DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed October 1, 2025. Applicant’s October 1st amendment canceled claims 1-20 and added new claims 21-40. Claims 21, 28 and 35 are the independent claims.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's cancellation of claims 1-20.
Applicant's addition of new claims 21-40 necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. k-means clustering realizes a 3-5% increase in pick-walk speed; Specification: Paragraph 43; Remarks: Page 8).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims remain directed to organizing human activity of order fulfillment specifically transmitting instructions for employees to perform pick-walks (i.e. pick list generation, pick-walk/route determination, task assignment), wherein order fulfillment is a fundamental economic practice.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of order fulfillment (i.e. assigning picking tasks/pick-walk route/schedule to an employee), the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (processor, computer readable medium, hardware device, display, database, control devices). At best the claims provide a business solution to an business problem (e.g. minimizing employee travel distances/time when picking order items in a warehouse). The claims merely recite an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving from a customer an order for items may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of accessing vectors based on the items may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of partitioning based on the vectors items into clusters according to k-means clustering algorithm encompasses both a well-known mathematical concept/operation (mathematical grouping of abstract ideas) and can be performed practically by a human evaluating the vectors to determine clusters. The step of assigning item clusters to pick-walks may be performed practically by the human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of transmitting instructions for employees to perform pick-walks is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of providing, sending, or otherwise outputting instructions to employees.
Other than the recitation of a memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including a memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of generating pick-walks for batch picking (Title). In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of receiving, accessing and transmitting steps which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving or outputting data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 43 (below), specifically Applicant’s argument that the recited k-means clustering increases pick walk speed, the examiner respectfully disagrees that increasing the speed of a pick-walk (e.g. reducing distance traveled/walked by a human picker) integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. At best increasing the (human) speed of a pick-walk is an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e. a business solution to a business problem). Neither Applicant’s disclosure nor the pending claims recite/disclose an improvement in the functioning of a computer, computer network or other computing technology, nor do the claims/disclosure recite/disclose a technical solution to a technical problem, nor do the claims/disclosure recite/disclose an improvement to another technical field.
[0043] To reduce travel distance and improve efficiency, the K-Means clustering method is utilized to cluster items by the features listed, such as the walking distance in time required for each pair of zones, categories, and subcategories. The distance between each pair of zones is estimated for the particular store being evaluated and clusters/zones that are closer to each other are placed next to each other. Through the application of the ranked clustering method, walking distances during a pick-walk can be minimized, particularly on cross-zone walks. As a result, a 3% to 5% increase in speed is realized when compared to conventional pick-walks.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), wherein the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” The pending claims do not recite or disclose non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea is no more than generic technological components used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea are the customer and employees who are both humans and the generic memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instruction i.e., generic technological components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
These recited additional elements are merely generic technological components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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.
Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 21, 28 and 35, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of order fulfillment (Title: “…Generating Pick-Walks Based on Batch Picking”). This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, order fulfillment (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to transmitting instructions for employees to perform pick-walks (i.e. pick list generation, pick-walk/route determination/assignment), wherein order fulfillment is a fundamental economic practice. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “accessing”, “partitioning”, “assigning”, and “transmitting” recite functions of the order fulfillment are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities or commercial interactions. The step of determine partitioning the items into clusters according to a k-means clustering algorithm is also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent Claims 21, 28 and 35 appears to transmitting pick-walk (e.g. a list of pick task) instructions to employees who may or may not perform/follow/execute the pick-walk instructions.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the customer and employees who are people and the generic computer elements: memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions. These generic computing components are merely used to obtain/receive and process information as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 4). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's order fulfillment in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 21-40 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of partitioning the items into clusters according to k-means clustering and assigning the item clusters to pick-walks all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further the step of partitioning the items into clusters according to k-means clustering is directed to mathematical operations/concepts.
Other than the recitation of a memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step accessing vectors based on the items each vector associated with corresponding one of the items is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of transmitting instructions for employees to perform the pick-walks to collect the items merely recites insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the accessing and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 22-27, 29-24 and 36-40, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of order fulfillment and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 21, 28 and 35.
Claims 22, 29 and 36 further limit the abstract idea by ranking the item clusters based on relative walking distance and assigning the item clusters to pick walks based on the ranking (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, mathematical operation). Claims 23, 30 and 37 further limit the abstract idea by wherein at least two item clusters assigning being less than a threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 24 and 31 further limit the abstract idea by assigning at least two item clusters to a common pick walk (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 25 and 38 further limit the abstract idea wherein the item clusters are assigned have a common temperature band (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 26, 33 and 40 further limit the abstract idea wherein the pick-walks are performed by different people (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 27 and 34 further limit the abstract idea by a mean walking distance corresponding to one item cluster and a cluster centroid (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 32 and 39 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the temperature bands to ambient, chilled or frozen (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 21-40, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor, and non-transitory storage media including computer instructions at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 4). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 4). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a memory, processor, system, computer program product, computer readable medium having programming instructions or similar generic computer structures which at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of accessing, processing and transmitting data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Rajkhowa, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230024361 discloses an order fulfillment system and method comprising: batch picking, clustering orders, and assigning to pickers.
• Murphy, U.S. Patent No. 11755994 discloses an order fulfillment system and method comprising generating and transmitting pick list/sequence based on pick order requests.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625