DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1-20 in application number 18/508,741. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy 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 in the specification.
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0327599 (Krishnamoorthy) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0188910 (Jin).
Regarding Claim 1:
Krishnamoorthy teaches a system for picking ecommerce items in a retail store for scheduled delivery times. Krishnamoorthy teaches: A system comprising: a computing system configured to: ([0024] “cloud server…distributed computing server”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least ([0026] and Fig 1A).
receive a scheduled customer order from a first customer device operated by a first customer, wherein the scheduled customer order includes a first set of items for picking in a store, ([0016] “The system may receive a customer order from a customer device of a customer. The customer order may be for an in-store pickup of a set of items from a retail store”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least ([0030] “102 a or b”).
and wherein the scheduled customer order is associated with scheduled order data that includes a pickup time at the store defined by the first customer; ([0017] “The slot-related information may be related to a first set of timeslots, which may include a set of timeslots (e.g., a set of half hour or one hour time windows) available at the retail store within a first period (e.g., a certain day, week, or month)” and ([0026] “the customer device 104 may display a set of timeslots to choose from for the in-store pickup of the customer order).
a first picker mobile scanning device (MSD) configured to be moved throughout the store by a first picker, wherein the computing system includes a first picker data record including first picker data indicating that the first picker MSD is configured to receive items from scheduled customer orders, and wherein the computing system is configured to assign one or more items from the scheduled customer order to the first picker MSD based on the first picker data; Examiner in interpreting Applicant’s scheduled customer orders as regular priority items. ([0023] “Each of the set of human workers 122 may operate one or more worker devices (of the set of worker devices 108). For example, the first human worker 122A may operate the first worker device 108A” and [0030] “each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order)”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least ([0026] “119 a, b, c”).
and a second picker MSD configured to be moved throughout the store by a second picker, wherein the computing system includes a second picker data record including second picker data indicating that the second picker MSD is configured to receive items from unscheduled customer orders, and wherein the computing system is configured to assign one or more items from the unscheduled customer order to the second picker MSD based on the second picker data. ([0023] “Each of the set of human workers 122 may operate one or more worker devices (of the set of worker devices 108). For example… the second human worker 122B may operate the second worker device 108B” and [0030] “each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order)”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least ([0026] “119 a, b, c”).
While Krishnamoorthy teaches assigning a priority to an order for the purpose of processing it based on customer loyalty/club membership or number of items in an order or customer location (see at least [0052]), Krishnamoorthy does not teach a customer selecting rush service (immediate pick up). Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: and receive an unscheduled customer order from a second customer device operated by a second customer, wherein the unscheduled customer order includes a second set of items for picking in the store, and wherein the unscheduled customer order includes unscheduled order data indicating that the unscheduled customer order is requested for immediate pickup by the second custome. Examiner is interpreting Applicant’s claimed “unscheduled customer order is requested for immediate pickup” as a “rush” or “high priority” order which is “scheduled” for picking as close as possible to the present time. Jin, who also teaches a fulfillment system to pick items for customer orders, teaches this element: ([0072] “a customer may assign an urgent priority to an order at the time of purchase, for instance, by electing to pay an additional charge for quicker delivery. A business may also assign an urgent priority according to customer priority, such as a premier plan membership, item perishability, picker availability”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the in-store picking system that offers scheduled pick up times, as taught by Krishnamoorthy, with a system that can also accommodate a customer who is waiting in the store or pays extra for rush (unscheduled) delivery, as taught by Jin, due to the predictable improvement in customer satisfaction from faster service.
Regarding Claims 2-3:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Krishnamoorthy teaches that one picker can be assigned to pick an entire order (see at least [0030] “each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order or a sub-order thereof ”), Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the first picker data record indicates that the first picker MSD is restricted from receiving items included in unscheduled customer orders. The system of claim 1, wherein the second picker data record indicates that the second picker MSD is restricted from receiving items included in scheduled customer orders. Jin teaches that some individual pickers can pick only regular orders and other individual pickers can pick only rush orders: ([0076] “FO system 113 may also determine a current job priority of the picker. Pickers performing picking operations may have current job priorities reflecting the priority of their currently-assigned items. For example, picker A may be locating items assigned an urgent priority because they must ship soon to reach a customer by a promised time, while picker B locates items assigned a normal priority. In this case, picker A has a current job priority of “urgent” while picker B has a current job priority of “normal”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the in-store picking system that assigns each picker a full order, as taught by Krishnamoorthy, could additionally specify that a particular order is rush or regular speed, as taught by Jin, due to the predictable improvement in rush service performance due to having dedicated employees and predictable improvement in customer satisfaction.
Regarding Claims 4-6:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Krishnamoorthy teaches that one picker can be assigned to pick an entire order (see at least [0030] “each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order or a sub-order thereof”), Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the first picker data record indicates that the first picker MSD is configured to receive items from unscheduled customer orders. The system of claim 1, wherein the second picker data record indicates that the second picker MSD is configured to receive items from scheduled customer orders. The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to assign items from the unscheduled customer order to a third picker MSD configured to receive items from unscheduled customer orders. Examiner notes that in claim 1, lines 11-15, picker #1 picks “scheduled” (regular) orders. In claim 2, picker #1 is limited to only picking “scheduled” (regular) orders. In claim 4, picker #1 (also) picks “unscheduled” (rush) orders making claim 2 and claim 4 mutually exclusive embodiments. Examiner is interpreting that the BRI of Claim 4, in view of its dependency on Claim 1, is that a particular picker can pick either a rush or a regular order. Similarly, claim 3 and claim 5 are mutually exclusive embodiments with the BRI of Claim 5, in view of its dependency on Claim 1, is that a particular picker can pick either a rush or a regular order. Similarly the BRI of Claim 6 in view of Claim 1 is that any picker can be assigned a rush order. As previously discussed with respect to Claims 2-3, Jin teaches that some individual pickers can pick only regular orders and other individual pickers can pick only rush orders: ([0076] “picker A may be locating items assigned an urgent priority because they must ship soon to reach a customer by a promised time, while picker B locates items assigned a normal priority. In this case, picker A has a current job priority of “urgent” while picker B has a current job priority of “normal”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the in-store picking system that assigns each picker a full order, as taught by Krishnamoorthy, could additionally specify that a particular order is rush or regular speed, as taught by Jin, due to the predictable improvement in rush service performance due to having dedicated employees and predictable improvement in customer satisfaction.
Regarding Claim 7:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to: receive a plurality of additional customer orders from a plurality of additional customers; and classify one or more of the additional customer orders as unscheduled customer orders based on satisfaction of one or more eligibility conditions. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, Examiner is interpreting “unscheduled customer orders” as rush orders versus regular orders. ([0052] “the circuitry 202 may assign a priority to the customer orders based on one or more of a membership or loyalty points of a customer with the retail store 116, a number of items in the customer order, an invoiced amount of the customer order, a location-based rule for the customers (who placed the orders), or a payment mode associated with the customer order”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least [0072].
Regarding Claim 8:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 7. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the computing system is configured to reclassify one or more of the unscheduled customer orders as scheduled customer orders. Examiner is interpreting this element to mean that the system can downgrade the priority of orders. Krishnamoorthy teaches: ([0088] “in case of a change in the set of inputs 316 or receipt of new orders, the first timeslot may be re-evaluated dynamically. The first timeslot may be re-evaluated for change of any input or receipt of each new order in an online manner. In an example, a human worker of a certain department of the retail store 116 may call-in sick at the start of a day while orders may be already scheduled for the day. In such a case, suborders for that department from all orders scheduled for the particular day may be re-assigned to other human workers associated with the particular department. The re-assignment for order servicing may be executed such that there may be minimal changes to the initial timeslot assignments (i.e., the initially determined first timeslot). However, in case a timeslot assignment for any order is modified, the concerned customer (e.g., the customer 120) may be notified on a customer-device (e.g., the customer device 104) of the customer 120”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 7. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the eligibility conditions include a customer location eligibility condition that is based on customer location. ([0052] “the circuitry 202 may assign a priority to the customer orders based on one or more of… a location-based rule for the customers (who placed the orders)”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least [0067].
Regarding Claim 10:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 7. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the eligibility conditions include an order size eligibility condition that is based on the number of items in a customer order. ([0052] “the circuitry 202 may assign a priority to the customer orders based on one or more of… a number of items in the customer order”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least [0093].
Regarding Claim 11:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 7. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the eligibility conditions include a store eligibility condition that is based on a number of pickers in the store. ([0017] “The order preparation constraints may be related to a number of human workers who may work at or may be employed with the retail store and may service an order received by the retail store”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least [0097].
Regarding Claim 12:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 7. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the eligibility conditions include a store eligibility condition that is based on at least one of a number of orders for the store and a number of items being picked at the store. ([0018] “The system may determine a capacity constraint based on the received set of inputs. The capacity constraint may be indicative of a number of customer orders to be scheduled for the in-store pickup within each timeslot of the first set of timeslots” and also see [0077] “number of items”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least [0095].
Regarding Claims 13 and 14:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the first picker MSD is configured to render a picking graphical user interface indicating that one or more items are associated with the scheduled customer order. The system of claim 1, wherein the second picker MSD is configured to render a picking graphical user interface indicating that one or more items are associated with the unscheduled customer order. ([0030] “The set of worker devices 108 may include suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to enable the set of human workers 122 to service the customer orders… The client-side application or the software application may include a user-interface for human workers (e.g., the set of human workers 122) of the retail store 116. Through the web-client or the software application, each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order or a sub-order thereof… Examples of the set of worker devices 108 may include, but are not limited to… a mobile phone, a smartphone, a cellular phone… or any computing device with capability to execute a web-client or a software application associated with the retail store”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Jin also teaches this element in at least [0065] and [0052].
Regarding Claim 15:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 14. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 14, wherein the second picker MSD is configured to receive additional items from an additional scheduled customer order, and wherein the picking graphical user interface indicates that the additional items are associated with the additional scheduled customer order. Examiner is interpreting this element to mean that additional items are picked on a rush basis and added onto a customer’s pre-scheduled order (such as in the situation when a customer is in the store to pick up a pre-scheduled order and decides to purchase additional items or items in the scheduled order are damaged and need to be replaced while the customer is waiting). This interpretation is reasonable in view of Applicant’s specification at ([1240] “the CCS may prioritize assigning complete orders first and then assign the in-person items as the in-person items are needed. In these implementations, the CCS may treat in-person items as additional items to assign to users that are already picking items. In some implementations (not illustrated), the in-person items may be items for a customer that has already placed a complete customer order. For example, a customer at the store to pick up a previously placed order may add items (e.g., in-person items) to their order while waiting for the order, or just after receiving their order. Such items added at the last minute may be treated as in-person items”). Krishnamoorthy teaches this: [0034] “the retail store 116 may allow customers to add more items to a serviced customer order, while visiting the retail store 116 to pick-up the items of a serviced customer order”). In the interests of compact prosecution, Jin also teaches this element, see especially [0079-0080] and [0108].
Regarding Claim 16:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Krishnamoorthy also teaches a) order item carriers ([0080] “order cart”), b) a picker picking an entire order (see at least [0030] “each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order or a sub-order thereof”) and c) that orders may have different priorities (see at least [0052]), Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the store includes scheduled order item carriers and unscheduled order item carriers for scheduled orders and unscheduled orders, respectively. As previously discussed with respect to Claim 1, Jin teaches that each picker can pick exclusively rush or regular orders: (see at least [0076] “picker A may be locating items assigned an urgent priority because they must ship soon to reach a customer by a promised time, while picker B locates items assigned a normal priority. In this case, picker A has a current job priority of “urgent” while picker B has a current job priority of “normal”) and Jin further teaches that each picker has their own cart ([0065] “transport mechanism 214…cart”), thus everything on a rush picker’s cart is inherently rush and everything on a regular picker’s cart is inherently regular.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the in-store picking system that assigns each picker a full order, as taught by Krishnamoorthy, could additionally specify that a particular order is rush or regular speed, as taught by Jin, and further assign each picker their own cart due to the predictable improvement in rush service performance due to having dedicated employees and equipment and predictable improvement in customer satisfaction.
Regarding Claim 17:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Krishnamoorthy also teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the first picker MSD and the second picker MSD are configured to generate graphical user interfaces that provide carrier selection instructions, and wherein the carrier selection instructions instruct the first picker and the second picker to acquire scheduled order item carriers and unscheduled order item carriers, respectively. ([0030] “The set of worker devices 108 may include suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to enable the set of human workers 122 to service the customer orders… each worker device (e.g., the first worker device 108A) may receive a notification from the system 102 and/or the store manager device 110. The notification may include a schedule for the servicing the customer order and a set of instructions for the human worker (e.g., the first human worker 122A) to service the customer order or a sub-order thereof… Examples of the set of worker devices 108 may include, but are not limited to… a mobile phone, a smartphone, a cellular phone”).
Regarding Claim 18:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Krishnamoorthy teaches that each picker has a portable device on which they receive directions of what items to pick for an order (see [0023] and [0030]), Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the first picker MSD and the second picker MSD are configured to generate picking graphical user interfaces that indicate which items should be placed in unscheduled item carriers and which items should be placed in scheduled item carriers. As previously discussed with respect to Claim 1, Jin teaches that each picker can pick exclusively rush or regular orders: (see at least [0076]) and Jin further teaches that each picker has their own cart ([0065] “transport mechanism 214…cart”), thus everything on a rush picker’s cart is rush and everything on a regular picker’s cart is regular. Therefore when a rush picker picks an item they put it on their own cart, thus their cart is a rush cart and the direction they receive from their portable device to pick is a direction to put the item onto a specific rush cart (their own cart).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the in-store picking system in which each picker has their own cart and own portable device on which they receive picking instructions, as taught by Krishnamoorthy, could additionally specify that a particular order is rush or regular speed, as taught by Jin, thereby predictably creating rush carts and regular carts resulting in the predictable improvement in rush service performance due to having dedicated employees and equipment and predictable improvement in customer satisfaction.
Regarding Claim 20:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to assign the one or more items from the unscheduled customer order based on a location of the second picker MSD in the store. Jin teaches this: ([0075] “FO system 113 identifies a picker closest to the item” and also see [0079-0080]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the in-store picking system taught by Krishnamoorthy could predictably be improved by specifying that some pickers are rush pickers, as taught by Jin, and discussed previously with respect to Claim 1, and further predictably improved by selecting a particular rush picker who is physically closest to a rush item to pick that item, as taught by Jin, with the predictable result of improvement in rush service performance and predictable improvement in customer satisfaction.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0327599 (Krishnamoorthy) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0188910 (Jin) further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0260158 (High).
Regarding Claim 19:
Krishnamoorthy in view of Jin teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Krishnamoorthy does not specifically teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the store includes designated scheduled order areas and designated unscheduled order areas for placing items picked for the scheduled customer order and the unscheduled customer order, respectively. High, also in the art of fulfilling orders using pickers in a retail store, teaches this: ([0143] “when a customer is scheduled to pick up the ordered one or more products at the shopping facility, a two-step process may include: the collection or assembly of the order into one or more storage containers at one or more storage locations (e.g., based on… expected pickup date and time, etc)” ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that items picked for customer pickup in the system taught by Krishnamoorthy could be stored in multiple storage locations based on expected pickup date and time, as taught by High, due to predictable improvements in organization and speed in finding the items when the customer arrives for pickup.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art at the time of applicant’s application.
U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0230031 (Lert1) and similarly U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0029145 (Lert2) teach a system with in-store picking of goods for customer pickup and teaches three types of service – (1) self service (customer personally gets items off retail shelves and checks out through a point of sale), (2) same day pick up (picker picks items from retail floor and get them ready for customer pickup on the same day they are ordered (i.e. rush)) and (3) “not same day pick-up” (picker picks items from retail floor and get them ready for customer pickup at some later day and time (i.e. scheduled pickup)). This reference also teaches a picker cart and picker device.
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0266555 (Rajkhowa) teaches an order fulfillment system with rush and regular service levels that fulfills orders from a retail store and teaches a picker cart and picker device with a GUI. This reference teaches reclassifying a rush order as a regular order, using the number of pickers to determine if an order is accepted as rush and adding on to an order being picked.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627