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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 10/13/2025.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 have been canceled.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 10/13/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 6-7, that:
“Claims 1-5 and 8-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The Office Action alleged that claim 1 recites the abstract idea of "filling orders based on generated map utilizing item's locations adjacency" and is considered abstract because the limitations are directed toward an example of organizing human activity or mental processes.
Claim 1 is not directed to organizing human activity or mental processes. For example, amended claim 1 recites a plurality of specific technical features that do not correspond to human activities or mental processes. Specifically, claim 1 recites, in part: 1) generating an item adjacency map based on scan times and 2) arranging ordered items on a display based on the item adjacency map.
Furthermore, the features of claim 1 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alleged in the Office Action. For example, the claims recite specific technical features that clearly provide a technical practical solution to the technical problem of generating a map for a store and using the map while picking a customer order. In one example, claim 1 recites technical features for generating an item adjacency map for a store based on scan times received from a plurality of mobile devices. Claim 1 further recites a technical and practical use for the item adjacency map. Specifically, claim 1 recites arranging items on a display based on the item adjacency map...for viewing by a user that is using a mobile device while picking a customer order. Applicant submits that claims 1-5 and 8- 13 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the above reasons”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the receiving, generating, generating, receiving, arranging steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “provide a technical practical solution to the technical problem of generating a map for a store and using the map while picking a customer order” suggested by Applicant. The Examiner first notes that inventory management is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
“arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered item on the display based on the item adjacency map … items are arranged on the display for viewing” is a result-oriented statement without any technological mechanism (e.g., no image registration, pose estimation, feature tracking, occlusion handling, compositor pipeline, or GPU/ISP utilization improving AR performance). Presenting information in display is still “presentation of information,” which is non-functional descriptive material absent a technological improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a)(g)).
The claims are not tied to a particular machine beyond a “mobile devices” and “display” which are generic components. There is no “particular machine” or “transformation” of an article beyond information presentation (MPEP 2106.05(b)(C)).
Furthermore, the recited a plurality of mobile devices being used, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that cause an additional mobile device comprising a display to: wirelessly transmitting/receiving electronic data, the computing system, this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for inventory management, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” in pages 7-11, that:
“Nair, Rasband, and Field-Darragh fail to disclose or suggest the features of claim 1. For example, Nair, Rasband, and Field-Darragh fail to disclose or suggest a computing system configured to receive scan times from a plurality of mobile devices being used by a plurality of users to pick customer orders, generate a scan log that includes the scan
times, and generate an item adjacency map based on the scan times included in the scan log, as recited in claim 1 … The Office Action further asserted that Nair discloses generating a scan log that includes scan times and generating an item adjacency map based on the scan times included in the scan log … Applicant disagrees with these assertions. The read times of Nair do not correspond to the scan times of claim 1 because the read times of Nair are not received from a plurality of mobile devices being used by a plurality of users to pick customer orders in a store, as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the read times in Nair do not indicate a time at which one of the users picked a stocked item from a rack for one of the customer orders in the course of picking the customer orders, as recited in amended claim 1. The Office Action asserted that the above arguments are not persuasive.3 Specifically, in support of the rejection, the Office Action stated that Nair teaches an inventory counting process that involves reading RFID tags.4 The Office Action further asserted that even though Nair teaches one handheld reader device, multiple item readings is mere duplication that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.5 Without addressing the deficiencies of Nair with respect to a number of handheld readers in Nair, Applicant maintains the position that Nair fails to disclose the features of claim 1 because, as stated above, the read times of Nair are not received from a plurality of mobile devices being used by a plurality of users to pick customer orders in a store. For example, according to the Office Action, the read times of Nair are associated with an inventory counting process,6 whereas claim 1 recites mobile devices being used by a plurality of users to pick customer orders in a store.
Since Nair fails to disclose or suggest the scan times of claim 1, Nair also fails to disclose or suggest generating an item adjacency map for the store based on the scan times”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Nair teaches a system and methods of determining a location of an object within a facility by performing an inventory counting process using a handheld reader. Nair teaching includes scanning multiple location tags, RFID tags and barcodes, record time reads for each scan; determine a location of each product to which an RFID tag is attached by handheld reader also keeps track of the number of reads and read times, involves analyzing the data associated with the consecutive locator tag reads to identify the ZOI (or region) associated with the unique identifier of the locator tags. a Start Read Time (“SRT”) and an End Read Time (“ERT”) for the identified ZOI (or region) are determined and tags read time is recorded, such as in Table 1 (i.e. the claimed scan log),
PNG
media_image1.png
565
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in order to determine and store the RFID tag's location a data store (e.g., data store 126 of FIG. 1). A three dimensional map is generated based on collected data showing the locations of the RFID tags in a three dimensional space . The three dimensional map is then presented to an operator of the handheld reader and/or other electronic device. See Figs. 4A-B
The present application discloses generating a consolidated scan log aggregating data from multiple, concurrent scan devices, whereas the prior art describes generating a scan log through multiple iterations of a tag by a single device. The core invention lies in the multi-device orchestration of data, rendering the specific source device irrelevant to the final consolidated log. Accordingly, utilizing a plurality of mobile devices, as claimed, to receive multiple item readings is mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claim 1 recites the abstract idea of filling orders based on generated map utilizing item’s locations adjacency, see specification [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of
receive scan times from a plurality of users to pick customer orders in a store that includes a plurality of stocked items, wherein each scan time indicates a time at which one of the users picked a stocked item from a rack for one of the customer orders in the course of picking the customer orders:
generate a scan log that includes the scan times received;
generate an item adjacency map for the store based on the scan times included in the scan log, wherein the item adjacency map indicates which of the stocked items are adjacent to one another; and
receive a new electronic customer order including a new plurality of ordered items indicating which of the stocked items in the store are to be picked; and
receive the new electronic customer order; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items based on the item adjacency map, wherein the at least some of the new plurality of ordered items are arranged for viewing by an additional user that while picking the new electronic customer order.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner finds the claims to simply recite generating map information, form received scan data of a generated scan log that includes a plurality of scan times, including products location, receiving customer order, transmitting the customer order, arranging the ordered item based on adjacency on the map. The Examiner additionally find the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis). Considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 87 F. Supp. 3d 773 (E.D. Va. 2015). Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Offending clauses include:
“wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order form the computing system” , “arranged on the display”. These recitations, as claimed, are results-oriented processing and presentation of information, which courts have treated as abstract when not tied to a specific technological improvement (see Electric Power Group; Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343).
The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to generate product adjacency map of a store form observed (i.e., scanned) items numbers (i.e., tags) and generate an observed data log (i.e., scan data log), receive order including items sold by the store, send the order, arrange the items based their adjacency on the map. The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer.
Offending clauses include:
“wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order form the computing system”, “arranged on the display”. These recitations, as claimed, are results-oriented processing and presentation of information, which courts have treated as abstract when not tied to a specific technological improvement (see Electric Power Group; Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a plurality of mobile devices being used, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that cause an additional mobile device comprising a display to: wirelessly transmitting/receiving electronic data, the computing system, the display, using the additional mobile device,
The additional element is directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the recited method of filling orders based on generated map utilizing item’s locations adjacency. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).The additional claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional limitations are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (f). See reasoning for Step 2A prong 2.
See reasoning for Step 2B: see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-13 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claim 1 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-5 and 8-13 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claim 1 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 4, 5: computing system.
Claim 8: the non- transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause the additional mobile device, computing system, electronic data (order), wirelessly transmitting data.
Claim 12: the non- transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause the additional mobile device, electronic data (order), display.
Claim 13: the additional mobile device is a first additional mobile device comprising a first display, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause a second additional mobile device comprising a second display, the computing system, electronic data (order), wirelessly transmitting data.
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of inventory management by filling orders based on generated map utilizing item’s locations adjacency.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-5 and 8-13, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (US 9722715 B2, hereinafter “Nair”) in view of Rasband et al. (US 2013/0048721 A1, hereinafter “Rasband”) further in view of Field-Darragh et al. (US 2014/0279294 A1, hereinafter “Field-Darragh”).
Regarding claim 1. Nair discloses an order filling system comprising:
a computing system configured to: receive scan times (Nair, col. Lines; “locator tags are read multiple times during an inventory count of a ZOI”, col. Lines; “In location mode, an RFID tag can be read multiple times to allow the correlation logic to re-allocate an RFID tag from one location to another”) from a plurality of mobile devices being used by a plurality of users to pick customer orders in a store that includes a plurality of stocked items (Nair, Fig. 4A; “Read locator tags multiple times during an inventory counting process 406”, col. 11-lines 14-16; “During the inventory counting process, multiple reads of locator tags (e.g., locator tags 108.sub.1, . . . , 108.sub.M of FIG. 1) are performed as shown by step 406”. Nair teaches reading tags multiple times, and registering the reading data. Even though the discloser of Nair is teaching one handheld reader device (Handheld reader 120 of Fig.1, utilizing a plurality of mobile devices, as claimed, to receive multiple item readings is mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), wherein;
generate a scan log that includes the scan times (Nair, Fig. 4A; “The read times for the locator tag reads are captured in step 408”, col. 4-lines 39-42; “The handheld reader also keeps track of the number of reads and read times … read times is sent to an RPU”, col. 7-lines 65 to col. 8-lines 3; “a different logic is employed that consists of recoding a time window centered on the timestamp of each locator tag read … create a timeline of the handheld reader's location as each time window corresponds to a tag locator for which its location is known”) received from the plurality of mobile devices (Nair, col. 6-lines 6-13; “Each locator and RFID tag has a unique ID associated therewith. When the handheld reader 120 reads a locator or RFID tag, it obtains the unique ID. Information is stored in database 126 which specifies the known locations of the locator tags. Accordingly, RFID tags 112.sub.1, . . . , 112.sub.N read in time proximity with a locator tag can be assigned to the approximate same location (e.g., a particular shelf, table or other piece of display equipment)”),
PNG
media_image1.png
565
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generate an item adjacency map for the store based on the scan times included in the scan log (Nair, see Table 1 on col. 12; “Read times” for each “Tag Read Sequences”, col. 7-lines 65 to col. 8-lines 3; “a different logic is employed that consists of recoding a time window centered on the timestamp of each locator tag read … create a timeline of the handheld reader's location as each time window corresponds to a tag locator for which its location is known”, Fig. 4A-B; “analyze read data associated with RFID tags … 418 > “conclude the RFID tags …. 420” > “conclude that the RFID tag is located within the first ZOI (or region), and go to step 436 ... 428”) > “store the RFID tags’ locations in a data store 436” > “generate a three dimensional map showing the locations of the RFID tags in a three dimensional space 438”, see col. 12-lines 20 to col. 13-line 20; “These steps include step 418 … A three dimensional map is generated in step 438”), wherein the item adjacency map indicates which of the stocked items are adjacent to one another (Nair, col. 5- lines 55-57; “By correlating RFID tag reads and the location ID received from a locator tag, it is possible to determine the location of objects 1101, . . ., 110N, 1161, . . . , 116N within the RSF 128”, col. 7- lines 54-56; “The tag locations are achieved by considering tag reads in close time proximity with a locator tag read as approximately in the same location”);
Nair substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Nair fails to explicitly disclose the “each scan time indicates a time at which one of the users picked a stocked item from a rack for one of the customer orders in the course of picking the customer orders”. However, Rasband teaches:
each scan time indicates a time at which one of the users picked a stocked item from a rack (Rasband, as seen in Fig. 2, see below, [0038]; “mobile 12 scans tag 14 … tag 14 may be affixed or removably affixed directly to item 54”) for one of the customer orders in the course of picking the customer orders (Rasband, [0034]; “item database 48 may also store item metrics corresponding to items. For example, item metrics may include the number of times tag 14 associated with an item is scanned (the claimed “a time at which one of the users picked a stocked item”) within a defined time period … number of times an item has been added to a virtual shopping cart” (the claimed “course of picking the customer orders”, also see [0051], [0053]))
PNG
media_image2.png
235
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include each scan time indicates a time at which one of the users picked a stocked item from a rack for one of the customer orders in the course of picking the customer orders, as taught by Rasband, where this would be performed in order to increase product information availability to the consumer, while casually shopping, may positively impact the consumer buying experience and may encourage the consumer to purchase a product . See Rasband [0004].
The combination of Nair in view of Rasband substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “receive a new electronic customer order including a plurality of ordered items indicating which of the new stocked items in the store are to be picked; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that cause an additional mobile device comprising a display, to: wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order from the computing system; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the display based on the item adjacency map, wherein the at least some of the new plurality of ordered items are arranged on the display for viewing by an additional user that is using the additional mobile device while picking the new electronic customer order”. However, Field-Darragh teaches:
receive a new electronic customer order including a new plurality of ordered items indicating which of the stocked items in the store are to be picked; and (Field-Darragh, [0002]; “order intake (which may involve providing a catalog of available products and services or other data to prospective customers and enabling them to place an order”, [0049-0050]; “An order may be initiated by a customer or employee, and may be initiated by use of an on-line store, an in-store kiosk, a point of sale terminal, a web-site accessed using a suitable computing device, an application installed on a mobile device, or by any other suitable method or device. Orders may include multiple order items … an individual order may include multiple items”)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Field-Darragh, Fig. 2; “central processing unit 212”, [0147]; “network device 200 includes central processing unit (CPU) 212”) that cause an additional mobile device comprising a display (Field-Darragh, Fig. 3; “Client device(s)”, [0160-0161]; “client device 300 may also include … display 350 … Client device 300 may optionally communicate with a base station (not shown), or directly with another computing device”) to: wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order from the computing system; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the display based on the item adjacency map (Field-Darragh, [0076]; “the fulfillment server may assign order items to one or more pickers from an order item queue … based on a variety of factors including but not limited to, … item location … the fulfillment server or another data processing element may generate picking data such as a description, map, explicit location identifier … directions, or other information for a picker to use in locating an order item assigned to that picker. The picking data may be provided to the picker using a mobile device (e.g., mobile phone, PDA), point of sale terminal, kiosk, or by any other suitable method or device”), wherein the at least some of the new plurality of ordered items are arranged on the display for viewing by an additional user (Field-Darragh, [0102-0104]; “Provide the data and/or information that may be used by a store employee and/or customer to locate an item … The location of an item can be used to generate screen displays for a mobile client device used by an employee”) that is using the additional mobile device while picking the new electronic customer order. (Field-Darragh, [0102]; “Process the acquired data and other relevant data using a suitably programmed data processing element to generate data and/or information that may be used by a store employee and/or customer to locate an item or items within a store … typically by generating one or more of directions, fulfillment hints, maps, text directions, instructions, etc.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include receive a new electronic customer order including a plurality of ordered items indicating which of the new stocked items in the store are to be picked; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that cause an additional mobile device comprising a display, to: wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order from the computing system; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the display based on the item adjacency map, wherein the at least some of the new plurality of ordered items are arranged on the display for viewing by an additional user that is using the additional mobile device while picking the new electronic customer order, as taught by Field-Darragh, where this would be performed in order to provide store operators, store employees, and customers with improved services and more efficient operations as knowing the absolute or relative location of an item or items enables a store employee to more efficiently be directed to that item or items for purposes of “picking” the item(s) for shipment to, or to set aside for a customer. See Field-Darragh [0001] and [0104].
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to determine that two stocked items are adjacent to one another when the two stocked items are associated with scan times that differ by less than a threshold period of time (Nair, Fig. 4A; “analyze read data associated with RFID tags to determine whether their read times fall within a time period (i.e., threshold period of time) defined by the start and end read timers of the ZOI(s) (or region(s)) 418”, col. 4- lines 6-9; “The software algorithm uses … read times to determine a location of each product to which an RFID tag is attached”).
Regarding claim 5. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to determine that three or more stocked items are adjacent to one another when the three or more stocked items are associated with scan times that indicate that all three or more stocked items were scanned in less than a threshold period of time. Claim 5 recites operations that are no more than a predictable variation or duplication of the operations recited in claim 4, albeit with determining so-called “three or more stocked items” Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claim 8. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the non- transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause the additional mobile to:
The combination of Nair in view of Rasband substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “scan item identification codes for the new plurality of ordered items in the new electronic customer order; and wirelessly transmit data to the computing system indicating that the item identification codes were scanned, wherein the computing system is configured to update the item adjacency map based on when the item identification codes were scanned”. However, Field-Darragh teaches:
scan item identification codes for the new plurality of ordered items in the new electronic customer order; and wirelessly transmit data to the computing system indicating that the item identification codes were scanned, wherein the computing system is configured to update the item adjacency map based on when the item identification codes were scanned (Field-Darragh, [0197]; the order in which items are displayed to a store employee (a picker) may be based on an expiration time for an order. For example, order items with the least amount time remaining for fulfillment may be sorted to display at the top of the list. In one embodiment, if an order item is located by a picker, the picker may scan/enter the SKU or other data into a field of a user interface display. This may be used to confirm that the item has been “picked” and also used for purposes of updating inventory data, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include scan item identification codes for the new plurality of ordered items in the new electronic customer order; and wirelessly transmit data to the computing system indicating that the item identification codes were scanned, wherein the computing system is configured to update the item adjacency map based on when the item identification codes were scanned, as taught by Field-Darragh, where this would be performed in order to provide store operators, store employees, and customers with improved services and more efficient operations. See Field-Darragh [0001].
Regarding claim 9. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the item adjacency map includes a plurality of clusters (Nair, col. 13-line 4; “product category”) of stocked items, and wherein the item adjacency map indicates which of the clusters are adjacent to one another (Nair, Fig. 4B; “determine the product category of the object to which the RFID tag is coupled 430” > “identify the ZOI (or region) in which objects belonging to the same product category are kept 432” > “generate a three dimensional map …. 438”, see col. 12-lines 20 to col. 13-line 20; “These steps include step 418 … A three dimensional map is generated in step 438”).
Regarding claim 10. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 9, wherein the clusters of stocked items are clusters that are based on item type (Nair, col. 13- lines 11-17; “a particular region is achieved by knowing the product category/type of the object to which the RFID tag is coupled and associating the RFID tag with the ZOI (or region) holding objects of the product category/type”).
Regarding claim 11. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 9, wherein the clusters of stocked items are clusters based on location in the store (Nair, col. 13-line 3-6; “steps 430-434 involve: determining a product category of the object to which the RFID tag is coupled; identifying the ZOI (or region, as Nair sore RFID tags location in a data store based on determined product category) which objects belonging to the same product category are kept”, also see col. 13-lines 3-11).
Regarding claim 12. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the
The combination of Nair in view of Rasband substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause the additional mobile device to: scan a first item of the new electronic customer order; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the display based on the item adjacency map and the scanned first item”. However, Field-Darragh teaches:
non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause the additional mobile device (see claim 1 rejection supra, Field-Darragh teaching) to: scan a first item of the new electronic customer order; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the display based on the item adjacency map and the scanned first item (Field-Darragh, [0196] Note that once a picker (or in some cases, a customer) selects an item or items to “pick”, they may be provided with fulfillment hints in the form of directions, maps, clues, a diagram of the store and its departments, graphic overlays, etc. that define a path to take in order to locate the item(s). These “hints” may be displayed on a screen of a hand held device, kiosk, or point of sale terminal, be projected onto a suitable screen, … indicating a relative closeness to an item (similar to a sonar “beep” or Geiger counter click), etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause the additional mobile device to: scan a first item of the new electronic customer order; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the display based on the item adjacency map and the scanned first item, as taught by Field-Darragh, where this would be performed in order to provide store operators, store employees, and customers with improved services and more efficient operations. See Field-Darragh [0001].
Regarding claim 13. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the additional mobile device is a first additional mobile device comprising a first display, and wherein
The combination of Nair in view of Rasband substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause a second additional mobile scanning device comprising a second display to: wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order from the computing system; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the second display based on the item adjacency map”. However, Field-Darragh teaches:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause a second additional mobile scanning device comprising a second display to: wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order from the computing system; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the second display based on the item adjacency map (Field-Darragh, [0076]; “the fulfillment server may assign order items to one or more pickers from an order item queue … based on a variety of factors including but not limited to, … item location … the fulfillment server or another data processing element may generate picking data such as a description, map, explicit location identifier … directions, or other information for a picker to use in locating an order item assigned to that picker. The picking data may be provided to the picker using a mobile device (e.g., mobile phone, PDA), point of sale terminal, kiosk, or by any other suitable method or device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions that cause a second additional mobile scanning device comprising a second display to: wirelessly receive the new electronic customer order from the computing system; and arrange at least some of the new plurality of ordered items on the second display based on the item adjacency map, as taught by Field-Darragh, where this would be performed in order to provide store operators, store employees, and customers with improved services and more efficient operations. See Field-Darragh [0001].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh furthermore in view of Janert et al. (US 2005/0278062 A1, hereinafter “Janert”).
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the item adjacency map (see claim 1 rejection supra) includes
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “adjacency values for adjacent items, and wherein the adjacency values indicate the distance between the adjacent items”. However, Janert teaches: adjacency values for adjacent items, and wherein the adjacency values indicate the distance between the adjacent items (Janert, Fig. 5; “display location for next piece of work 502”, [0045-0085]; “There are several ways in which locations can be mapped to real bins. One technique for mapping locations to real bins is to define a location … mapping locations … e.g., by foot)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include adjacency values for adjacent items, and wherein the adjacency values indicate the distance between the adjacent items, as taught by Janert, where this would be performed in order to pick items in efficient way. See Janert [0018].
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Nair in view of Rasband further in view of Field-Darragh discloses the order filling system of claim 1, wherein the item adjacency map includes
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “adjacency values for adjacent items, and wherein the adjacency values indicate an amount of time for movement between the adjacent items”. However, Janert teaches:
adjacency values for adjacent items, and wherein the adjacency values indicate an amount of time for movement between the adjacent items (Janert, [0045]; The meaning of a location can thus vary from embodiment to embodiment. FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing multiple configurations for locations in the warehouse … a location comprises a group of bins related by proximity. Once implemented, the movement time warehouse map provides expected travel times between such locations”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Nair to include adjacency values for adjacent items, and wherein the adjacency values indicate an amount of time for movement between the adjacent items, as taught by Janert, where this would be performed in order to pick items in efficient way. See Janert [0018].
Conclusion
1. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (US 2014/0207615 A1) teaches displaying to the consumer a graphic describing a direction and a distance from the current location to the in-store location of an item.
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627