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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 20th 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 9th 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim 20 is canceled
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are moot. While the Examiner notes that the applicant is arguing the claim limitations recite " … wherein the density metric indicates a number of inventory items located within a unit of area, wherein the one or more route segments comprise a first route segment and a second route segment, and wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises: determining an intersegment route connecting the first route segment and the second route segment based on a cross density between the first route segment and the second route segment, a density of the second route segment, and a density around a last demand point of the second route segment; and generating the one or more dispatch routes through the intersegment route;… “. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 1 and 11 and 20 over Park (Patent No. US11176513B1) in view of Douglas (Patent No. US20210245956A1).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1:
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 falls within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to mental process.
Claim 1
A computer-implemented system for segment based approach to routing picking, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving a floorplan of a first set of location IDs, wherein the first set of location IDs correspond to locations of multiple inventory items arranged in a floor;
generating one or more base segments that connect the first set of location IDs of the multiple inventory items;
generating one or more route segments by combining the one or more base segments with one or more demand points corresponding to a second set of location IDs, wherein the second set of location IDs correspond to inventory items included in customer orders;
generating one or more dispatch routes through the one or more route segments based on an optimal routing of resources that maximizes a density metric of the multiple inventory items included in the one or more dispatch routes, wherein the density metric indicates a number of inventory items located within a unit of area, wherein the one or more route segments comprise a first route segment and a second route segment, and wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises:
determining an intersegment route connecting the first route segment and the second route segment based on a cross density between the first route segment and the second route segment, a density of the second route segment, and a density around a last demand point of the second route segment; and generating the one or more dispatch routes through the intersegment route; and assigning a first user to a combination of the one or more dispatch routes.
The method in claim 1 includes a mental process that can be practicably performed with pen and paper, therefore, an abstract idea the limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of receiving the map of the facility, locating the item’s based on the ID’s and generating different routes to the items based on based on an optimal routing and customer order, this all can be done by mentally and with pen and paper by looking at the facility map and choosing picking routs. More specifically, a person can decide on the most optimal picking routs in the warehouse facility. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A computer-implemented system for segment based approach to routing picking, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving a floorplan of a first set of location IDs, wherein the first set of location IDs correspond to locations of multiple inventory items arranged in a floor;
generating one or more base segments that connect the first set of location IDs of the multiple inventory items;
generating one or more route segments by combining the one or more base segments with one or more demand points corresponding to a second set of location IDs, wherein the second set of location IDs correspond to inventory items included in customer orders;
generating one or more dispatch routes through the one or more route segments based on an optimal routing of resources that maximizes a density metric of the multiple inventory items included in the one or more dispatch routes, wherein the density metric indicates a number of inventory items located within a unit of area, wherein the one or more route segments comprise a first route segment and a second route segment, and wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises:
determining an intersegment route connecting the first route segment and the second route segment based on a cross density between the first route segment and the second route segment, a density of the second route segment, and a density around a last demand point of the second route segment; and generating the one or more dispatch routes through the intersegment route; and assigning a first user to a combination of the one or more dispatch routes.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of a mental process/evaluation having been integrated into a practical application. The processor it is recited at a high level of generality; which is a form of extra solution activity, nothing more than signal/data collection [see paragraph 0010]. As such, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting and transmitting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors, such as the device in claim 20.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not
recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is
clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to the independent claim 11, please see rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 11, with claim 1 being drown to system, claim 11 being drawn to an invention method.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19 are further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. As such, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Analysis for claim 20:
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 falls within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to mental process.
Claim 20
A computer-implemented system for segment based approach to routing picking, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving a floorplan of a first set of location IDs, wherein the first set of location IDs correspond to locations of multiple inventory items arranged in a floor;
generating one or more base segments that connect the first set of location IDs of the multiple inventory items;
receiving one or more urgent items among the multiple inventory items;
generating one or more route segments by combining the one or more base segments with one or more demand points corresponding to a second set of location IDs of the one or more urgent items;
generating one or more dispatch routes through the one or more route segments, wherein the one or more dispatch routes maximize a density metric indicating a number of inventory items within a unit of area, calculated between first adjacent pairs of the second set of location IDs or between second adjacent pairs of one or more route segments, wherein the one or more route segments comprise a first route segment and a second route segment, and wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises:
determining an intersegment route connecting the first route segment and the second route segment based on a cross density between the first route segment and the second route segment, a density of the second route segment, and a density around a last demand point of the second route segment; and
generating the one or more dispatch routes through the intersegment route;
determining a first location of a first user device configured to communicate the first location of a user in possession of the first user device; and
generating a signal to the first user device to traverse the one or more dispatch routes, wherein the first user device is located closest to a starting point of the one or more dispatch routes as determined by the first location.
The method in claim 20 includes a mental process that can be practicably performed with pen and paper, therefore, an abstract idea the limitations of claim 20 highlighted above merely consist of receiving the map of the facility, locating the item’s based on the ID’s and generating different routes to the items based on based on an optimal routing and customer order, this all can be done by mentally and with pen and paper by looking at the facility map and choosing picking routs. More specifically, a person can decide on the most optimal picking routs in the warehouse facility. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A computer-implemented system for segment based approach to routing picking, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving a floorplan of a first set of location IDs, wherein the first set of location IDs correspond to locations of multiple inventory items arranged in a floor;
generating one or more base segments that connect the first set of location IDs of the multiple inventory items;
receiving one or more urgent items among the multiple inventory items;
generating one or more route segments by combining the one or more base segments with one or more demand points corresponding to a second set of location IDs of the one or more urgent items;
generating one or more dispatch routes through the one or more route segments, wherein the one or more dispatch routes maximize a density metric indicating a number of inventory items within a unit of area, calculated between first adjacent pairs of the second set of location IDs or between second adjacent pairs of one or more route segments, wherein the one or more route segments comprise a first route segment and a second route segment, and wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises:
determining an intersegment route connecting the first route segment and the second route segment based on a cross density between the first route segment and the second route segment, a density of the second route segment, and a density around a last demand point of the second route segment; and
generating the one or more dispatch routes through the intersegment route;
determining a first location of a first user device configured to communicate the first location of a user in possession of the first user device; and
generating a signal to the first user device to traverse the one or more dispatch routes, wherein the first user device is located closest to a starting point of the one or more dispatch routes as determined by the first location.
Claim 20 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of a mental process/evaluation having been integrated into a practical application. The processor it is recited at a high level of generality; which is a form of extra solution activity, nothing more than signal/data collection [see paragraph 0010]. As such, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 20 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting and transmitting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors, such as the device in claim 20.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 20 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not
recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is
clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 7-10, 11-12, and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (Patent No. US11176513B1) in view of Douglas (Patent No. US20210245956A1).
Regarding claim 1 Park teaches a computer-implemented system for segment based approach to routing picking, the system comprising a memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising; (See Park column 5, line 19-26 and column 12, line 49-63; “…A user device (e.g., using mobile device 102A or computer 102B) may navigate to external front end system 103 and request a search by entering information into a search box. External front end system 103 may request information from one or more systems in system 100. For example, external front end system 103 may request information from FO System 113 that satisfies the search request…camp zone 215 may determine which route and/or sub-route a package 220 should be associated with, for example, based on a comparison of the destination to an existing route and/or sub-route, a calculation of workload for each route and/or sub-route…”); receiving a floorplan of a first set of location IDs, wherein the first set of location IDs correspond to locations of multiple inventory items arranged in a floor; (See Park column 16, line 7-12; “At step 320, FO system 113 sends information including an identifier of the item and a physical location of the item to the user device of the selected picker for display. The information may also include a map and/or directions for the picker. At step 322, FO system 113 may determine if there are any remaining unassigned items.”); generating one or more base segments that connect the first set of location IDs of the multiple inventory items; (See Park column 16, line 7-21; “At step 320, FO system 113 sends information including an identifier of the item and a physical location of the item to the user device of the selected picker for display. The information may also include a map and/or directions for the picker. At step 322, FO system 113 may determine if there are any remaining unassigned items. If step 322 is YES, FO system 113 returns to step 308 and begins assigning an additional item. This may continue in an iterative fashion for items in the ordered data structure until all items are assigned to pickers. If step 322 is NO, FO system 113 may return to step 302 and wait for an additional indication of a purchase of an item. Steps 302 through 306 may operate in parallel with steps 308 through 322 so that FO system 113 continues to receive new purchases while simultaneously assigning items.”); generating one or more route segments by combining the one or more base segments with one or more demand points corresponding to a second set of location IDs, wherein the second set of location IDs correspond to inventory items included in customer orders; (See Park column 14-15, line 51-15; “At step 312, FO system 113 calculates a plurality of distances between the item physical location and picker physical locations among the plurality of picker physical locations. In other words, after step 310, FO system 113 may have a data structure containing locations of each of the pickers in a warehouse, for instance. FO system 113 then cycles through each of the locations and calculates a distance between an unassigned item and pickers… FO system 113 may store a data structure having distances between each of the pickers and the unassigned item. In some embodiments, the distance may be a direct line between the item and a picker, ignoring any intervening obstacles. Alternatively, each of the plurality of distances may comprise a total length of a path between a corresponding picker physical location and the item physical location, the path being selected so as to avoid obstacles between the corresponding picker physical location and the item physical location. Distances may also be measured as the amount of time required to travel between two points, rather than the geometric length of a path. That is, FO system 113 may employ algorithms to determine the shortest route and expected travel time between two points while traveling around any obstacles such as shelves, containers, pillars, walls, or doors as reflected in a stored map of a warehouse. FO system 113 may also employ algorithms that take into account distances between floors, such as in a multi-story warehouse. In some embodiments, FO system 113 may provide instructions to pickers who must travel through an area. In these embodiments, FO system 113 may determine the shortest path along highways and surface streets, as well as distances for parking, walking, or other modes of transportation.”); and assigning a first user to a combination of the one or more dispatch routes; (See Park column 8, line 25-29 and column 12, line 46-55; “Shipment and order tracking system 111, in some embodiments, may be implemented as a computer system that receives, stores, and forwards information regarding the location of packages containing products ordered by customers (e.g., by a user using devices 102A-102B)… Routing the package to camp zone 215 may comprise, for example, determining a portion of a geographical area that the package is destined for (e.g., based on a postal code) and determining a camp zone 215 associated with the portion of the geographical area.
Camp zone 215, in some embodiments, may comprise one or more buildings, one or more physical spaces, or one or more areas, where packages are received from hub zone 213 for sorting into routes and/or sub-routes…”); generating one or more dispatch routes through the one or more route segments based on an optimal routing of resources that maximizes a density metric of the multiple inventory items included in the one or more dispatch routes; (See Park column 12-13, line 59-5; Workers and/or machines in camp zone 215 may determine which route and/or sub-route a package 220 should be associated with, for example, based on a comparison of the destination to an existing route and/or sub-route, a calculation of workload for each route and/or sub-route, the time of day, a shipping method, the cost to ship the package 220, a PDD associated with the items in package 220, or the like. In some embodiments, a worker or machine may scan a package (e.g., using one of devices 119A-119C) to determine its eventual destination. Once package 220 is assigned to a particular route and/or sub-route, a worker and/or machine may move package 220 to be shipped. In exemplary FIG. 2, camp zone 215 includes a truck 222, a car 226, and delivery workers 224A and 224B.”);
wherein the one or more route segments comprise a first route segment and a second route segment; (See Park column 12-13, line 59-5; Workers and/or machines in camp zone 215 may determine which route and/or sub-route a package 220 should be associated with, for example, based on a comparison of the destination to an existing route and/or sub-route, a calculation of workload for each route and/or sub-route, the time of day, a shipping method, the cost to ship the package 220, a PDD associated with the items in package 220, or the like. In some embodiments, a worker or machine may scan a package (e.g., using one of devices 119A-119C) to determine its eventual destination. Once package 220 is assigned to a particular route and/or sub-route, a worker and/or machine may move package 220 to be shipped. In exemplary FIG. 2, camp zone 215 includes a truck 222, a car 226, and delivery workers 224A and 224B.”);
and generating the one or more dispatch routes through the intersegment route; (See Park column 12-13, line 59-5; Workers and/or machines in camp zone 215 may determine which route and/or sub-route a package 220 should be associated with, for example, based on a comparison of the destination to an existing route and/or sub-route, a calculation of workload for each route and/or sub-route, the time of day, a shipping method, the cost to ship the package 220, a PDD associated with the items in package 220, or the like. In some embodiments, a worker or machine may scan a package (e.g., using one of devices 119A-119C) to determine its eventual destination. Once package 220 is assigned to a particular route and/or sub-route, a worker and/or machine may move package 220 to be shipped. In exemplary FIG. 2, camp zone 215 includes a truck 222, a car 226, and delivery workers 224A and 224B.”).
Park does not explicitly teach but Douglas teaches wherein the density metric indicates a number of inventory items located within a unit of area; (See Douglas Paragraph 0076; “… the picking system 108 may identify static or dynamic zones. For instance, a facility may have statically defined zones based on areas of shelving, conveyors, density of items that may be picked, etc…”);
and wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises: determining an intersegment route connecting the first route segment and the second route segment based on a cross density between the first route segment and the second route segment; (See Douglas paragraph 0063; “ In some implementations, the REX 132, or another component of the system 100, may determine, based on load information in one or more of the pick zones, that a particular zone, picker, path, pick-cell station 316, etc., has a high traffic load. In response to such a determination, the REX 132 may dynamically adjust the routing schedule, for example, dictating which cart AGVs 116 are sent into different zones or areas of the order fulfillment center. For example, the REX 132 may determine that there is a threshold level of traffic in the pick-to-cart area 302, in response to which determination, the REX 132 may induct AGVs (e.g., cart AGVs 116 with particular orders to be filled) into the storage fetching system 100. Accordingly, in some implementations, the REX 132 may dynamically balance the load of various zones, AGVs, pick-cell stations, etc., in the system by adapting the composition (e.g., items from pick-to-cart versus from high-density storage) of orders/cartons on a particular AGV (e.g., a cart AGV 116), for example.”);
a density of the second route segment, and a density around a last demand point of the second route segment; (See Douglas paragraph 0063; “ In some implementations, the REX 132, or another component of the system 100, may determine, based on load information in one or more of the pick zones, that a particular zone, picker, path, pick-cell station 316, etc., has a high traffic load. In response to such a determination, the REX 132 may dynamically adjust the routing schedule, for example, dictating which cart AGVs 116 are sent into different zones or areas of the order fulfillment center. For example, the REX 132 may determine that there is a threshold level of traffic in the pick-to-cart area 302, in response to which determination, the REX 132 may induct AGVs (e.g., cart AGVs 116 with particular orders to be filled) into the storage fetching system 100. Accordingly, in some implementations, the REX 132 may dynamically balance the load of various zones, AGVs, pick-cell stations, etc., in the system by adapting the composition (e.g., items from pick-to-cart versus from high-density storage) of orders/cartons on a particular AGV (e.g., a cart AGV 116), for example.”).
Both Park and Douglas are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to alternative routing to pick the inventory item with Douglas density matric. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the density metrics that will allow better routing that will include the items density metrics. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park further teaches, wherein the operations further comprise: splitting the one or more route segments into subparts based on distance between a subset of the multiple inventory items connected by the one or more route segments; (See Park column 16, line 43-53; “At step 406, FO system 113 calculates a route from the picker's location to the item as previously described. At step 408, FO system 113 compares the calculated route to the shortest calculated route. The comparison may be based on distance or predicted travel time. If there is another route corresponding to another picker that is shorter than the current route, step 408 is YES, and FO system 113 chooses a new picker at step 402. On the other hand, if the current route is the shortest route so far calculated, including if the current route is the first route calculated, step 408 is NO, and FO system 113 proceeds to step 410.”).
Regarding claim 7 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park further teaches, wherein the optimal routing of resources comprises at least one of: minimizing changes in a direction of the resources; minimizing a linear length of travel by the resources; minimizing an interference between the resources; (See Park column 16-17, line 54-3; “At step 410, FO system 113 determines if the item queue of the picker having the shortest calculated route so far is full. That is, FO system 113 may have a threshold limit of the number of items in an item queue. The threshold limit may be constant for every picker. Alternatively, the threshold limit may vary for different pickers. For instance, some pickers may be able to move more quickly through a warehouse, or may receive more compensation for agreeing to pick more items during a shift. If the item queue of the picker is full, step 410 is YES, and FO system 113 returns to step 402 to choose a new picker. If step 410 is NO, FO system 113 stores an identifier of the picker in memory at step 412, as well as the calculated route length corresponding to the picker. Thus, in some situations, FO system 113 may choose a next picker if a length of an item queue of the closest picker exceeds a threshold, even if the route length of the next picker is longer.”).
Park does not explicitly teach but Douglas teaches, or maximizing the density metric of the one or more dispatch routes; (See Douglas Paragraph 0039, 0076 and 0118; “A picking AGV 114a . . . 114n may include an automated guided vehicle or robot that may be configured to autonomously transport items from a high-density storage area 304 of the order fulfillment facility to a pick-cell station 316, replenishment area 318, and/or finalizing area 314. The picking AGV 114 may include a drive unit adapted to provide motive force to the picking AGV 114, a guidance system adapted to locate the picking AGV 114 in the order fulfillment facility, and a shelving unit, which may be adapted to hold modular storage units 601, containers, or other items. The picking AGV 114 may include a container handling mechanism (CHM) 616 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 6) that retrieves items or modular storage units 601 from storage shelves (e.g., in the high-density storage area), places items on an item holder (e.g., an AGV shelf) coupled with the picking AGV, and replaces items on storage shelves or at a pick-cell station. In some implementations, a picking AGV 114 may autonomously retrieve modular storage unit(s) 601 containing items to be picked in an order from the high-density storage area… the picking system 108 may identify static or dynamic zones. For instance, a facility may have statically defined zones based on areas of shelving, conveyors, density of items that may be picked, etc. In some implementations, the picking system 108 may dynamically identify and/or define a zone. For example, the picking system 108 may determine, using a clustering algorithm, one or more boundaries of a plurality of zones based on locations of items to be picked, tasks, and/or other attributes. Zones may include various locations of tasks to be performed, such as picks from locations of items in the fulfillment center. Accordingly, the zones may be defined by the quantity and/or locations of picks/tasks or a set of tasks may be defined based on the zone… FIG. 3A depicts a schematic of an example configuration of an order fulfillment center, which may be an operating environment of AGVs, pickers, or other equipment. In some instances, some or all of the operating environment may be divided into one or more zones, as described above. It should be understood that various distribution facilities may include different picking zones having different stocking infrastructure and picking configurations. For instance, high-volume and/or velocity items (e.g., items appearing above a defined threshold of frequency in orders) may be stored in a pick-to-cart area 302 and be available for immediate picking, and relatively moderate and/or low-volume and/or velocity items may be stored in high-density storage area 304 on modular storage units 601 which may be retrieved by picking AGVs 114 for an upcoming pick.”).
Both Park and Douglas are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to alternative routing to pick the inventory item with Douglas density matric. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the density metrics that will allow better routing that will include the items density metrics. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park further teaches, wherein each of the first set of locations IDs is individually addressable identifiers associated with a physical location in the floor; (See Park column 14, line 7-11; “At step 308, FO system 113 begins analyzing purchased items and pickers in order to assign items to pickers. In step 308, FO system 113 determines an item physical location corresponding to a first unassigned item in the ordered data structure.”).
Regarding claim 9 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park further teaches, assigning the first user to the combination of the one or more dispatch routes comprises; (See Park column 8, line 25-29 and column 12, line 46-55; “Shipment and order tracking system 111, in some embodiments, may be implemented as a computer system that receives, stores, and forwards information regarding the location of packages containing products ordered by customers (e.g., by a user using devices 102A-102B)… Routing the package to camp zone 215 may comprise, for example, determining a portion of a geographical area that the package is destined for (e.g., based on a postal code) and determining a camp zone 215 associated with the portion of the geographical area.
Camp zone 215, in some embodiments, may comprise one or more buildings, one or more physical spaces, or one or more areas, where packages are received from hub zone 213 for sorting into routes and/or sub-routes…”); determining a location of the first user based on a location of a first user device; (See Park column 14, line 28-32; “At step 310, FO system 113 determines a plurality of picker physical locations corresponding to locations of user devices of pickers. For example, the user device of a picker may be device 1198. Each picker on a warehouse floor may carry a separate device. Devices may include hardware and/or software to determine the location's position.”); and assigning the first user to a first combination of the one or more dispatch routes, wherein the first user is located closest to a starting location of the first combination of the one or more dispatch routes; ; (See Park column 8, line 25-29 and column 12, line 46-55; “Shipment and order tracking system 111, in some embodiments, may be implemented as a computer system that receives, stores, and forwards information regarding the location of packages containing products ordered by customers (e.g., by a user using devices 102A-102B)… Routing the package to camp zone 215 may comprise, for example, determining a portion of a geographical area that the package is destined for (e.g., based on a postal code) and determining a camp zone 215 associated with the portion of the geographical area.
Camp zone 215, in some embodiments, may comprise one or more buildings, one or more physical spaces, or one or more areas, where packages are received from hub zone 213 for sorting into routes and/or sub-routes…”).
Regarding claim 10 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park does not explicitly teach but Douglas teaches, wherein maximizing the density metric of the multiple inventory items included in the one or more dispatch routes comprises maximizing one or more of: a first density of the multiple inventory items in the one or more route segments or a second density between the one or more route segments; (See Douglas Paragraph 0076-0078; “In some implementations, the picking system 108 may identify static or dynamic zones. For instance, a facility may have statically defined zones based on areas of shelving, conveyors, density of items that may be picked, etc. In some implementations, the picking system 108 may dynamically identify and/or define a zone. For example, the picking system 108 may determine, using a clustering algorithm, one or more boundaries of a plurality of zones based on locations of items to be picked, tasks, and/or other attributes. Zones may include various locations of tasks to be performed, such as picks from locations of items in the fulfillment center. Accordingly, the zones may be defined by the quantity and/or locations of picks/tasks or a set of tasks may be defined based on the zone.
In some implementations, the picking system 108 may identify zones in a warehouse or distribution facility based on a quantity or attributes of tasks, available pickers, and/or carts. In some instances, identification or definition of zones may also be based on locations of picks, tasks, carts, and pickers or other aspects of an operating environment. For example, the picking system 108 may determine the quantity and locations of the items to be picked (e.g., during a given period) and may divide up the picks based on a quantity of available pickers and/or their locations. The zone may include a group of shelving bays from which a picker would pick items and place them into one or more cartons transported by one or more cart AGVs 116 in the zone. Accordingly, a picker may perform tasks for a number of carts together to increase pick density through that zone, for example, by reducing the distance that the picker would walk and familiarity with locations of items in the zone. For example, the timing of the tasks performed by the picker may be scheduled to coordinate with a timing at which the cart is located at the zone, at a particular location in the zone (e.g., nearest the picks), or near the picker.
In some implementations, the picking system 108 may identify or define zones dynamically, for example, using a clustering algorithm such as k-means, auction, mean-shift, centroid, density-based, other clustering algorithms, or a combination of algorithms (e.g., k-means in conjunction with an auction algorithm). For instance, the picking system 108 may adjust the size, shape (e.g., boundaries), or location of zones based on a quantity and location of picks, so that zones for each picker have roughly balanced workload. The picking system 108 may balance the workload of pickers, etc., based on distance traveled between picks, distance traveled from storage locations to cartons (e.g., on cart AGVs 116), quantity of items, etc.”).
Both Park and Douglas are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to alternative routing to pick the inventory item with Douglas density matric. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the density metrics that will allow better routing that will include the items density metrics. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the independent claim 11, please see rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 11, with claim 1 being drown to system, claim 11 being drawn to an invention method.
With respect to the dependent claims 12 and 17-19, please see rejection above with respect to claims 2 and 7-9 which are commensurate in scope to claims 12 and 17-19, with claims 2 and 7-9 being drown to system, claims 12 and 17-19 being drawn to an invention method.
Claims 3-6, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (Patent No. US11176513B1) in view of Douglas (Patent No. US20210245956A1) and Nair (Patent No. US20180075521A1).
Regarding claim 3 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park does not explicitly teach but Nair teaches, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting an erroneous route segments based on the density metric calculated for the one or more route segments; and updating the floorplan to remove the erroneous route segments; (See Nair paragraph 0037; “…the algorithm is adjusted based on at least one of the following: changes in inventory stocking at the physical store, changes in weightings assigned, aggregated store arrangements, department specific assessments/rankings, product specific assessments/rankings, etc.”).
Both Park and Nair are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to picking the routing with Nair the updating the floorplan. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the updating the floorplan that allows better routing when the inventory and floor planning changes. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park does not explicitly teach but Nair teaches, wherein the operations further comprise: updating the floorplan to reflect a physical reconfiguration of the floor; and regenerating the one or more route segments based on the updated floorplan, wherein the physical reconfiguration comprises at least one of: an addition or a removal of a first inventory item; or an installation or removal of a barrier in the floor; (See Nair paragraph 0021; “One embodiment of the invention provides an application for dynamically learning an optimized picking path within a physical store based on actions of merchandise pickers when a store layout of the physical store is unknown to the application. The application is configured to determine an optimized picking path based on historical data comprising previously executed picking paths. The invention allows a retail company to change a store layout and item locations as often as possible while still providing optimized picking paths without additional cost for additional resources (e.g., hardware).”).
Both Park and Nair are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to picking the routing with Nair the updating the floorplan. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the updating the floorplan that allows better routing when the inventory and floor planning changes. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, Park further teaches, mapping a second set of location IDs associated with the one or more ordered items to the one or more route segments; generating the one or more dispatch routes by streamlining the one or more route segments to connect the second set of location IDs; (See Park column 16, line 43-53; “At step 406, FO system 113 calculates a route from the picker's location to the item as previously described. At step 408, FO system 113 compares the calculated route to the shortest calculated route. The comparison may be based on distance or predicted travel time. If there is another route corresponding to another picker that is shorter than the current route, step 408 is YES, and FO system 113 chooses a new picker at step 402. On the other hand, if the current route is the shortest route so far calculated, including if the current route is the first route calculated, step 408 is NO, and FO system 113 proceeds to step 410.”).
Park does not explicitly teach but Nair teaches, wherein generating the one or more dispatch routes comprises: receiving one or more ordered items among the multiple inventory items; (See Nair paragraph 0030; “…As shown in FIG. 2B, the optimized picking path is presented as a list of items arranged in an order/sequence that results in the shortest and most efficient walking path for a merchandise picker 30 when picking all items fulfilling a merchandise request…”).
Both Park and Nair are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to picking the routing with Nair the updating the floorplan. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the updating the floorplan that allows better routing when the inventory and floor planning changes. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6 Park in view of Douglas teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 5, Park does not explicitly teach but Nair teaches, wherein the one or more ordered items are time-gated to comprise items associated with urgent orders; (See Nair paragraph 0034; “The picking path analysis unit 100 is configured to: (1) receive one or more merchandise requests, (2) forward the merchandise requests to one or more devices 50 carried by one or more merchandise pickers 30, (3) receive, from the devices 50, picking data identifying one or more previously executed picking paths performed by the merchandise pickers 30 in fulfilling the merchandise requests, (4) aggregate the picking data, (5) analyze the picking data and the merchandise requests to identify an algorithm suitable for determining an optimized picking path, (6) in response to receiving a new online merchandise request, apply the algorithm to identify an optimized picking path for the new online merchandise request, and (7) provide the optimized picking path to at least one of the merchandise pickers 30.”).
Both Park and Nair are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to picking the routing. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the updating the floorplan that allows better routing when the inventory and floor planning changes. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the dependent claims 13 -16, please see rejection above with respect to claims 3-6 which are commensurate in scope to claims 13 -16, with claims 3-6 being drown to system, claims 13 -16 being drawn to an invention method.
With respect to the independent claim 20, please see rejection above with respect to claim 11, except for following limitations; calculated between first adjacent pairs of the second set of location IDs or between second adjacent pairs of one or more route segments; (See Park column 14-15, line 51-15; “At step 312, FO system 113 calculates a plurality of distances between the item physical location and picker physical locations among the plurality of picker physical locations. In other words, after step 310, FO system 113 may have a data structure containing locations of each of the pickers in a warehouse, for instance. FO system 113 then cycles through each of the locations and calculates a distance between an unassigned item and pickers… FO system 113 may store a data structure having distances between each of the pickers and the unassigned item. In some embodiments, the distance may be a direct line between the item and a picker, ignoring any intervening obstacles. Alternatively, each of the plurality of distances may comprise a total length of a path between a corresponding picker physical location and the item physical location, the path being selected so as to avoid obstacles between the corresponding picker physical location and the item physical location. Distances may also be measured as the amount of time required to travel between two points, rather than the geometric length of a path. That is, FO system 113 may employ algorithms to determine the shortest route and expected travel time between two points while traveling around any obstacles such as shelves, containers, pillars, walls, or doors as reflected in a stored map of a warehouse. FO system 113 may also employ algorithms that take into account distances between floors, such as in a multi-story warehouse. In some embodiments, FO system 113 may provide instructions to pickers who must travel through an area. In these embodiments, FO system 113 may determine the shortest path along highways and surface streets, as well as distances for parking, walking, or other modes of transportation.”); determining a first location of a first user device configured to communicate the first location of a user in possession of the first user device; and generating a signal to the first user device to traverse the one or more dispatch routes, wherein the first user device is located closest to a starting point of the one or more dispatch routes as determined by the first location; (See Park column 15-16, line 51-6; “the data structure of step 318 may be indexed by picker identifier, such that a picker identifier is correlated to an item queue assigned to the picker, with the order indicating the order in which the picker should locate the items. The first unassigned item may be inserted into an item queue based on a priority of the first unassigned item. For example, a picker may have an item queue containing ten normal priority items. The picker may be the closest of all pickers to an urgent item. FO system 113 may then enter the urgent item into the first position in the item queue of the picker, and shift the other ten items with normal priority. In some situations, changing a picker's destination before the picker finds the item may introduce delays. For example, a picker may be climbing stairs to obtain a normal priority item on an upper floor of a warehouse. Even though the picker may be closest to an urgent priority item on a lower floor, assigning the urgent priority item to the picker may cause the picker to descend the stairs, deliver the urgent item, and then reclimb stairs to obtain the normal priority item. Therefore, in some embodiments, FO system 113 may leave some portion of item queues unchanged, and only insert new items into an item queue after, for instance, the second item in the queue.”).
Park does not explicitly teach but Douglas teaches, wherein the one or more dispatch routes maximize a density metric; (See Douglas Paragraph 0039, 0076 and 0118; “A picking AGV 114a . . . 114n may include an automated guided vehicle or robot that may be configured to autonomously transport items from a high-density storage area 304 of the order fulfillment facility to a pick-cell station 316, replenishment area 318, and/or finalizing area 314. The picking AGV 114 may include a drive unit adapted to provide motive force to the picking AGV 114, a guidance system adapted to locate the picking AGV 114 in the order fulfillment facility, and a shelving unit, which may be adapted to hold modular storage units 601, containers, or other items. The picking AGV 114 may include a container handling mechanism (CHM) 616 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 6) that retrieves items or modular storage units 601 from storage shelves (e.g., in the high-density storage area), places items on an item holder (e.g., an AGV shelf) coupled with the picking AGV, and replaces items on storage shelves or at a pick-cell station. In some implementations, a picking AGV 114 may autonomously retrieve modular storage unit(s) 601 containing items to be picked in an order from the high-density storage area… the picking system 108 may identify static or dynamic zones. For instance, a facility may have statically defined zones based on areas of shelving, conveyors, density of items that may be picked, etc. In some implementations, the picking system 108 may dynamically identify and/or define a zone. For example, the picking system 108 may determine, using a clustering algorithm, one or more boundaries of a plurality of zones based on locations of items to be picked, tasks, and/or other attributes. Zones may include various locations of tasks to be performed, such as picks from locations of items in the fulfillment center. Accordingly, the zones may be defined by the quantity and/or locations of picks/tasks or a set of tasks may be defined based on the zone… FIG. 3A depicts a schematic of an example configuration of an order fulfillment center, which may be an operating environment of AGVs, pickers, or other equipment. In some instances, some or all of the operating environment may be divided into one or more zones, as described above. It should be understood that various distribution facilities may include different picking zones having different stocking infrastructure and picking configurations. For instance, high-volume and/or velocity items (e.g., items appearing above a defined threshold of frequency in orders) may be stored in a pick-to-cart area 302 and be available for immediate picking, and relatively moderate and/or low-volume and/or velocity items may be stored in high-density storage area 304 on modular storage units 601 which may be retrieved by picking AGVs 114 for an upcoming pick.”).
Both Park and Douglas are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to alternative routing to pick the inventory item with Douglas density matric. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the density metrics that will allow better routing that will include the items density metrics. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Park does not explicitly teach but Nair teaches, receiving one or more urgent items among the multiple inventory items; a second set of location IDs of the one or more urgent items; (See Nair paragraph 0034; “The picking path analysis unit 100 is configured to: (1) receive one or more merchandise requests, (2) forward the merchandise requests to one or more devices 50 carried by one or more merchandise pickers 30, (3) receive, from the devices 50, picking data identifying one or more previously executed picking paths performed by the merchandise pickers 30 in fulfilling the merchandise requests, (4) aggregate the picking data, (5) analyze the picking data and the merchandise requests to identify an algorithm suitable for determining an optimized picking path, (6) in response to receiving a new online merchandise request, apply the algorithm to identify an optimized picking path for the new online merchandise request, and (7) provide the optimized picking path to at least one of the merchandise pickers 30.”).
Both Park and Nair are in the same field of warehouse management and routing. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Park computer-implemented approach to picking the routing. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Park by including the updating the floorplan that allows better routing when the inventory and floor planning changes. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights