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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 14, and 20 are cancelled.
Claim 23-25 are a new claims.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-25 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 12/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 15 that the claims do not fall in the mental process grouping, Applicant states
The claims when considered as a whole enhance technology through an approach for improving the handling and operation of merchandise assembly. In one aspect, they involve first time pick metrics determined for shelving locations corresponding to specific merchandise categories, using the first-time pick metrics to determine appropriate pickers for different categories of merchandise and assemble an order involving different categories of merchandise. As amended, claims 1 and 11 recite that the control circuit monitors task status of pickers in real time via mobile device communication; dynamically reassigns picking tasks based on updated availability or task completion signals received from one or both mobile devices; and transmits updated instructions to substitute pickers triggered by the updated availability or task completion signals received from the one or both mobile devices. The amended claims are directed to the system's ability to determine and select optimal pickers and to respond to picker availability and task status in real time, which facilitates speed in order assembly in accordance with some embodiments.
Examiner respectfully Disagrees.
Determining merchandise categories, determining a picker, monitoring pickers, reassigning tasks, and transmitting instructions do not require a computer. For example, a user can determine what category a merchandise item belongs too, a user can determine a picker to pick the item, a user is able to monitor a picker doing the task, and a user is able to reassign a task to another picker based on the monitoring and transmit instructions to the other picker. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process of determining which picker to pick up the merchandise item and monitoring the picker. The claim invention provides no technical improvement but merely an improvement to a business process. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include-Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
In addition, the Applicant has not argued how the claims do not fall in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Examiner interprets this to mean that the Applicant agrees the claims fall in this grouping.
Applicant argues on page 17-19
Like Desjardins, the present claims recite a technical improvement. More specifically, amended claim 1 recites a control circuit that monitors task status of pickers in real time via mobile device communication, dynamically reassigns picking tasks based on updated availability or task completion signals, and transmits updated instructions to substitute pickers. These limitations reflect a technical improvement to merchandise assembly systems by enabling real-time coordination, which may reduce latency in task execution, and may improve operational efficiency…
These limitations interact to solve at least one concrete logistical problem in merchandise assembly-namely, how to efficiently coordinate multiple pickers across a facility in response to changing availability and task progress…
The claim does not merely invoke generic computer components to perform abstract steps; rather, it recites a specific technological solution that improves the functioning of the merchandise assembly system.
Claim 1 is consistent with this guidance because it recites a system that improves the technological operation of merchandise assembly within a fulfillment environment…
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. The business problem here is how to handle a merchandise order from a customer. The claimed invention is merely providing an improvement to a business process which is not the same as providing a technical improvement. The Applicant’s specification makes it clear of the business problem as seen here (See para 0004- It is therefore desirable to develop an order assembly approach that addresses difficult-to-pick areas and products. Examples of difficult-to-pick areas and products may include entertainment, apparel, and seasonal products. There is a need to develop an order assembly approach that accounts for both types of products: difficult-to-pick merchandise items and other items that are not considered difficult-to-pick). The Applicant also argues that the claimed invention provides operation efficiency which is with respect to the business process as seen above. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO.
The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite monitor task status of pickers in real time via mobile device communication, however Applicant’s specification nor drawings support this limitation. The Specification merely recites monitoring in para 0060 without the real time limitation. The dependent claims are also rejected because they do not cure the deficiency.
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, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (MPEP 2106.03), claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-25 are directed to the statutory category of system and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-25 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claim 11 recite the limitations of
…receive a merchandise order including a plurality of merchandise items; a facility comprising a plurality of shelving locations, each shelving location designated to a predetermined category of merchandise item, and comprising a merchandise pickup area configured for pickup of the merchandise order…categories of merchandise at shelving locations with first-time pick metrics below a predetermined threshold being assigned as difficult-to-pick merchandise categories…receive the merchandise order…determine…at least one first merchandise item that is within the difficult-to- pick merchandise categories and determine at least one second merchandise item that is not within the difficult-to-pick merchandise categories; determine one or more potential first pickers by: accessing… select a first picker from the one or more potential first pickers…determine one or more potential second pickers by accessing… select a second picker from the one or more potential second pickers; transmit…to…selected first picker to assemble the at least one first merchandise item…transmit…selected second picker to assemble the at least one second merchandise item; monitor task status of pickers in real time…dynamically reassign picking tasks based on updated availability or task completion … and transmit updated instructions to substitute pickers…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, determining, accessing, selecting, reassigning, and transmitting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of merchandise order interface and control circuit, the claims language encompasses simply receiving an order by a customer, determining items in the order, and selecting/instructing pickers to assemble and consolidate the order. The claims further recite monitoring the pickers and reassigning pickers based on availability and task completion. Retrieving orders is not novel and has been done before the technological age. A computer is not needed to perform these limitations. In a real-world example, a customer can tell a clerk their order, and then the clerk can instruct different employees to retrieve the order. The clerk can consult data to determine which employee is available and which employee is the best for the job. The clerk can also reassign employees based on different variables such as their availability and what tasks have already been completed. The claimed invention merely recites data manipulation steps.
The claims deal with merchandise orders, order fulfillment, as well as picker and task management. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sale activities or behaviors; business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of control circuit, merchandise order interface, pick database, employee expertise database, time clock database, employee task database, mobile devices and system. These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe what categories the difficult to pick items belong too such as entertainment, apparel, and seasonal products. In addition, the dependent claims provide details about the fulfillment process such as receiving a notification when the order is for pick up.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
System, merchandise order interface, pick database, employee expertise database, time clock database, employee task database, mobile devices, and control circuit
Claim 11 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 11 further recites merchandise order interface, pick database employee expertise database, mobile devices, time clock database, employee task database, and control circuit
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic, the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0028.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0028. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kassam (US20220101240A1) Discloses shopping systems for online commerce and more particularly to shopping systems that offer improved reliability and customized experience for consumers of perishable items.
Burkert (US 20060155592) Discloses a personnel-free inventory management of stored objects and/or merchandise.
Nair (US 20170287057) Discloses a system for dynamically optimizing inventory picking paths within a physical store. The system performs operations including receiving merchandise requests from customers, providing the merchandise requests to merchandise pickers, and receiving, from the merchandise pickers, picking data identifying picking paths executed by the merchandise pickers when picking items within the physical store to fulfill the merchandise requests.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625