DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Background
The Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment, filed on 11/13/23, have been entered.
According to the Amendments, claims 1-16 were pending. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14-16 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-16 are pending.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed towards a method, and claims 9-16 are directed towards a system.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Independent claim 1 recites a mental process and thereby is treated as an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method of controlling two or more actively cooled totes, the method comprising: determining a first ordering of the two or more actively cooled totes; determining that an alert condition occurred for an alerted tote of the two or more actively cooled totes; and determining a second ordering of the two or more actively cooled totes based on the alert condition where the alerted tote is in a different position in the ordering than in the first ordering. (Emphasis added.)
Each step of the claimed method constitutes a “mental process,” because each step is capable of being performed in the human mind. Whether determining a first ordering, an alert condition, or a second ordering, none of the method steps require more than observation and decision-making. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
None of the additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception as there are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea recited in the claim.
For the reasons above, claim 1 is not patent eligible subject matter within the meaning of § 101. Claims 2-8 are ineligible as they depend from claim 1.
For the aforementioned reasons, independent claim 9 is not patent eligible subject matter as well as claims 10-16 which depend therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2019/0263219 to Spath (Spath). For claims 1 and 9, Spath discloses a system and method of controlling two or more actively cooled totes (100), the method comprising:
determining a first ordering of the two or more actively cooled totes (see ¶ [0066-0068] for calculating, via a server, an optimum distribution of goods across one or more climate-controlled coolers associated with one or more customer orders, wherein the goods are assigned to a designated cooler which, in turn, are then sorted according to mail stops on delivery routes);
determining that an alert condition occurred for an alerted tote of the two or more actively cooled totes (see ¶ [0087] for comparing the measured temperature of a cooler with the standards for each good in the cooler and taking responsive action in the event of the measured temperature exceeding the permissible range associated with that good); and
determining a second ordering of the two or more actively cooled totes based on the alert condition where the alerted tote is in a different position in the ordering than in the first ordering (see ¶ [0074] for providing that the responsive action may be implemented by communicating back to the driver's smartphone to remove a good from the delivery (e.g., instruct the driver to quarantine that good).
In regards to claims 3 and 11, Spath further discloses that one or both of the first ordering and second ordering are determined by a Warehouse Execution Software (60). See ¶ [0056] (providing one or more servers, onsite or off-site, for managing operations of the warehouse management system).
In regards to claims 4 and 12, Spath further discloses that determining that the alert condition occurred for the alerted tote comprises receiving a warning from the alerted tote. See ¶ [0093] (providing an visual indicator on the screen of the driver’s app indicating that at least one good in a cooler has exceeded its permissible range).
In regards to claims 5 and 13, Spath further discloses that the warning from the alerted tote indicates the alerted tote is getting close to its threshold temperature for product safety or integrity. See ¶ [0093] (providing an visual indicator on the screen of the driver’s app indicating that at least one good in a cooler has exceeded its permissible range).
In regards to claims 6 and 14, Spath further discloses that determining the second ordering comprises one or more of: deprioritizing the alerted tote and/or sending the alerted tote back to a rack position or other charging location; sending the alerted tote to an order buffer charging rack; moving the alerted tote to the front of the line to be the next order processed; and moving the alerted tote at least early enough to avoid negative repercussions for the product in the alerted tote. See ¶ [0087] (inferring deprioritizing from the act of removing a good from a delivery route upon the good’s departure from its standard).
In regards to claims 7 and 15, Spath further discloses that one or more totes preceding the alerted tote are moved out of the way. See ¶ [0087].
In regards to claims 8 and 16, Spath further discloses that determining that an alert condition occurred for an alerted tote comprises determining that an amount of battery left for the alerted tote is insufficient for the amount of time needed to schedule the alerted tote. See ¶ [0070] (interrogating the coolers about their status (e.g., temperature and battery charge level) … all coolers at or below a predetermined threshold temperature and at or above a predetermined charge level respond with a visual or audible response).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 10 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Spath, supra, as applied to claim 1 and 9, in view of US Pub. No. 2022/0026139 to LaValley et al. (LaValley). For both claims, Spath discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for transport robots.
Although Spath does not explicitly disclose this limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, LaValley teaches a system wherein the two or more actively cooled totes are controlled by one or more automated guided vehicles. See ¶ [0004] (providing climate-controlled container configured to transported by robots).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the system of Spath with transport robots of LaValley in order to improve processing times in the warehouse or deliveries during mail stops.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2020/0071076 to Fosnight et al. discloses an automated order fulfillment system having different temperature zones and robots and containers capable of and/or configured to work in these different temperature zones.
US Pub. No. 2018/0058739 to Zou discloses an order fulfillment system for perishable goods using transportable climate-controlled units. A computing environment may control operation and transportation of network-enabled refrigeration units using mobile drive units capable of navigating a materials handing center or other space. The mobile drive units may recharge or otherwise provide power to the refrigeration units as they are transported.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is 571.270.7769. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5 PM.
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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655