DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 appears to be confusingly worded, reading that "the processor calculates an improvement rate based on a ratio of a score before rearrangement to a score after rearrangement, and excludes the shelf from a target of the rearrangement position when the improvement rate is greater than a threshold". In light of claim 1 which claim 9 depends upon, it is confusing how excluding a shelf with “ratio of a score before rearrangement to a score after rearrangement” greater than a threshold from rearrangement is meant to minimize a score. A review of page 26 lines 4-21 provides slightly different language reciting “improvement rate of the score s is, for example, a ratio of the scores s before and after the rearrangement" wherein “For example, in a case where the position of the shelf S changes from a position far from a workstation having a higher conveyance frequency to position close to a workstation having a high conveyance frequency due to the rearrangement, the ratio of the score s becomes smaller than a threshold”. Since equation 1 in the specification shows that the score is meant to be calculated by multiplying a conveyance frequency to a work station with a distance to a work station, one can understand this as simplifying to a ratio of distances (under the condition that there is only one workstation and the conveyance frequency remains constant for each position). I.e., for the ratio to become smaller than a threshold, the numerator distance must be smaller than a denominator distance and thus the after rearrangement score must be considered as numerator for the ratio. The claim language does not reflect this as a ratio of x to y implies the ratio to be configured as x/y and NOT y/x. Thus, claim 9 lines 2-3 should read "ratio of a score before rearrangement and a score after rearrangement" or "ratio of a score after rearrangement to a score before rearrangement" to improve clarity of the record.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US 20210221613 A1 (hereinafter Liu) in view of Wintz et al. US 20220388783 A1 (hereinafter Wintz).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16;
Liu teaches
A non-transitory storage medium (¶ 0336 “computer-readable medium” hereinafter CRM) that stores a mobile units management program (¶ 0336 discloses the CRM can store instructions to perform the detailed method) for a mobile unit (Abstract “mobile robot”) configured to cause a computer (¶ 0336 “computer-based systems” can run the instructions) or a processor (¶ 0336 “processors” can run the instructions) to
calculate, for each shelf arranged in a facility, a score for each of a plurality of node IDs based on a conveyance frequency for each workstation associated with the shelf (¶ 0462 discloses a shelf popularity level for each shelf in a warehouse is determined to indicate frequency of use of a shelf at a work location; see also ¶ 0036) and a distance between each of the plurality of node IDs and each workstation (¶ 0463 discloses location popularity is determined based on distance to a work station from a shelf location; see also ¶ 0036);
generating an operation schedule for rearrangement of the shelf for the mobile unit, the operation schedule including moving the mobile unit to the shelf and moving the mobile unit carrying the shelf to the final rearrangement position (¶ 0345 discloses scheduling robots to transport shelves; see also Figure 17 S1703-S1704 disclosing planning a swap of shelves to improve scores and controlling a robot to performing the swap; the robot must be at least navigated to the shelf if it is not currently at the shelf in order to perform the swapping method); and
controlling the one of the mobile units according to the operation schedule so as to rearrange the shelf to the final rearrangement position (see ¶ 0465-0480 regarding controlling of shelves such as by swapping positions to improve scores; see also Figure 17 S1704 which details performing the swapping operation).
Liu does not teach
selecting one or more node IDs having a minimum score among the calculated scores for the shelf ;
determine, from among the selected one or more node IDs, a final rearrangement position of the shelf as a node ID having a shortest travel distance from a current position of the shelf.
Wintz teaches
calculate, for each item arranged in a facility, a score for each of a plurality of node IDs (¶ 0079 discloses scoring a plurality of candidate location to place an item in a warehouse by weighing a plurality of sub scores; see also ¶ 0046) based on a conveyance frequency for each workstation associated with the item (¶ 0079 discloses a picking rate as one of the sub scores; see also ¶ 0046) and a distance between each of the plurality of node IDs and each workstation (¶ 0079 discloses a sub score being a travel time; ¶ 0106 discloses travel time can be based on a candidate location’s relative position to a warehouse loading dock);
selecting one or more node IDs having a minimum score among the calculated scores for the shelf (¶ 0046 discloses selecting a location having the most favorable score, i.e. lowest cost, as the item’s storage location);
determine, from among the selected one or more node IDs, a final rearrangement position of the item as a node ID having a shortest travel distance from a current position of the item (¶ 0087 discloses that a cost function for determining a location to place an item can include a distance from the current item location to the candidate location; see also ¶ 0103 and ¶ 0046).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Wintz such that the sub scores of Wintz can be applied to shelves as similarly disclosed regarding the scores in Liu which can be weighted wherein a minimal score that further minimizes travel distance to the candidate location can be selected as the location for an item, i.e. a shelf of Liu, to be positioned as taught by Wintz. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve picking rates in the facility and improve ease of access to popular items as taught by Wintz (¶ 0033 and ¶ 0034).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the conveyance frequency is a conveyance frequency in a past designated period (¶ 0462 discloses a shelf use period for a period of time; see also ¶ 0036 where shelf popularity is based on historical order information; see also ¶ 0507-0509).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the conveyance frequency is a conveyance frequency counted based on order information that determines assignment of a future task of the mobile unit (¶ 0507-0509 discloses determining a shelf score based on predicted sales volume factors that are based on historical sales volume factors; ¶ 0513 discloses that shelf popularity level is inversely proportional to this determined shelf score).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu teaches that
the processor determines the rearrangement position of each of the shelves in descending order of the score (¶ 0492 discloses that shelves are sorted in descending order of location popularity and shelf popularity) or in descending order of an improvement rate of the score before and after rearrangement (¶ 0465-0480 disclose sorting shelves such that a shelf with a shelf popularity score greater than its location popularity score can be swapped with a shelf with a shelf popularity score less than its location popularity score; examiner understands this as being functionally equivalent to determining rearrangement position based on descending order of the improvement rate as each shelf is relocated to improve convergence between location popularity and shelf popularity levels wherein greater improvements are be preferred compared to negative improvements).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the workstation is divided into a workstation dedicated for storage (¶ 0455 discloses a work station for picking; see also Figure 20 showing a plurality of work stations) and a workstation dedicated for retrieval (¶ 0455 discloses a work station for loading; see also Figure 20 showing a plurality of work stations), and
the rearrangement position of each of the shelves is determined based on whether each of the shelves is empty (¶ 0371 discloses positioning an empty shelf into a queue to be loaded) in addition to the score and the current position of each of the shelves (¶ 0465-0480 details shelf rearrangement based on the popularity and location scores of shelves; location scores are based on a shelf’s current position as previously mentioned).
See also Wintz as sited above regarding the determination of a location based on score and current position.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu equivalently teaches that
the processor calculates an improvement rate based on a ratio of a score before rearrangement to a score after rearrangement, and excludes the shelf from a target of the rearrangement position when the improvement rate is greater than a threshold (¶ 0473 discloses not performing rearrangement when a shelf is already optimally positioned; this equivalently functions the same as if a ratio of before and after scores were calculated and compared to a threshold to indicate that no improvement is possible as Liu prevents rearrangement that would cause un-optimization of shelf positioning; thus, the claimed limitations would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing in light of Liu).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the processor is further configured to generate an operation schedule of the mobile unit so as to convey the shelves to the rearrangement position (¶ 0345 discloses scheduling robots to transport shelves) and control an operation of the mobile unit so that a second mobile unit moves a second shelf having a first shelf as the rearrangement position at a timing when a first mobile unit starts to move the first shelf to the rearrangement position based on the operation schedule (see ¶ 0465-0480 regarding swapping two shelves).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 12 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the processor moves the mobile unit in descending order of an improvement rate of the score before and after rearrangement (¶ 0465-0480 disclose sorting shelves such that a shelf with a shelf popularity score greater than its location popularity score can be swapped with a shelf with a shelf popularity score less than its location popularity score; examiner understands this as being functionally equivalent to performing rearrangement based on descending order of the improvement rate as each shelf’s is relocated to improve convergence between location popularity and shelf popularity levels wherein greater improvements appear to be preferred).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 12 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the processor controls the operation of the mobile unit so that at least a shelf is conveyed to a temporary position by the mobile unit before starting conveyance of the shelves to the rearrangement position (¶ 0470 discloses in one example, a shelf may be conveyed to a work station before the shelf swapping of the shelf with a target shelf occurs).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Wintz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshitake et al. US 20190367276 A1 (hereinafter Yoshitake).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu does not explicitly teach that
the distance is a Manhattan distance between each of the shelves and a representative point of the workstation.
Yoshitake teaches that
the distance is a Manhattan distance between each of the shelves and a representative point of the workstation (¶ 0091 discloses determining a Manhattan distance between a shelf and a workstation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Yoshitake. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the calculation of distance using Manhattan distance of Yoshitake for the non-specific calculation of distance of Liu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of determining a distance between two spatial points renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Wintz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. US 20200377299 A1 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu does not teach that
the processor determines the rearrangement position so as to circuit by shifting, one by one, the rearrangement position of at least some of the shelves wherein a number of the rearrangement positions that circuits is same as a number of mobile units.
Sun teaches that
the processor determines the rearrangement position so as to circuit by shifting, one by one, the rearrangement position of at least some of the shelves (¶ 0043 discloses if a target shelf cannot be reached by a robot, a number of robots sequentially aid in removing blocking shelves wherein the selected shelf can then be moved and the blocking shelves can be circuited back to their original locations; see also ¶ 0101 for another example; see also exemplary travel circuit of a robot in Figure 3) wherein a number of the rearrangement positions that circuits is same as a number of mobile units (¶ 0043 discloses that in a situation with three robots, all three robots, are used for rearrangement of the blocking shelves and target shelf).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Sun such that, when shelves determined for rearrangement are blocked in Liu, a plurality of robots can be utilized to unblock the target shelf so the target shelf can be moved as taught by Sun. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a warehouse to be more densely packed, saving warehouse space and reducing warehouse cost as disclosed in Sun (¶ 0003-0004).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Wintz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perraut et al. US 11897696 B1 (hereinafter Perraut).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu does not explicitly teach that
the processor determines a rearrangement position of each of the shelves so as not to cause a collision in a conveyance route at a time of rearrangement of the shelves.
While route and destination planning to avoid collisions are well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to improve safety, Perraut will be relied upon to teach this aspect for completeness of record.
Perraut teaches that
the processor determines a rearrangement position of each of the shelves so as not to cause a collision in a conveyance route at a time of rearrangement of the shelves (column 9 lines 42-61 disclose that movable shelves coordinate routes to avoid collisions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perraut such that during the rearrangement process of Liu, shelves can be routed to avoid collisions. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the workplace and prevent damage of the mobile units, shelves, or goods on the shelves.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Wintz as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yoshimoto et al. US 11027920 B2 (hereinafter Yoshimoto).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu teaches
a display device (¶ 0431 discloses a user input/output display device).
Liu does not explicitly teach that
the processor displays an improvement rate of the score before and after rearrangement on a display device.
While mere display of data without further details on how display is performed is well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to improve user awareness and knowledgeability, Yoshimoto will be relied upon to teach this aspect for completeness of record.
Yoshimoto teaches that
the processor displays an improvement rate of the score before and after rearrangement on a display device (column 6 lines 14-45 disclose displaying, on an input/output device, rank classifications for ranked racks in an area; examiner understands that this would display a visible improvement rate as a rank changes from one rank to another before and after rearrangement).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto such that the popularity levels of Liu can be displayed on Liu’s display device according to the teachings of Yoshimoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user experience, awareness, and knowledgeability with regards to the warehouse layout.
Response to Amendments
Claim amendments filed 7/27/26 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections, 112(b) rejections, and 101 rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/27/26. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn.
Drawing and specification amendments filed 7/27/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections, title objections, and specification objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 7/27/26. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to drawing objections not corrected via amendments to the drawings or specifications have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 4/27/2026 has been withdrawn. Examiner notes for clarity of record that the drawing objections regarding coordinates, node IDs, linking IDs, and empty shelf S1 were objections regarding subject matter included in the drawings that are not mentioned in the disclosure, not regarding subject matter not included in the drawings that was mentioned in the disclosure as applicant argues against . (See the Office Action dated 4/27/2026 and the bolded language for clarity.) Regardless, applicant’s arguments regarding the coordinates, node IDs (including first and second node IDs), and linking IDS are persuasive under the understanding that applicant is arguing that these do not need to be mentioned as callouts in the specification. Regarding empty shelf S1, a further review of the DOCX version of the specification reveals that S1 is, in fact, mentioned in the specification, and empty shelf 5 is not included in the specification. Examiner asserts that these objections were done in response to examining an incorrect OCRed version of the specification, so the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the entirety of the claim amendments filed 7/27/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu as modified by Wintz.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights