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 10/21/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12-15 and 18-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 10/21/2025:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112:
Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 14-22.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Prong 1: Applicant states the claims “do not recite subject matter falling within any of these groupings” because they are “integrate concrete technological improvements into a practical application that goes beyond any alleged abstract idea” for “automated control and coordination for multiple AGVs in separate zones and via modification of a data structure”. However, the claims expressly recite following rules and instructions to retrieve and pick ordered items (inventory management and orders fulfillment), which fall squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of the MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(II). They also recite generic information processing steps (generate- transmit- calculate- transport- compare- perform- modify), which the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found abstract when claimed at a results-oriented level (Electric Power Group; Content Extraction). 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.
Prong 2: The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer (computer, interface, external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), at least one terminal a user device associated with the at least one terminal) to process information and perform the abstract idea. 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).
Further the claims 1, 14 and 19 recitation of “command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU by modifying a data structure in communication with the AGVs based on the calculated optimal combination and transport paths,” is mere utilization of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive commands) to implement the abstract business/organizational workflow of items retrieving does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The ordered sequence is a conventional pipeline of inventory management and does not constitute an improvement to the underlying technology (contrast McRO, Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory).
Step 2B: Applicant argues the elements are “significantly more” because they “the claims recite ‘additional limitations’ that tare not well-understood, routine or conventional” Without any claimed technical mechanism or unconventional arrangement, this is a result-oriented limitation implemented on conventional devices. Courts have rejected similar arguments where the claimed improvement is merely using standard components to process and present information (Alice; Electric Power Group; Yu v. Apple, 1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Applicant has not pointed to claim language reciting non-conventional elements or provided evidence of non-conventionality as required under Berkheimer.
In sum, Applicant’s arguments do not persuasively show that the claims avoid reciting a judicial exception, integrate the exception into a practical application, or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” in pages 22-23.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Willard teaches a system and method of order fulfillment system includes an order collection unit for collecting information associated with a plurality of customer orders from a plurality of customers and generating customer order data that includes data associated with each of the plurality of customer orders and the plurality of customers. Willard further teach a pick tour generating subsystem for receiving the consolidated order fulfillment data from the order generating unit and in response thereto generating pick tour instructions associated with a pick tour from the consolidated order fulfillment data. Willard’s pick agent moves along a path in the warehouse that is optionally optimized by the system 10 to retrieve or pick the items at selected locations, see [0051], to pick items based on optimized map of items location to optimize the time and distance that a pick agent needs to travel when picking or selecting certain items, see [0058]. Factors that the order fulfillment system 10 of Willard’s system considers when optimizing or constructing the pick tour plan can include but are not limited to travel distance and quantities of products picked, expensive items, oversized items, or fragile items may require different levels of authorization or skill sets to perform.
Accordingly, Willard considered to teach the claimed invention features.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 14-18 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 19-20 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 claims 1, 14 and 19 recite the abstract idea of product scrapping and product processing, see specification [001]. This idea is described by the steps of:
generate a list of stock keeping units (SKUs), wherein each SKU comprises at least one product and a registered SKU identifier;
transmit the list of SKUs to an interface,
in response to receiving the list of SKUs, generates a request to determine a location identifier associated with each SKU of the plurality of SKUs, and
transmits the request to:
determine the location identifier associated with each SKU,
calculate an optimal combination of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) and transport paths for the AGVs based on a size of each SKU, a density of each SKU, a location of each SKU, or a machine scan of an indicia associated with each SKU; and
transport each SKU;
compare the registered SKU identifier with a physical SKU identifier;
when the registered SKU identifier is consistent with the physical SKU identifier:
transport the corresponding SKU to undergo a scrapping process or a conversion process;
when the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the physical SKU identifier:
perform logic steps to assess the corresponding SKU, and
modify the registered SKU identifier according to results of the performed logic steps.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to manage inventory.
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:
“command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU by modifying a data structure in communication with the AGVs based on the calculated optimal combination and transport paths,”
No mathematical formulas or mental-process are expressly recited; the exceptions arise from organizing human activity.
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: computer-implemented system, a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, interface, an external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), at least one terminal a user device associated with the at least one terminal,
Claim 14: computer, system, interface, external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), at least one terminal a user device associated with the at least one terminal,
Claim 19: computer-implemented system, a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, interface, external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), least one terminal, user device associated with the at least one terminal, data structure,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. 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).
Claims 1, 14 and 19: recitation of “command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU by modifying a data structure in communication with the AGVs based on the calculated optimal combination and transport paths,” is mere utilization of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive commands) to implement the abstract business/organizational workflow of items retrieving does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, the recited exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than 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).
Accordingly, the claims do not include “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-18 and 20 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 19 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-13, 15-18 and 20 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 19 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 10: computer-implemented system,
Claim 5: computer-implemented system, external system, user device associated with the at least one terminal,
Claim 6: computer-implemented system, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, mobile receptacle,
Claim 7: at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, the AGV,
Claim 8: computer-implemented system, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, mobile receptacle, the AGV,
Claim 9: computer-implemented system, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions,
Claim 11: computer-implemented system, user device,
Claim 12: computer-implemented system, mobile receptacle, external system,
Claim 13: computer-implemented system, the AGV, external system,
Claims 15, 16, 17: computer,
Claim 18: computer, mobile receptacle, the AGV,
Claim 20: external system,
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 product scrapping and product processing, the 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.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-20, 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, 5, 10-11, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. (US 20100164694 A1, hereinafter “Matsubara”) in view of Willard et al. (US 20200311644 A1, hereinafter “Willard”).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 19. Matsubara discloses a computer-implemented system for product scrapping and processing, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a list of stock keeping units (SKUs) (Matsubara, [0035-0036]; The recording portion 201 is a hard disc (HD) or a flexible disc (FD) … the recording portion 201 has its own drive device so that data is recorded according to control of the control portion 203 … the recording portion 201, various data such as an article list including registration identification information of the articles A, B registered in advance and storing area information indicating a area where the registered articles A, B … article tables 300, 400 (See FIGS. 3, 4)”), wherein each SKU comprises at least one product and a registered SKU identifier; (Matsubara, Fig. 6; “read inventory area information S601”, [0036]; “In the recording portion 201, various data such as an article list including registration identification information of the articles A, B registered in advance and storing area information indicating a area where the registered articles A, B should be contained is recorded”)
compare, by a user device associated with the at least one terminal, the registered SKU identifier with a physical SKU identifier; (Matsubara, [0065]; “The control portion 203 checks the ID read at Step S701 with the article tables 300, 400 recorded in the recording portion 201 (Step S701)”)
when the registered SKU identifier is consistent with the physical SKU identifier:
transport the corresponding SKU to undergo a scrapping process or a conversion process; (Matsubara, [0007]; “The user reads an RFID tag affixed to a material in the inspection range by an RFID reader. The server gets information read by the RFID reader and compares it with an inspection DB. Then, the server displays if the material has been lost or not, on loan, missing as the result of comparison between the information read by the RFID reader and the inspection DB as a state of the material in the inspection result”, [0066]; “The control portion 203 determines if the ID read at Step S701 is present in the article table 300 or not as the result of the check at Step S702 (Step S703) … the discovery place 304 is written by the inventory area information, the discovery time and date 305 by the inventory time and date, and the flag 306 by “1” in the article table 400 after the inventory”)
when the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the physical SKU identifier: (Matsubara, [0041]; “If it is determined that at least either the identification information and registration identification information or the inventory area information and storing area information do not match with each other, the control portion 203 classifies the articles A, B into the inventory abnormal state”, )
perform logic steps to assess the corresponding SKU, and
modify the registered SKU identifier according to results of the performed logic steps. (Matsubara, [0042]; “The control portion 203 executes the return processing to the inventory normal state for the articles A, B classified into the inventory abnormal state … if the inventory area information on the inventory of the articles A, B is different from the storing area information, the control portion 203 changes a discovery place 304 in the article table 400 to the inventory area information on the reading (inventory) of the identification information of the articles A, B.”)
Matsubara substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Matsubara fails to explicitly disclose the “transmit the list of SKUs to an interface, in response to receiving the list of SKUs, the interface: generates a request to determine a location identifier associated with each SKU of the plurality of SKUs, and transmits the request to an external system to cause the external system to: determine the location identifier associated with each SKU, calculate an optimal combination of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) and transport paths for the AGVs based on a size of each SKU, a density of each SKU, a location of each SKU, or a machine scan of an indicia associated with each SKU; command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU by modifying a data structure in communication with the AGVs based on the AGVs to the calculated optimal combination and transport paths; transport each SKU to at least one terminal”. However, Willard teaches:
transmit the list of SKUs (Willard, [0035-0038]; “The customer order collection unit 12 can generate customer and order information or data that is transmitted and received by an order generating unit 14”) to an interface, (Willard, [0038]; “the order generating unit 14 can transmit the order fulfillment instructions to a bulk pick order fulfillment unit 18 … the bulk pick order data can be transmitted to the bulk pick order fulfillment unit 18”)
in response to receiving the list of SKUs, the interface:
generates a request to determine a location identifier associated with each SKU of the plurality of SKUs, and (Willard, [0038]; “warehouse data that includes the configuration of the warehouse, which can include rows of storage racks with associated storage bins, and data associated with specific items located in specific bins at specific warehouse locations, can be stored in the database 24 and is accessible by the order generating unit 14, the bulk pick order fulfillment unit 18 and the pick tour generating unit”)
transmits the request to an external system to cause the external system to:
determine the location identifier associated with each SKU, (Willard, [0006]; “The pick tour generating subsystem comprises a map unit for storing a map having map data associated therewith that corresponds to a location for each of the items in a warehouse”)
calculate an optimal combination of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) and transport paths for the AGVs (Willard, [0038]; “The bulk pick orders (e.g., a bulk pick order wave) … The bulk pick orders forming the bulk pick wave are selected so as to optimize the fulfillment process by selecting orders that have certain features, items or traits in common”) based on a size of each SKU, a density of each SKU, a location of each SKU, or a machine scan of an indicia associated with each SKU; (Willard, [0047]; “step 32. As used herein, the term “recipe” or “bulk pick recipe” is intended to mean a collection of a selected items from the customer orders and the additional items that are correlated or grouped together …a user or the system 10 can define the maximum number of recipes per bulk pick, the maximum item count per bulk pick, and the minimum bulk group item count”)
command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU by modifying a data structure in communication with the AGVs based on the AGVs to the calculated optimal combination and transport paths; (Willard, [0038]; The bulk pick order fulfillment unit 18 can generate data associated with a bulk pick that can form part of a bulk pick tour or wave, and which can be fulfilled by the automated product picking system 16”)
transport each SKU to at least one terminal; (Willard, [0040]; “Once the customer order have been picked and fully assembled, the contents of the order can be assembled into totes or compartments of totes, which are then placed on a conveyor belt and sent to a packing and shipping subsystem 22”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include transmit the list of SKUs to an interface, in response to receiving the list of SKUs, the interface: generates a request to determine a location identifier associated with each SKU of the plurality of SKUs, and transmits the request to an external system to cause the external system to: determine the location identifier associated with each SKU, calculate an optimal combination of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) and transport paths for the AGVs based on a size of each SKU, a density of each SKU, a location of each SKU, or a machine scan of an indicia associated with each SKU; command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU by modifying a data structure in communication with the AGVs based on the AGVs to the calculated optimal combination and transport paths; transport each SKU to at least one terminal, as taught by Willard, where this would be performed in order to optimize the item picking and packaging process. See Willard [0003].
Regarding claims 5 and 20. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein in response to
Matsubara substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Matsubara fails to explicitly disclose the “receiving the request, the interface is configured to cause the external system to assign a task associated with the generated list of SKUs to at least one operator associated with the user device and the at least one terminal”. However, Willard teaches:
receiving the request, the interface is configured to cause the external system to assign a task associated with the generated list of SKUs to at least one operator associated with the user device and the at least one terminal. (Willard, [0055]; “pick tour generating unit 20 in FIGS. 1 and 8 is described in further detail herein, with reference for example to FIGS. 1-7 and with further reference to FIGS. 8-13. The order generating unit 14 of the order fulfillment system 10 interfaces or communicates with the pick tour generating unit 20 … The pick instructions can be forwarded to the automated product picking system 16 and/or to a pick tour mobile operator for performing a pick tour”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include receiving the request, the interface is configured to cause the external system to assign a task associated with the generated list of SKUs to at least one operator associated with the user device and the at least one terminal, as taught by Willard, where this would be performed in order to optimize the item picking and packaging process. See Willard [0003].
Regarding claim 10. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein when the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the physical SKU identifier, the results of the performed logic steps comprise an indication of at least one of a barcode scan error, a shortage error, or a defective product error. (Matsubara, [0055]; “if “1” is written in the flag and the discovery place 304 does not match the registration place 303, the articles A, B are classified into the misplaced state. Specifically, in the article table 400, it is the article A-04”)
Regarding claim 11. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the computer- implemented system and the user device are unable to determine the location identifier associated with each SKU. (Matsubara, [0067]; “At Step S703, if the read ID is not present in the article table 300 (Step S703: No), the control portion 203 newly registers the ID read at Step S701 in the article table 300 (Step S705) so as to update the article table 300 (Step S705)”)
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Willard further in view of Woods et al. (US 20220270027 A1, hereinafter “Woods”).
Regarding claims 2 and 15. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein generating the list of SKUs comprises:
determining a product identifier of the at least one product of each SKU; (Matsubara, [0036]; “In the recording portion 201, various data such as an article list including registration identification information of the articles A, B registered in advance and storing area information indicating a area where the registered articles A, B should be contained is recorded”)
comparing the product identifier to a threshold range; and (Matsubara, [0065]; “The control portion 203 checks the ID read at Step S701 with the article tables 300, 400 recorded in the recording portion 201 (Step S701)”)
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “when the product identifier is within the threshold range, retrieving the SKU comprising the corresponding at least one product”. However, Woods teaches:
when the product identifier is within the threshold range, retrieving the SKU comprising the corresponding at least one product. (Woods, [0053]; “if a threshold amount of time has passed since the item was last shown in a scan at an old location, the scan engine 400 may remove the item from the planogram at the old location so that the planogram reflects a current state of locations of items in the store”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include when the product identifier is within the threshold range, retrieving the SKU comprising the corresponding at least one product, as taught by Woods, where this would be performed in order to creating and using an up-to-date planogram. See Woods [0002].
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Willard Further in view of Woods furthermore in view of Van Erlach et al. (US 11334846 B1, hereinafter “Van Erlach”).
Regarding claims 3 and 16. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard Further in view of Woods discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the product identifier is an expiration date of the at least one product and the threshold range spans from a current date or earlier”. However, Van Erlach teaches:
the product identifier is an expiration date of the at least one product and the threshold range spans from a current date or earlier. (Van Erlach, col. 4-line 67 to col. 5-lins 4; “the WMS 210 and the Execution System 240. The OIMS 220 receives a customer order including an item of a quantity, which is sent to the CMS 230 and checked against expiry and serving days criteria, as well as potential time to be received by a customer”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Matsubara to include the product identifier is an expiration date of the at least one product and the threshold range spans from a current date or earlier, as taught by Van Erlach, where this would be performed in order to improve warehouse systems to better manage inventories. See Van Erlach, col. 1-lines 24-25.
Regarding claims 4 and 17. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard Further in view of Woods discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the product identifier is a manufacturing date of the at least one product and the threshold range is a range of time elapsed since the manufacturing date”. However, Van Erlach teaches:
the product identifier is a manufacturing date of the at least one product and the threshold range is a range of time elapsed since the manufacturing date. (Van Erlach, page. 4-lines 11-16; “The OIMS 220 identifies and manages inventory items by factors such as manufacturing expiration dates. In some embodiments, the OIMS 220 identifies inventory items based on an order and indicates to the WMS 210 the identified items that are associated with the manufacturing expiration dates”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Matsubara to include the product identifier is a manufacturing date of the at least one product and the threshold range is a range of time elapsed since the manufacturing date, as taught by Van Erlach, where this would be performed in order to improve warehouse systems to better manage inventories. See Van Erlach, col. 1lines 24-25.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Willard furthermore in view of Van Erlach et al. (US 11334846 B1, hereinafter “Van Erlach”).
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein when the registered SKU identifier is consistent with the physical SKU identifier, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “transport, by a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to undergo the scrapping process; and modify the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is not sellable”. However, Van Erlach teaches:
transport, by [[the]] a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to undergo the scrapping process; and modify the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is not sellable. (Van Erlach, page. 4-line 65 to page 5-line 9; “The effective expiration data can be periodically and/or continuously updated for all items. The CMS 230 acts as the filter between the OIMS 220, the WMS 210 and the Execution System 240. The OIMS 220 receives a customer order including an item of a quantity, which is sent to the CMS 230 and checked against expiry and serving days criteria, as well as potential time to be received by a customer. The item/lot combinations which show a negative balance may be blocked from picking and shipping to the customer. For example, if the time to expiry minus serving days and minus time to customer receipt is less than a predetermined threshold such as 0, the item may be marked to not be picked or shipped”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Matsubara to include transport, by a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to undergo the scrapping process; and modify the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is not sellable, as taught by Van Erlach, where this would be performed in order to improve warehouse systems to better manage inventories. See Van Erlach, col. 1lines 24-25.
Claims 7-9, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Willard further in view of Japanese’s publication of JP2021103383A to KANEKO TOMOKI hereinafter “TOMOKI”).
Regarding claim 13. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the conversion process comprises:
Matsubara substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Matsubara fails to explicitly disclose the “transporting, by at least one of the AGVs ”. However, Willard teaches
transporting, by at least one of the AGVs (Willard, [0038]; The bulk pick order fulfillment unit 18 can generate data associated with a bulk pick that can form part of a bulk pick tour or wave, and which can be fulfilled by the automated product picking system 16”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include transporting, by at least one of the AGVs, the corresponding SKU to its designated location in a warehouse, as taught by Willard, where this would be performed in order to optimize the item picking and packaging process. See Willard [0003].
The combination Matsubara in view of Willard substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination Matsubara in view of Willard fails to explicitly disclose the “calculating a discount value of the corresponding SKU based on the registered SKU identifier; modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to apply the calculated discount value; modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is sellable; modifying a second data structure of the computer-implemented system to update the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU; and transmitting a message to the external system to cause the external system to modify a third data structure of the external system to update the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU”. However, TOMOKI teaches:
calculating a discount value of the corresponding SKU based on the registered SKU identifier; modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to apply the calculated discount value; modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is sellable; modifying a second data structure of the computer-implemented system to update the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU; and transmitting a message to the external system to cause the external system to modify a third data structure of the external system to update the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU. (TOMOKI, [0082]; “In addition, in order to confirm that the customer has placed the product at the collection position, a collection confirmation barcode is provided at the collection position of the product, and when the collection confirmation barcode is read by the customer's mobile terminal 40, the sales system 1 determines that the mobile terminal 40 has collected the product, and gives points that can be used at the store … [0084] The predetermined discount for the customer's shopping may be, for example, a discount such as 1 discount for the substitute product of the product whose sales period has expired, or a discount such as a few percent discount for the entire shopping ... [0085] The privilege given by the sales system 1 may be given by any one of the above-mentioned benefits, but some of the above-mentioned benefits may be given together, and the content and method of the grant are limited. It's not a thing. The sales system 1 may be able to set what kind of privilege is given. [0086] In addition, the sales system 1 may notify the customer that the privilege is given by collecting the product whose sales deadline has passed. For example, if the product read by the customer using the mobile terminal 40 is a product whose sales period has expired, the mobile terminal 40 gives a predetermined notification and collects the product to give a privilege. You may notify that.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include calculating a discount value of the corresponding SKU based on the registered SKU identifier; modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to apply the calculated discount value; modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is sellable; modifying a second data structure of the computer-implemented system to update the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU; and transmitting a message to the external system to cause the external system to modify a third data structure of the external system to update the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU, as taught by TOMOKI, where this would be performed in order to provide a self-sales system that is easier to use. See TOMOKI, [0005].
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein when the registered SKU identifier is consistent with the physical SKU identifier, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: transport, by the AGV, the corresponding SKU to undergo the conversion process, wherein the conversion process comprises: (see claim 1rejection supra)
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “calculating a discount value of the corresponding SKU based on the registered SKU identifier; and modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to apply the calculated discount value”. However, TOMOKI teaches:
calculating a discount value of the corresponding SKU based on the registered SKU identifier; and modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to apply the calculated discount value. (TOMOKI, [0083] The privilege given to the customer by the sales system 1 is not limited to the point grant. For example, a coupon or the like may be issued to the customer, or a predetermined discount may be given to the customer's shopping … [0084] The predetermined discount for the customer's shopping may be, for example, a discount such as 1 discount for the substitute product of the product whose sales period has expired, or a discount such as a few percent discount for the entire shopping … [0085] The privilege given by the sales system 1 may be given by any one of the above-mentioned benefits, but some of the above-mentioned benefits may be given together, and the content and method of the grant are limited. It's not a thing. The sales system 1 may be able to set what kind of privilege is given … [0086] In addition, the sales system 1 may notify the customer that the privilege is given by collecting the product whose sales deadline has passed. For example, if the product read by the customer using the mobile terminal 40 is a product whose sales period has expired, the mobile terminal 40 gives a predetermined notification and collects the product to give a privilege. You may notify that.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include calculating a discount value of the corresponding SKU based on the registered SKU identifier; and modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to apply the calculated discount value, as taught by TOMOKI, where this would be performed in order to provide a self-sales system that is easier to use. See TOMOKI, [0005].
Regarding claims 8 and 18. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein when the registered SKU identifier is consistent with the physical SKU identifier, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: (see claim 1rejection supra)
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “perform a quality control evaluation on the corresponding SKU; when the corresponding SKU fails the quality control evaluation: transport, by [[the]] a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to undergo the scrapping process; when the corresponding SKU passes the quality control evaluation: modify the SKU identifier to increase an associated manufacturing date by one day, and transport, by the AGV, the corresponding SKU to undergo the conversion process”. However, TOMOKI teaches:
perform a quality control evaluation on the corresponding SKU; when the corresponding SKU fails the quality control evaluation: transport, by [[the]] a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to undergo the scrapping process; when the corresponding SKU passes the quality control evaluation: modify the SKU identifier to increase an associated manufacturing date by one day, and transport, by the AGV, the corresponding SKU to undergo the conversion process. (TOMOKI, [0107] (Step S4061: Receive transaction information) The mobile terminal 40 receives from the cloud server 20 that the updated cart file or the product of the transmitted product code has exceeded the sales deadline. (Step S4062: Display transaction information) The mobile terminal 40 that receives that the updated cart file or the product of the transmitted product code has exceeded the sales deadline updates the registration screen 810 based on the received transaction information. Or notify that the sales deadline has passed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include perform a quality control evaluation on the corresponding SKU; when the corresponding SKU fails the quality control evaluation: transport, by a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to undergo the scrapping process; when the corresponding SKU passes the quality control evaluation: modify the SKU identifier to increase an associated manufacturing date by one day, and transport, by the AGV, the corresponding SKU to undergo the conversion process, as taught by TOMOKI, where this would be performed in order to provide a self-sales system that is easier to use. See TOMOKI, [0005].
Regarding claim 9. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the registered SKU identifier and the physical SKU identifier each comprise an expiration date of the at least one product and when the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the physical SKU identifier, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: (see claim 1rejection supra)
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determine that the expiration date of the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the expiration date of the physical SKU identifier; and modify the expiration date of the registered SKU identifier to be the expiration date of the physical SKU identifier”. However, TOMOKI teaches:
determine that the expiration date of the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the expiration date of the physical SKU identifier; and modify the expiration date of the registered SKU identifier to be the expiration date of the physical SKU identifier. (TOMOKI, [0073]; “(Correspondence in the settlement device) In the sales system 1 of the present embodiment, when the product registered by the customer using the mobile terminal 40 includes a product whose sales period has expired, the settlement device 30 notifies the predetermined notification … [0074] For example, the settlement device 30 reads the two-dimensional code displayed on the display unit 460 of the mobile terminal 40 carried by the customer, and the product registered by the customer includes a product whose sales period has expired (special reserved product, etc.). If so, the display unit 360 indicates that the product has exceeded the sales deadline”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include determine that the expiration date of the registered SKU identifier is inconsistent with the expiration date of the physical SKU identifier; and modify the expiration date of the registered SKU identifier to be the expiration date of the physical SKU identifier, as taught by TOMOKI, where this would be performed in order to provide a self-sales system that is easier to use. See TOMOKI, [0005].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Willard further in view of Gravelle et al. (US 20200279217 A1, hereinafter “Gravelle”).
Regarding claim 12. The combination of Matsubara in view of Willard discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the scrapping process comprises: transporting, by [[the]] a mobile receptacle, the corresponding SKU to be physically disposed of from a warehouse; (see claim 1 rejection supra)
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is not sellable; modifying a second data structure of the computer-implemented system to deduct the corresponding SKU from the second data structure of the computer- implemented system; and transmitting a message to the external system to cause the external system to modify a third data structure of the external system to deduct the corresponding SKU from the third data structure of the external system”. However, Gravelle teaches:
modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is not sellable; modifying a second data structure of the computer-implemented system to deduct the corresponding SKU from the second data structure of the computer- implemented system; and transmitting a message to the external system to cause the external system to modify a third data structure of the external system to deduct the corresponding SKU from the third data structure of the external system. (Gravelle, [0242]; “at step 1609, the updating of data at this point further comprises updating the content of the mobile data storage devices 226 of both the MCS bin 224 b and the PO bin 224 c by the facility management subsystem 204 … The contents table 327 on the mobile data storage device 226 of the PO bin 224 c is updated to write to the respective record for the particular compartment of the PO bin 224 c in which the transferred product was placed, some or all of the Product ID and transferred quantity of the transferred product type, the Vendor_ID of the fulfilling vendor from whose inventory the transferred product type was sourced, and the order number and line item number being fulfilled by the transferred product type and quantity. Meanwhile, the facility management subsystem 204 also decrements the quantity field in the appropriate compartment record of the bin contents table 327 of the MCS bin 224 b by the transferred quantity, and if this decremented quantity is now zero, erases the owner Vendor_ID and the Product_ID from this record. If no other compartment of the MCS bin 224 b contains the same product type as the now-empty compartment, the corresponding record in the product information table 328 can also be erased. In an embodiment, the data written to each record in the PO bin's contents table 327 also includes destination data specifying the Facility_ID of the nano facility 16 to which the customer order fully or partially contained in the subject bin compartment of that record is to be delivered, and associated timing data based, for example, on the priority status or the targeted delivery date of the customer order concerned”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsubara to include modifying the registered SKU identifier of the corresponding SKU to indicate it is not sellable; modifying a second data structure of the computer-implemented system to deduct the corresponding SKU from the second data structure of the computer- implemented system; and transmitting a message to the external system to cause the external system to modify a third data structure of the external system to deduct the corresponding SKU from the third data structure of the external system, as taught by Gravelle, where this would be performed in order to provide an executing a supply chain workflow using transportable and continuously trackable storage bin. See Gravelle [0009].
Conclusion
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. 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