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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 10/22/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 are directed to a system which are statutory classes of invention.
Nevertheless, independent claim 1 is directed in part to an abstract idea. The claims are drawn to commercial or legal interactions (under certain methods of organizing human activity), or plurality of picker mobile scanning devices (MSDs), in this case. The independent claims recite the steps which are done by using generic computing components. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “Commercial Legal Interactions” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describes the concept of plurality of picker mobile scanning devices (MSDs) using these additional elements: mobile scanning devices and a computing system. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements mobile scanning devices and a computing system to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. “US 11,132,739 B1” (Park).
Regarding Claim 1: A system comprising:
a plurality of picker mobile scanning devices (MSDs), each of which is associated with a different picker in a store (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 1A; 5:2-45); and
a computing system configured to:
receive a plurality of initial customer orders, each of which includes a plurality of ordered items (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 6; 4:20-35);
assign ordered items from the plurality of initial customer orders to one or more of the picker MSDs (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 1D; 6:19-46);
store a plurality of picker records, wherein each picker record includes data associated with a corresponding picker and picker MSD, and wherein each picker record includes an order limit number that indicates a number of different customer orders that can be assigned to the picker MSD (at least see Park Abstract; 14:7-41);
receive a new customer order including a new plurality of newly ordered items (at least see Park Abstract; 1:57-67);
determine a candidate set of one or more pickers that have availability to receive newly ordered items from the new customer order based on the order limit numbers associated with the pickers and a number of currently assigned customer orders associated with each of the pickers (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 1A; 13:42-60);
select a picker from the candidate set of pickers (at least see Park Abstract; 14:42-55); and
assign a set of newly ordered items to the selected picker from the candidate set of pickers (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 7; 20:35-67).
Regarding Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein a first set of the pickers are single-order pickers associated with an order limit number of one, and wherein a second set of the pickers are multi-order pickers associated with an order limit number of two or more (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3: The system of claim 2, wherein the candidate set of pickers includes one or more single-order pickers that do not have orders currently assigned, and wherein the candidate set of pickers includes one or more multi-order pickers that have a number of orders currently assigned that is less than their associated order limit numbers (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 4: The system of claim 2, wherein a first single-order picker is unavailable to receive newly ordered items based on a current assignment of one or more items from a single customer (at least see Park 16:47-57).
Regarding Claim 5: The system of claim 2, wherein a first single-order picker has availability to receive newly ordered items from the new customer order when the first single-order picker does not have currently assigned items (at least see Park Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 6: The system of claim 2, wherein a first multi-order picker is unavailable to receive newly ordered items when the first multi-order picker has currently assigned items from a number of initial customer orders that is equal to the order limit number associated with the first multi-order picker (at least see Park Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7: The system of claim 2, wherein a first multi-order picker has availability to receive newly ordered items from the new customer order when the first multi-order picker has currently assigned items from a number of initial customer orders that is less than the order limit number associated with the first multi-order picker (at least see Park Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8: The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to select the picker based on the location of the picker (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9: The system of claim 1, wherein each picker record includes an item limit number that indicates a number of items that can be assigned to the picker MSD (at least see Park 12:4-20).
Regarding Claim 10: The system of claim 9, wherein the computing system is configured to determine the candidate set of one or more pickers based on the number of items already assigned to the pickers and the item limit numbers associated with the pickers (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 1A; 5:2-45).
Regarding Claim 11: The system of claim 1, wherein the set of newly ordered items assigned to the selected picker is limited by an 1tem limit number associated with the selected picker (at least see Park Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 12: The system of claim 1, wherein each picker record includes an item size limit that indicates a maximum size of items that can be assigned to the picker MSD (at least see Park Fig. 1D).
Regarding Claim 13: The system of claim 1, wherein each picker record includes an item weight limit that indicates a maximum total weight of items that can be assigned to the picker MSD (at least see Park Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14: The system of claim 1, wherein each picker record includes an item type restriction that indicates the types of items that can be assigned to the picker MSD (at least see Park Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 15: The system of claim 1, wherein the candidate set of pickers increases in size in response to one or more pickers finishing picking assigned initial customer orders (at least see Park Fig. 3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/29/2008 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance:
Argument A:
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 automatically selecting pickers for order fulfillment. In one example, claim 1 recites technical features for storing a plurality of picker records. Claim 1 further recites a technical and practical use for the picker records. Specifically, claim 1 recites determining a candidate set of one or more pickers that have availability to receive newly ordered items based on the order limit numbers in the picker records. Applicant submits that claims 1-15 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the above reasons..
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). These additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., a computerized environment). See MPEP 2106.05(h). Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately, and performance of the steps of the claim technologically does not present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the steps into a practical application. Accordingly, at least claim 1 is still rejected under 35 USC 101.
Argument B:
For at least the above reasons, Park fails to disclose or suggest 1) storing a plurality of picker records, wherein each picker record includes an order limit number that indicates a number of different customer orders that can be assigned to the picker MSD and 2) determining a candidate set of one or more pickers that have availability to receive newly ordered items from the new customer order based on the order limit numbers, as recited in claim 1. For at least the above reasons, Park fails to disclose each and every element set forth in claim 1, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Claim 1 is therefore allowable for at least these reasons. Claims 2-15 ultimately depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowable for at least similar reasons as claim 1..
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. 1) Store a plurality of picker records, wherein each picker record includes data associated with a corresponding picker and picker MSD, and wherein each picker record includes an order limit number that indicates a number of different customer orders that can be assigned to the picker MSD (at least see Park Abstract; 14:7-41); also Park stated in 11:29-49 “(51) Drop zone 207 may be an area of FC 200 that stores items before they are moved to picking zone 209. A worker assigned to the picking task (a “picker”) may approach items 202A and 202B in the picking zone, scan a barcode for the picking zone, and scan barcodes associated with items 202A and 202B using a mobile device (e.g., device 119B). The picker may then take the item to picking zone 209 (e.g., by placing it on a cart or carrying it). (52) Picking zone 209 may be an area of FC 200 where items 208 are stored on storage units 210. In some embodiments, storage units 210 may comprise one or more of physical shelving, bookshelves, boxes, totes, refrigerators, freezers, cold stores, or the like. In some embodiments, picking zone 209 may be organized into multiple floors. In some embodiments, workers or machines may move items into picking zone 209 in multiple ways, including, for example, a forklift, an elevator, a conveyor belt, a cart, a handtruck, a dolly, an automated robot or device, or manually. For example, a picker may place items 202A and 202B on a handtruck or cart in drop zone 207 and walk items 202A and 202B to picking zone 209.” and 2) determine a candidate set of one or more pickers that have availability to receive newly ordered items from the new customer order based on the order limit numbers associated with the pickers and a number of currently assigned customer orders associated with each of the pickers (at least see Park Abstract; Fig. 1A; 13:42-60); Park state 15:53-64 “(72) Still further, FC configuration database 413 may store FC configuration information of individual FCs. FC configuration information, for example, may comprise FC specific information comprising available types and numbers of cart 340, available types and numbers of container 330, specifications of transport systems 214 such as weight limit, current number of pickers 350 working at each FC, or the like. In some embodiments, FC configuration information may be collected and updated from time to time as new FCs are built or existing FCs are modified to, for example, add more types and numbers of cart 340 or container 330, or install new transport systems 214.” Park meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627