DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary amendment filed 11/13/2023 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, system claims 1-7 and 21 are directed to a processor; and a memory storing program instructions, method claims 8-14 and 22 are directed to a series of steps, and computer program product claims 15-20 and 23 are directed to computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, process, and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite planning and executing task based scheduling and operations of a distribution warehouse locality, including accessing, generating, optimizing, scheduling, and providing steps.
The limitations of accessing, generating, optimizing, scheduling, and providing, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite accessing a set of customer orders for fulfillment from the distribution warehouse locality within a planned schedule time period, each customer order including a priority for fulfillment; accessing current inventory levels for the distribution warehouse locality; accessing expected shipments of inventory to the distribution warehouse locality; accessing a set of expected labor resources at the distribution warehouse locality for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the planned schedule time period; automatically generating a set of tasks for completing each customer order; automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the set of expected labor resources for each customer order; automatically scheduling the allocated set of expected labor resources and the set of tasks for fulfilling the set of customer orders; accessing an identified set of actors associated with the set of expected labor resources within an execution schedule time period; automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period, the optimization including reducing travel by the set of actors; and automatically providing a set of signals describing the optimized allocated set of tasks to the identified set of actors.
That is, other than reciting a processor and a memory storing program instructions, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a processor and a memory storing program instructions. The a processor and a memory storing program instructions in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, 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 element of a processor and a memory storing program instructions 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.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 recite additional implementing, accessing, and optimizing steps. Claims 5-7 further describe the allocation of the set of tasks with the set of expected labor resources for each customer order. Claim 21 recites additional accessing, optimizing, and scheduling steps. Similarly, dependent claims 9-14, 16-20, 22 and 23 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a processor and a memory storing program instructions.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 00106 of the specification, “As depicted in Figure 9, computer system/server 912 in data processing system 900 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device. The components of computer system/server 912 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 916, a system memory 928, and a bus 918 that couples various system components including system memory 928 to processor 916.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabovski et al (US 20140136255 A1).
As per claim 1, Grabovski et al disclose a data processing system for automatically and dynamically planning and executing task based scheduling and operations of a distribution warehouse locality, the data processing system (i.e., systems for dynamically and discretely managing tasks performed in retail facilities (particularly, in the warehouses thereof) by the facilities' workers, ¶ 0025) comprising: a processor; and a memory storing program instructions which when processed by the processor perform the operations of:
accessing a set of customer orders for fulfillment from the distribution warehouse locality within a planned schedule time period, each customer order including a priority for fulfillment (i.e., an "order" (or "task set") 24--defined herein as any communication expressly or implicitly containing a requisition to a worker to perform one or more inventory-related tasks--is received from a task generator 22a, the order 24 is decomposed into its constituent tasks, ¶ 0029);
accessing current inventory levels for the distribution warehouse locality (i.e., An example of an "order" is a "service ticket" generated manually by a manager, or automatically by inventory management software, expressly requesting a worker (or workers) at a warehouse to perform an inventory count of a particular product or SKU, or to restock certain shelves or bins, ¶ 0036);
accessing expected shipments of inventory to the distribution warehouse locality (i.e., An "order" can comprise one broad task (e.g., receive shipment) or several related narrow tasks (e.g., meet carrier at loading dock, scan contents of shipment, unload shipment, release carrier, transfer shipment to inventory), ¶ 0037);
accessing a set of expected labor resources at the distribution warehouse locality for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the planned schedule time period (i.e., The dynamic task manager 100 comprises a task source interface 110, a scheduling agent 112, a prioritization agent 116, a route optimization agent 118, and a task performer interface 114. The task source interface 110 functions to receive task sets from the task generator 22. The scheduling agent 112 functions to create a master task sequence from the incoming task sets received at the task source interface 110. The scheduling agent 112 is configured and in communication with both the prioritization 116 and route optimization agents 118, ¶ 0033);
automatically generating a set of tasks for completing each customer order (i.e., The task source interface 110 functions to receive task sets from the task generator 22. The scheduling agent 112 functions to create a master task sequence from the incoming task sets received at the task source interface 110. The scheduling agent 112 is configured and in communication with both the prioritization 116 and route optimization agents 118, ¶ 0033. Orders 24a, 24b, and 24c--each containing several discrete tasks--are received from task generators at different times. As they arrive, the individual tasks are extracted and queued into a master task sequence 26. The queue is subject to change as further discussed below, but nonetheless, ready for assignment to workers, ¶ 0050);
automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the set of expected labor resources for each customer order (i.e., The scheduling agent 112 is configured and in communication with both the prioritization 116 and route optimization agents 118, ¶ 0033);
automatically scheduling the allocated set of expected labor resources and the set of tasks for fulfilling the set of customer orders (i.e., The scheduling agent 112 is configured and in communication with both the prioritization 116 and route optimization agents 118, ¶ 0033);
accessing an identified set of actors associated with the set of expected labor resources within an execution schedule time period (i.e., . The scheduling agent 112 is configured and in communication with both the prioritization 116 and route optimization agents 118, such that the prioritization agent 116 can influence the scheduling of the task within the master task set as a function of time-based requirements, ¶ 0033);
automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period, the optimization including reducing travel by the set of actors (i.e., Scheduling--discussed in further detail below--is apparent in FIG. 3. Task C2 (having "expedited" priority) is placed on the top of the queue; task C3 (having "low" priority) is placed at the bottom. Similarly, tasks likely to be performed in the same areas of a warehouse inventory (cf., "electronics) are grouped together, reducing travel time between work zones, ¶ 0053); and
automatically providing a set of signals describing the optimized allocated set of tasks to the identified set of actors (i.e., The task performer interface 114 functions to transmit a personalized task to the task performer 20 in response to the receipt of an express or implied task request from the task performer, ¶ 0034).
As per claim 2, Grabovski et al disclose implementing the allocated set of tasks with the set of actors in response to the provided set of signals wherein the identified set of actors perform the allocated set of tasks (i.e., The task performer interface 114 functions to transmit a personalized task to the task performer 20 in response to the receipt of an express or implied task request from the task performer, ¶ 0034).
As per claim 5, Grabovski et al disclose the allocation of the set of tasks with the set of expected labor resources for each customer order is automatically updated; and wherein the allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period is dynamically updated in response (i.e., status updates are accomplished automatically once a previously assigned task is assigned or completed. Completion of a picking task, for example, can be reported to a task manager instantaneously once labels on both a picked item and the tote in which it is placed are scanned. With the prior task completed, it can be deleted from a master task schedule and the worker's status information updated to "awaiting task", ¶ 0049).
As per claim 7, Grabovski et al disclose the allocation of the set of tasks with the set of labor resources for the set of customer orders is dynamically updated when a portion of the identified set of actors are missing (i.e., In respect of "current activity", regardless of the variety of nomenclature or tags available for code activities (e.g., "active", "inactive", "pending", "on break", "idle", "awaiting task", "tasked", "engaged", "unassigned", etc.), it is important that information regarding whether or not a worker is ready for a next assignment be quickly and regularly communicated to the task manager, ¶ 0049).3 4 6 21
Claims 8, 9, 12 and 14 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 7, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Claims 15, 16 and 19 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5, respectively, since they are the computer program product claims corresponding to the system claims.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabovski et al (US 20140136255 A1), in view of Hance et al (US 20190066041 A1).
As per claim 3, Grabovski et al does not disclose accessing an identified set of automated machines associated with the set of expected labor resources within the execution schedule time period; wherein the allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period includes automatically optimizing the allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of automated machines for fulfilling the set of customer orders.
Hance et al disclose scheduling information for robots at the automated warehouse may be considered. The scheduling information includes future tasks scheduled to be performed by robots at the warehouse. Such tasks may include repositioning inventory at the facility, unloading cargo from a delivery truck, and loading cargo onto a delivery truck, as well as other operations. In some examples, the scheduling information may include a separate ordered queue of tasks currently assigned to each robot at the warehouse (¶ 0028).
Grabovski et al and Hance et al are concerned with effective warehouse management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include accessing an identified set of automated machines associated with the set of expected labor resources within the execution schedule time period; wherein the allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period includes automatically optimizing the allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of automated machines for fulfilling the set of customer orders in Grabovski et al, as seen in Hance et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, Grabovski et al does not disclose the identified set of automated machines and the identified set of actors perform the allocated set of tasks in response to the provided set of signals.
Hance et al disclose warehouse and supply-chain coordinator 100 is in communication with each of robots 750, 752, 754, 756, 758, 760 so that warehouse and supply chain coordinator 100 can send commands and/or other messages to the robots and receive responses and/or other messages from the robots (¶ 0123).
Grabovski et al and Hance et al are concerned with effective warehouse management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the identified set of automated machines and the identified set of actors perform the allocated set of tasks in response to the provided set of signals in Grabovski et al, as seen in Hance et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 6, Grabovski et al does not disclose the allocation of the set of tasks with the set of labor resources for the set of customer orders is dynamically updated when incoming shipments are delayed.
Hance et al disclose tasks can be scheduled based on the truck's estimated time of arrival so that congestion at the loading dock is reduced or eliminated to reduce or eliminate delay in delivering the pallet(s) from the warehouse to the truck (¶ 0046).
Grabovski et al and Hance et al are concerned with effective warehouse management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the allocation of the set of tasks with the set of labor resources for the set of customer orders is dynamically updated when incoming shipments are delayed in Grabovski et al, as seen in Hance et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 21, Grabovski et al does not disclose accessing a set of equipment resources at the distribution warehouse locality for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the planned schedule time period; wherein automatically optimizing includes automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the set of expected labor resources and the set of equipment resources for each customer order; wherein automatically scheduling includes automatically scheduling the allocated set of expected labor resources, the set of equipment resources, and the set of tasks for fulfilling the set of customer orders; wherein accessing an identified set of actors includes accessing an identified set of actors associated with the set of expected labor resources and an identified set of equipment associated with the set of equipment resources, within the execution schedule time period; and wherein automatically optimizing includes automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors and the identified set of equipment for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period, the optimization including reducing travel by the set of actors.
Hance et al disclose an automated warehouse is a facility with robots that are configured to perform automated tasks to facilitate management of inventory at the facility. By using robots in an automated warehouse, visibility into warehouse operation may be improved. In particular, data from the robots may allow for accurate inventory tracking as well as accurate projections of when inventory may be made available for pickup at the warehouse (¶ 0023).
In order to project when the cargo will be available for pickup, scheduling information for robots at the automated warehouse may be considered. The scheduling information includes future tasks scheduled to be performed by robots at the warehouse. Such tasks may include repositioning inventory at the facility, unloading cargo from a delivery truck, and loading cargo onto a delivery truck, as well as other operations. In some examples, the scheduling information may include a separate ordered queue of tasks currently assigned to each robot at the warehouse (¶ 0028).
The scheduling information includes scheduled tasks to be performed by robots at automated warehouse 1808. In some examples, the scheduled tasks may include ordered queues of tasks assigned to each robot. In further examples, some or all of the scheduled tasks for the fleet of robots at automated warehouse 1808 may not yet be assigned to particular robots (¶ 0158).
Grabovski et al and Hance et al are concerned with effective warehouse management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include accessing a set of equipment resources at the distribution warehouse locality for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the planned schedule time period; wherein automatically optimizing includes automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the set of expected labor resources and the set of equipment resources for each customer order; wherein automatically scheduling includes automatically scheduling the allocated set of expected labor resources, the set of equipment resources, and the set of tasks for fulfilling the set of customer orders; wherein accessing an identified set of actors includes accessing an identified set of actors associated with the set of expected labor resources and an identified set of equipment associated with the set of equipment resources, within the execution schedule time period; and wherein automatically optimizing includes automatically optimizing an allocation of the set of tasks with the identified set of actors and the identified set of equipment for fulfilling the set of customer orders within the execution schedule time period, the optimization including reducing travel by the set of actors in Grabovski et al, as seen in Hance et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 22 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 and 21, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Claims 17, 18, 20 and 23 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 and 21, respectively, since they are the computer program product claims corresponding to the system claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses warehouse task management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 June 13, 2025
Prosecution Insights