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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 are pending in the application. In response to Applicant's amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous objections and withdraws the previous rejections under 101. Examiner notes that all previous objections and rejections pertaining to canceled claims 7 and 15 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 under 102 or 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
As explained in [0045], a selected robot allocation “can be predefined, e.g., as configuration data stored in the memory” or “dynamic, e.g., based on the number of orders represented in the primary sequence, and the number of orders each robot 128 can accommodate.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivas and Yu (“Collaborative order picking with multiple pickers and robots: Integrated approach for order batching, sequencing and picker-robot routing”, 2022; hereafter “Srinivas”) in view of Antony and Rouaix (US 7751928 B1; hereafter “Antony”).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivas discloses
obtaining a primary sequence including an ordered set of item identifiers and item locations corresponding to the item identifiers (Primary sequence: pick list. Obtain: “A rule-based constructive approach is used to generate an initial feasible mission and pick lists for the AMRs and workers, respectively” [page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. See “The pick list specifies the set of items, their location, and sequence in which they must be visited by the human workers to perform the pick-and-place operation” [page 5, col. 2]. Items are identified in the list by an item number
i
∈
N
and associated with a SKU number and location; see Table 2 and section 3.1 on pages 4 and 5. See also Fig. 6.);
generating a plurality of auxiliary sequences, each auxiliary sequence including a portion of the ordered set of item identifiers and the item locations corresponding to the portion (Auxiliary sequence: mission list. Obtain: “A rule-based constructive approach is used to generate an initial feasible mission and pick lists for the AMRs and workers, respectively” [page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. See “the mission list provides the AMRs with the number of tours, list of items to be collected in each tour along with their location and sequence” [page 5, col. 2]. Items are identified in the list by an item number
i
∈
N
and associated with a SKU number and location; see Table 2 and section 3.1 on pages 4 and 5. In Fig. 6, the mission lists for Robot 1 and Robot 2 each have a portion of the items on the pick list of Picker 1.);
deploying the primary sequence to a picker for retrieving, from the item locations, items having the item identifiers (See “Picker receives picking list”, “Picker moves from depot to location of first item on the list”, and “Picker retrieves the item and places it on the AMR” in the flowchart of Fig. 3. For the picker to receive a picking list (primary sequence), the picking list must have been deployed. See “The pick list specifies the set of items, their location, and sequence in which they must be visited by the human workers to perform the pick-and-place operation” [page 5, col. 2].);
for each auxiliary sequence, deploying the auxiliary sequence to a corresponding one of a plurality of robots (Auxiliary sequence: mission list; robot: autonomous mobile robot (AMR). See “AMR receives mission list” in the flowchart of Fig. 3. For the AMR to receive a mission list (auxiliary sequence), the mission list must have been deployed. In Fig. 6, one mission list is assigned to each robot, and there are two robots.),
each robot configured to receive the items retrieved at the item locations corresponding to the portion (See “AMR travels from depot to the location of the first item in the batch” and “AMR receives the item from picker” in the flowchart of Fig. 4. See also “the mission list provides the AMRs with the number of tours, list of items to be collected in each tour along with their location and sequence” [page 5, col. 2]. In Fig. 6, the mission lists for Robot 1 and Robot 2 each have a portion of the items on the pick list of Picker 1.);
in response to determining that an auxiliary sequence is complete, controlling the corresponding robot to travel to a terminal location (Auxiliary sequence: mission list; robot: AMR; terminal location: drop-off point or depot. See in the flowchart of Fig. 4: “Are all AMR tours completed?” [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] “AMR returns to depot”. Each tour of an AMR collects a batch of items in the mission list, so the auxiliary sequence is complete if all tours are completed [page 5, col. 2]. See “The AMRs are responsible for transporting the items to the drop-off point,” [page 5, col. 1].).
However, Srinivas does not explicitly teach “updating a progress of the primary sequence and a progress of the auxiliary sequence based on a single data capture operation performed at the corresponding robot.”
Antony, in the same field of endeavor (order picking and fulfillment), teaches
updating a progress of the primary sequence and a progress of the auxiliary sequence based on a single data capture operation performed at the corresponding robot (Confirming an item has been picked and identifying where the item was placed/received: “Once an item has been selected, [picker] agent 200 may deposit the selected item in a particular tote 310… agent 200 may select a free tote 310 into which to put a newly selected item and may scan or otherwise input the corresponding tote code 350 into communication device 250 to indicate the selected tote 310” [col. 8, lines 37-59]. A robot agent 200 transports tote 310 [col. 15, lines 36-67], so the scanning or inputting of a code is performed at the corresponding robot. Both picking agents 200 and robot agents 200 follow a path/plan (primary or auxiliary sequence) assigned by control system 210 [col. 23, line 63 to col. 24, line 21]. See “agents 200 may acknowledge completion of a particular action or event, for example by [a data capture operation:] scanning or entering an item code 351 or a tote code 350 in response to picking or restocking an item 325, depositing or retrieving an item 325 or a tote 310 from an exchange station 120, etc. In some such embodiments, control system 210 may use such acknowledgements to track progress of an agent 200 as well as the status of customer orders” (emphasis added) [col. 25, lines 14-23]. Agents’ plan instructions from the control system 210 are based on the states of orders and agents [col. 25, lines 24-40]. In at least one embodiment, the robot agent 200 lacks sensors to determine the items it carries (see col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 6; col. 9, lines 34-54; col. 15, lines 36-67), so the data capture operation above is the only (single) data capture operation. See also col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 33; col. 10, lines 42-60; col. 15, lines 36-67; col. 23, lines 15-33; col. 19, lines 27-46; col. 25, lines 41-51; and col. 27, line 63 to col. 28, line 43.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the item picking method of Srinivas to update the progress of picking items as taught by Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of dynamically determining next actions of agents (Antony, col. 23, line 63 to col. 24, line 21).
Regarding claim 5, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
in response to obtaining the primary sequence: selecting a robot allocation for the primary sequence (The initial solution generated by Algorithm 2 selects all possible robots when the number of items is greater than or equal to the number of robots (and the allocated number of robots is equal to the number of items when the number of items is less than the total number of robots) since any robot not yet assigned an item will arrive at a new item’s location sooner than all robots that must stop to receive an already assigned item from a picker [see page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. Note that items are assigned to a picker (Algorithm 2, line 11) before they are assigned to robots (line 26). The number of robots in the set of AMRs R is an input of Algorithm 2 and defined as 1, 2, or 4 in the problem instances given in page 12, col. 2, section 5.1.);
wherein generating the plurality of auxiliary sequences includes generating a number of auxiliary sequences equal to the robot allocation (Following Algorithm 2 to generate an initial solution, the number of auxiliary sequences is always the number of allocated robots. See that two auxiliary sequences are generated and assigned to two robots in Fig. 6.).
Regarding claim 6, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein selecting the robot allocation is based on (i) a capacity of each robot (See also “Depending on the order quantity of item numbered
i
∈
N
, the number of storage bins (
β
i
) required by the AMR will be determined” [page 5, col. 1]. The capacity of a robot Kr is its number of bins which an AMR can carry [page 6, parameters].), and
(ii) a number of the ordered set of item identifiers (Again, the initial solution generated by Algorithm 2 selects all possible robots when the number of items is greater than or equal to the number of robots (and the allocated number of robots is equal to the number of items when the number of items is less than the total number of robots) since any robot not yet assigned an item will arrive at a new item’s location sooner than all robots that must stop to receive an already assigned item from a picker [see page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. Also, the number of bins required
β
i
is related to the number of items because “two different item numbers
i
,
i
'
∈
N
cannot be placed in the same bin” [page 5, col. 1].).
Regarding claim 8, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Antony further teaches
wherein deploying the primary sequence to the picker includes transmitting the primary sequence to a client computing device (See “Communication device 250 may be configured to convey instructions to agent 200 as to what actions to perform within fulfillment center 100. For example, in one embodiment communication device 250 may receive (e.g., [transmitted] from a control system, such as that shown in FIG. 4 and described below) a list of items to be picked from a particular set of pick modules 110, and may present the items to pick and the pick modules 110 to agent 200 via a display portion of the device such as a screen” [col. 8, lines 7-28]. See “agent 200 may interact with a corresponding communication device 250, which may be a handheld device, a device worn by or attached to the agent, or a device integrated into or mounted on push cart 320 in various embodiments” [col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 6]. See also col. 9, lines 34-54; col. 11, line 65 to col. 12, line 12; col. 23, lines 15-33; col. 25, lines 4-13.); and
wherein deploying each auxiliary sequence includes transmitting each auxiliary sequence to a corresponding robot (See “agents 200 may act in response to instructions received from [transmitted by] control system 210 via communication devices 250” [col. 23, lines 15-33]. Such instructions include “the paths and sequences of actions (e.g., item picking, restocking, and/or exchanging actions) each agent 200” [col. 23, lines 15-33]. The agents 200 include robotic tote running agents [col. 15, lines 36-62], which means the transmitted path/sequence is an auxiliary sequence.).
Regarding claim 9, Srinivas discloses
A computing device, comprising: …a processor (See “All experiments are executed on a desktop with an Intel Core-i9 processor and 128 GB RAM” [page 12, col. 1, section 5].) configured to:
obtain a primary sequence including an ordered set of item identifiers and item locations corresponding to the item identifiers (Primary sequence: pick list. Obtain: “A rule-based constructive approach is used to generate an initial feasible mission and pick lists for the AMRs and workers, respectively” [page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. See “The pick list specifies the set of items, their location, and sequence in which they must be visited by the human workers to perform the pick-and-place operation” [page 5, col. 2]. Items are identified in the list by an item number
i
∈
N
and associated with a SKU number and location; see Table 2 and the section 3.1 Problem description on pages 4 and 5. See also Fig. 6.);
generate a plurality of auxiliary sequences, each auxiliary sequence including a portion of the ordered set of item identifiers and the item locations corresponding to the portion (Auxiliary sequence: mission list. Obtain: “A rule-based constructive approach is used to generate an initial feasible mission and pick lists for the AMRs and workers, respectively” [page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. See “the mission list provides the AMRs with the number of tours, list of items to be collected in each tour along with their location and sequence” [page 5, col. 2]. Items are identified in the list by an item number
i
∈
N
and associated with a SKU number and location; see Table 2 and the section 3.1 Problem description on pages 4 and 5. In Fig. 6, the mission lists for Robot 1 and Robot 2 each have a portion of the items on the pick list of Picker 1.);
deploy… the primary sequence to a picker for retrieving, from the item locations, items having the item identifiers (See “Picker receives picking list”, “Picker moves from depot to location of first item on the list”, and “Picker retrieves the item and places it on the AMR” in the flowchart of Fig. 3. For the picker to receive a picking list (primary sequence), the picking list must have been deployed. See “The pick list specifies the set of items, their location, and sequence in which they must be visited by the human workers to perform the pick-and-place operation” [page 5, col. 2].);
for each auxiliary sequence, deploy… the auxiliary sequence to a corresponding one of a plurality of robots (Auxiliary sequence: mission list; robot: autonomous mobile robot (AMR). See “AMR receives mission list” in the flowchart of Fig. 3. For the AMR to receive a mission list (auxiliary sequence), the mission list must have been deployed. In Fig. 6, one mission list is assigned to each robot, and there are two robots.),
each robot configured to receive the items retrieved at the item locations corresponding to the portion (See “AMR travels from depot to the location of the first item in the batch” and “AMR receives the item from picker” in the flowchart of Fig. 4. See also “the mission list provides the AMRs with the number of tours, list of items to be collected in each tour along with their location and sequence” [page 5, col. 2]. In Fig. 6, the mission lists for Robot 1 and Robot 2 each have a portion of the items on the pick list of Picker 1.);
in response to determining that an auxiliary sequence is complete, controlling the corresponding robot to travel to a terminal location (Auxiliary sequence: mission list; robot: AMR; terminal location: drop-off point or depot. See in the flowchart of Fig. 4: “Are all AMR tours completed?” [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] “AMR returns to depot”. Each tour of an AMR collects a batch of items in the mission list, so the auxiliary sequence is complete if all tours are completed [page 5, col. 2]. See “The AMRs are responsible for transporting the items to the drop-off point,” [page 5, col. 1].).
However, Srinivas does not explicitly teach “a communications interface”, “deploy, via the communications interface, the primary sequence…”, “deploy, via the communications interface, the auxiliary sequence…” and “update a progress of the primary sequence and a progress of the auxiliary sequence based on a single data capture operation performed at the corresponding robot.”
Antony, in the same field of endeavor (order picking and fulfillment), teaches
A computing device, comprising: a communications interface; and a processor (Control system 210 includes computer system 1200 which comprises “one or more processors 1210” and “a network interface 1240” [col. 30, lines 56-67]. See also Fig. 12; col. 8, lines 7-28; col. 23, lines 15-33; col. 31, lines 42-59; and col. 32, lines 12-37.) configured to:
deploy, via the communications interface, the primary sequence to a picker… (See “Network interface 1240 may be configured to allow data to be exchanged between computer system 1200 and other devices attached to a network, such as” communication devices 250 [col. 31, lines 42-59 and col. 32, lines 12-37]. “Communication device 250 may be configured to convey instructions to agent 200 as to what actions to perform within fulfillment center 100. For example, in one embodiment communication device 250 may receive (e.g., [transmitted] from a control system, such as that shown in FIG. 4 and described below) a list of items to be picked from a particular set of pick modules 110, and may present the items to pick and the pick modules 110 to agent 200 via a display portion of the device such as a screen” [col. 8, lines 7-28]. See “agent 200 may interact with a corresponding communication device 250, which may be a handheld device, a device worn by or attached to the agent, or a device integrated into or mounted on push cart 320 in various embodiments” [col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 6]. See also col. 9, lines 34-54; col. 11, line 65 to col. 12, line 12; col. 23, lines 15-33; col. 25, lines 4-13.);
deploy, via the communications interface, the auxiliary sequence to a corresponding one of a plurality of robots… (See “Network interface 1240 may be configured to allow data to be exchanged between computer system 1200 and other devices attached to a network, such as” communication devices 250 [col. 31, lines 42-59 and col. 32, lines 12-37]. See “agents 200 may act in response to instructions received from [transmitted by] control system 210 via communication devices 250” [col. 23, lines 15-33]. Such instructions include “the paths and sequences of actions (e.g., item picking, restocking, and/or exchanging actions) each agent 200” [col. 23, lines 15-33]. The agents 200 include robotic tote running agents [col. 15, lines 36-62], which means the transmitted path/sequence is an auxiliary sequence.);
updating a progress of the primary sequence and a progress of the auxiliary sequence based on a single data capture operation performed at the corresponding robot (Confirming an item has been picked and identifying where the item was placed/received: “Once an item has been selected, [picker] agent 200 may deposit the selected item in a particular tote 310… agent 200 may select a free tote 310 into which to put a newly selected item and may scan or otherwise input the corresponding tote code 350 into communication device 250 to indicate the selected tote 310” [col. 8, lines 37-59]. A robot agent 200 transports tote 310 [col. 15, lines 36-67], so the scanning or inputting of a code is performed at the corresponding robot. Both picking agents 200 and robot agents 200 follow a path/plan (primary or auxiliary sequence) assigned by control system 210 [col. 23, line 63 to col. 24, line 21]. See “agents 200 may acknowledge completion of a particular action or event, for example by [a data capture operation:] scanning or entering an item code 351 or a tote code 350 in response to picking or restocking an item 325, depositing or retrieving an item 325 or a tote 310 from an exchange station 120, etc. In some such embodiments, control system 210 may use such acknowledgements to track progress of an agent 200 as well as the status of customer orders” (emphasis added) [col. 25, lines 14-23]. Agents’ plan instructions from the control system 210 are based on the states of orders and agents [col. 25, lines 24-40]. In at least one embodiment, the robot agent 200 lacks sensors to determine the items it carries (see col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 6; col. 9, lines 34-54; col. 15, lines 36-67), so the data capture operation above is the only (single) data capture operation. See also col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 33; col. 10, lines 42-60; col. 15, lines 36-67; col. 23, lines 15-33; col. 19, lines 27-46; col. 25, lines 41-51; and col. 27, line 63 to col. 28, line 43.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the item picking method of Srinivas to update the progress of picking items as taught by Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of dynamically determining next actions of agents (Antony, col. 23, line 63 to col. 24, line 21).
Regarding claim 13, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 9 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein the processor is configured, in response to obtaining the primary sequence, to: select a robot allocation for the primary sequence (See “All experiments are executed on a desktop with an Intel Core-i9 processor and 128 GB RAM” [page 12, col. 1, section 5]. The initial solution generated by Algorithm 2 selects all possible robots when the number of items is greater than or equal to the number of robots (and the allocated number of robots is equal to the number of items when the number of items is less than the total number of robots) since any robot not yet assigned an item will arrive at a new item’s location sooner than all robots that must stop to receive an already assigned item from a picker [see page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. Note that items are assigned to a picker (Algorithm 2, line 11) before they are assigned to robots (line 26). The number of robots in the set of AMRs R is an input of Algorithm 2 and defined as 1, 2, or 4 in the problem instances given in page 12, col. 2, section 5.1.); and
generate the plurality of auxiliary sequences by generating a number of auxiliary sequences equal to the robot allocation (Following Algorithm 2 to generate an initial solution, the number of auxiliary sequences is always the number of allocated robots. See that two auxiliary sequences are generated and assigned to two robots in Fig. 6.).
Regarding claim 14, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 13 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein the processor is configured to select the robot allocation based on (i) a capacity of each robot (See “All experiments are executed on a desktop with an Intel Core-i9 processor and 128 GB RAM” [page 12, col. 1, section 5]. See also “Depending on the order quantity of item numbered
i
∈
N
, the number of storage bins (
β
i
) required by the AMR will be determined” [page 5, col. 1]. The capacity of a robot Kr is its number of bins which an AMR can carry [page 6, parameters].), and
(ii) a number of the ordered set of item identifiers (Again, the initial solution generated by Algorithm 2 selects all possible robots when the number of items is greater than or equal to the number of robots (and the allocated number of robots is equal to the number of items when the number of items is less than the total number of robots) since any robot not yet assigned an item will arrive at a new item’s location sooner than all robots that must stop to receive an already assigned item from a picker [see page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. Also, the number of bins required
β
i
is related to the number of items because “two different item numbers
i
,
i
'
∈
N
cannot be placed in the same bin” [page 5, col. 1].).
Regarding claim 16, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 9 as addressed above, and Antony additionally teaches
wherein the processor is configured to deploy the primary sequence to the picker by transmitting the primary sequence to a client computing device (See “Communication device 250 may be configured to convey instructions to agent 200 as to what actions to perform within fulfillment center 100. For example, in one embodiment communication device 250 may receive (e.g., [transmitted] from a control system, such as that shown in FIG. 4 and described below) a list of items to be picked from a particular set of pick modules 110, and may present the items to pick and the pick modules 110 to agent 200 via a display portion of the device such as a screen” [col. 8, lines 7-28]. See “agent 200 may interact with a corresponding communication device 250, which may be a handheld device, a device worn by or attached to the agent, or a device integrated into or mounted on push cart 320 in various embodiments” [col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 6]. See also col. 9, lines 34-54; col. 11, line 65 to col. 12, line 12; col. 23, lines 15-33; col. 25, lines 4-13.); and
wherein the processor is configured to deploy each auxiliary sequence by transmitting each auxiliary sequence to a corresponding robot (See “agents 200 may act in response to instructions received from [transmitted by] control system 210 via communication devices 250” [col. 23, lines 15-33]. Such instructions include “the paths and sequences of actions (e.g., item picking, restocking, and/or exchanging actions) each agent 200” [col. 23, lines 15-33]. The agents 200 include robotic tote running agents [col. 15, lines 36-62], which means the transmitted path/sequence is an auxiliary sequence.).
Claims 2, 4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivas in view of Antony, and further in view of Löffler et al. (“Picker Routing in AGV-Assisted Order Picking Systems”, 2021; hereafter “Löffler”).
Regarding claim 2, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein obtaining the primary sequence comprises: obtaining the set of item identifiers and the corresponding item locations (Primary sequence: pick list. Obtain: in Algorithm 2, see line 5 where the set of items in each order Oj are added to intermediate list L by their item numbers
i
∈
N
. The set of item numbers N, set of orders J, and set of items in each order Oj, are supplied as inputs. “A rule-based constructive approach is used to generate an initial feasible mission and pick lists for the AMRs and workers, respectively” [page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. See “The pick list specifies the set of items, their location, and sequence in which they must be visited by the human workers to perform the pick-and-place operation,” therefore, the item locations are obtained to construct the pick list [page 5, col. 2]. See also Table 2 and the section 3.1 Problem description on pages 4 and 5.).
Antony also discloses planning “to minimize the average distance that an agent 200 may travel without picking an item 325” [col. 10, lines 7-25] and planning item exchanges among agents to reduce the distance an agent travels [col. 19, lines 10-26].
However, Srinivas/Antony does not explicitly teach “generating the primary sequence to minimize a total travel distance between the item locations.”
Löffler, also solving the picker routing problem, teaches
generating the primary sequence to minimize a total travel distance between the item locations (See “Among all feasible picker tours, we seek one that minimizes the total travel distance of the picker” [page 443, col. 1, section 1.3] and “The objective function (1) minimizes the total travel distance” [page 444, col. 2]. Srinivas summarizes Löffler’s work: “Löffler et al. (2021)… addressed the picker routing problem by solving it as a clustered traveling salesman problem with the objective of minimizing the total distance traveled” [Srinivas, page 3, col. 1].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the item picking method of Srinivas/Antony to minimize picker travel distance as taught by Löffler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing “the pick density per picking tour and reduc[ing] the pickers’ unproductive walking” (Löffler, page 441, col. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Srinivas/Antony/Löffler discloses the limitations of claim 2 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein obtaining the item identifiers includes: generating a plurality of primary sequences… (The initial solution generated by Algorithm 2 generates a pick list (primary sequence) for each possible picker when the number of items is greater than or equal to the number of available pickers since any picker not yet assigned an item will arrive at a new item’s location sooner than all pickers that must stop to pick an already assigned item [see page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. The number of pickers in the set of pickers K is an input of Algorithm 2 and defined as 1, 2, or 4 in the problem instances given in page 12, col. 2, section 5.1. The item identifiers specific to one primary sequence are supplied by the primary sequence: items are identified in the pick list by an item number
i
∈
N
and associated with a SKU number and location; see Table 2 and section 3.1 on pages 4 and 5. See also two primary sequences in Fig. 6.).
…with initial locations in different areas of a facility (See the two pick lists for two pickers in Fig. 6. The initial locations of the pick lists are in different areas of the warehouse (facility) when items 5 and 11 do not have the same SKU number. As an example, consider following Algorithm 2 for the orders 2 and J listed in Table 2 with two pickers. Orders 2 and J do not have items that share a SKU number, and each listed item location is in a different aisle of the warehouse. Therefore, Algorithm 2 provides two pick lists with initial locations in different areas.).
Regarding claim 10, Srinivas/Antony discloses the limitations of claim 9 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein the processor is configured to obtain the primary sequence by: obtaining the set of item identifiers and the corresponding item locations (See “All experiments are executed on a desktop with an Intel Core-i9 processor and 128 GB RAM” [page 12, col. 1, section 5]. Primary sequence: pick list. Obtain: in Algorithm 2, see line 5 where the set of items in each order Oj are added to intermediate list L by their item numbers
i
∈
N
. The set of item numbers N, set of orders J, and set of items in each order Oj, are supplied as inputs. “A rule-based constructive approach is used to generate an initial feasible mission and pick lists for the AMRs and workers, respectively” [page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. See “The pick list specifies the set of items, their location, and sequence in which they must be visited by the human workers to perform the pick-and-place operation,” therefore, the item locations are obtained to construct the pick list [page 5, col. 2]. See also Table 2 and the section 3.1 Problem description on pages 4 and 5.).
Antony also discloses planning “to minimize the average distance that an agent 200 may travel without picking an item 325” [col. 10, lines 7-25] and planning item exchanges among agents to reduce the distance an agent travels [col. 19, lines 10-26].
However, Srinivas/Antony does not explicitly teach “generating the primary sequence to minimize a total travel distance between the item locations.”
Löffler, also solving the picker routing problem, teaches
generating the primary sequence to minimize a total travel distance between the item locations (See “Among all feasible picker tours, we seek one that minimizes the total travel distance of the picker” [page 443, col. 1, section 1.3] and “The objective function (1) minimizes the total travel distance” [page 444, col. 2]. See “All experiments were conducted on a computing cluster featuring Intel Xeon E5-2430v2 CPUs [processor] with a maximum clock speed of 3.0 GHz and 64 Gb RAM per computing node” [page 456, col. 1, section 6.2]. Srinivas summarizes Löffler’s work: “Löffler et al. (2021)… addressed the picker routing problem by solving it as a clustered traveling salesman problem with the objective of minimizing the total distance traveled” [Srinivas, page 3, col. 1].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the item picking system of Srinivas/Antony to minimize picker travel distance as taught by Löffler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing “the pick density per picking tour and reduc[ing] the pickers’ unproductive walking” (Löffler, page 441, col. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Srinivas/Antony/Löffler discloses the limitations of claim 10 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein the processor is configured to obtain the item identifiers by: generating a plurality of primary sequences… (See “All experiments are executed on a desktop with an Intel Core-i9 processor and 128 GB RAM” [page 12, col. 1, section 5]. The initial solution generated by Algorithm 2 generates a pick list (primary sequence) for each possible picker when the number of items is greater than or equal to the number of available pickers since any picker not yet assigned an item will arrive at a new item’s location sooner than all pickers that must stop to pick an already assigned item [see page 9, col. 2, section 4.3]. The number of pickers in the set of pickers K is an input of Algorithm 2 and defined as 1, 2, or 4 in the problem instances given in page 12, col. 2, section 5.1. The item identifiers specific to one primary sequence are supplied by the primary sequence: items are identified in the pick list by an item number
i
∈
N
and associated with a SKU number and location; see Table 2 and section 3.1 on pages 4 and 5. See also two primary sequences in Fig. 6.).
…with initial locations in different areas of a facility (See the two pick lists for two pickers in Fig. 6. The initial locations of the pick lists are in different areas of the warehouse (facility) when items 5 and 11 do not have the same SKU number. As an example, consider following Algorithm 2 for the orders 2 and J listed in Table 2 with two pickers. Orders 2 and J do not have items that share a SKU number, and each listed item location is in a different aisle of the warehouse. Therefore, Algorithm 2 provides two pick lists with initial locations in different areas.).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivas in view of Antony and Löffler, and further in view of Johnson et al. (AU 2018366020 B2; hereafter “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 3, Srinivas/Antony/Löffler discloses the limitations of claim 2 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein obtaining the item identifiers includes: receiving a plurality of order records each containing a respective plurality of item identifiers (See Table 2, which lists orders 1, 2, and J, each containing at least two item numbers. In Algorithm 2, the set of orders J and the set of items in each order Oj are received as inputs.).
However, Srinivas/Antony/Löffler does not explicitly teach “selecting a portion of the order records.”
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor (order fulfillment), teaches
wherein obtaining the item identifiers includes: receiving a plurality of order records each containing a respective plurality of item identifiers (Receive orders: “The WMS typically receives orders from the overlying host system” [0006]. Each order may have multiple items identified by SKU numbers: “warehouse management system 15, FIG. 1, obtains an order, which may consist of one or more items to be retrieved. In step 504 the SKU number(s) of the items is/are determined by the warehouse management system 15” [0057].); and
selecting a portion of the order records (A group of orders physically closest to the highest priority order are selected, up to the capacity of a human or robot transporter, to form an order set [0094]. The order set is then used for picking [0063]. The remaining orders are then resorted by priority [0094]. See also [0066] and Fig. 17.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the item picking method of Srinivas/Antony/Löffler with the grouping method of Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of prioritizing received orders “in various ways including, for example, by service level agreement and/or delivery requirements” (Johnson, [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Srinivas/Antony/Löffler discloses the limitations of claim 10 as addressed above, and Srinivas additionally discloses
wherein the processor is configured to obtain the item identifiers by: receiving a plurality of order records each containing a respective plurality of item identifiers (See “All experiments are executed on a desktop with an Intel Core-i9 processor and 128 GB RAM” [page 12, col. 1, section 5]. See Table 2, which lists orders 1, 2, and J, each containing at least two item numbers. In Algorithm 2, the set of orders J and the set of items in each order Oj are received as inputs.).
However, Srinivas/Antony/Löffler does not explicitly teach “selecting a portion of the order records.”
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor (order fulfillment), teaches
wherein the processor is configured to obtain the item identifiers by: receiving a plurality of order records each containing a respective plurality of item identifiers (Receive orders: “The WMS typically receives orders from the overlying host system” [0006]. “The [warehouse management] system comprises a memory including a plurality of orders in an order queue” and a “processor is also configured to group the plurality of orders based on the physical locations of the cluster regions in the warehouse to form at least one order set” [0012]. Each order may have multiple items identified by SKU numbers: “warehouse management system 15, FIG. 1, obtains an order, which may consist of one or more items to be retrieved. In step 504 the SKU number(s) of the items is/are determined by the warehouse management system 15” [0057].); and
selecting a portion of the order records (A group of orders physically closest to the highest priority order are selected, up to the capacity of a human or robot transporter, to form an order set [0094]. The order set is then used for picking [0063]. The remaining orders are then resorted by priority [0094]. This is performed by the processor of the warehouse management system [0012]-[0014]. See also [0066] and Fig. 17.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the item picking method of Srinivas/Antony/Löffler with the grouping method of Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of prioritizing received orders “in various ways including, for example, by service level agreement and/or delivery requirements” (Johnson, [0066]).
Conclusion
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 Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights