task completion determination, teaches:
wherein the controller detects a status related to the prescribed task as the information related to the article based on the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container.Jones teaches this method in [0091].
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 Miles, Dejong, and Lahiri, wherein the controller detects a status related to the prescribed task as the information related to the article based on the article identification information included in the article tag inside the tag container, as taught by Jones, because the use of identification tags (such as RFID tags and barcode labels) to determine article progress through an article handling system is commonplace in the art, and the detection of a tag detached from an article at the end of a task (per parent claim 4) would serve as a conclusive determination that a task is complete.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Okamoto, et al., US 2006/0112034 (hereinafter Okamoto).
Miles discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein based on information of the detected position of the article, the controller presents a position of an article to be searched, the article to be searched being accepted from a user. While Miles discloses the ability to display information about particular articles being stored to users in [0042], Miles does not explicitly disclose the display of article position information. However, Miles is fully capable of displaying the claimed information.
Okamoto, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
wherein based on information of the detected position of the article, the controller presents a position of an article to be searched, the article to be searched being accepted from a user.Okamoto teaches the claimed display function in [0655].
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 Miles, wherein based on information of the detected position of the article, the controller presents a position of an article to be searched, the article to be searched being accepted from a user, as taught by Okamoto, because myriad examples of this teaching are found in a wide variety of industrial and commercial fields of art, it being a well-nigh universal requirement for an inventory management or similar system to display a given item’s location on request to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0178958 is one of many examples of prior art teaching the use of rack and container or article identifiers for inventory control. US 2007/0214055 teaches the recognition of identification tags in a special container for the purpose. US 6,795,823 teaches data records for managing nested containers.
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
Prosecution Insights