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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the third and fourth lines of paragraph [0067], “one or more identifier” should presumably be “one or more identifiers”. In the fourth line of paragraph [0074], “one or more identifier” should presumably be “one or more identifiers”. In the fourth line of paragraph [0124], “a dimensions that does not match” should presumably be “a dimension that does not match”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of claim 3, “on pixel of the sensor data” should presumably be “on a pixel of the sensor data”, “on pixels of the sensor data”, or “on one or more pixels of the sensor data”. In accordance with the principle of giving claims being examined the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 3 will be treated for examination purposes as reciting “on one or more pixels of the sensor data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of claim 4, “at least in part second sensor data” should be “at least in part on second sensor data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first line of claim 6, “wherein the first sensor data including” should be either “wherein the first sensor data includes” or “the first sensor data including”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the fourth line of claim 7, “the sensor’ poses a technical antecedent basis problem, since claim 1 recites “sensor data”, but not a specific sensor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of claim 13, “two or more image device” should be “two or more image devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Statement Regarding IDS
The Information Disclosure Statement of April 18, 2024 lists U.S. Patent 9,714,139, to Aggarwal, with the kind code “A1”. As it is actually a B1 document, Examiner has not initialed the item; however, Examiner has considered the Aggarwal patent, and makes it of reference on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Mayo test. Claims 1-11 of the instant application recite a method, and therefore fall within the statutory category of process. Claims 12-16 of the instant application recite a system comprising one or more processors, and therefore fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 17-20 recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, and therefore fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture. Claims 1-20 are directed to statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04. Claims 1-11, 12-16, and 17-20 are directed to managing an order for one or more items, and are therefore directed to commercial or legal interactions in the field of certain methods of organizing human activity. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
A method comprising:
receiving first sensor data associated with an order cart;
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of an item physically located on the order cart;
determining, based at least in part on the identity, that the item is associated with an order corresponding to the order cart;
responsive to determining that the item is associated with the order, determining that the order is complete; and
alerting a facility operator that the order may be loaded on a transport.
This is at a high level of abstraction; the determining steps could be determining in a human mind, the first sensor data might be any kind of sensor data from any kind of sensor, the receiving of which could be done by any means; and the alerting step might be done by a human being speaking words to another human being. Claim 12 recites a system for causing one or more processors to perform operations which are somewhat broader than the recited steps of claim 1. Claim 17 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations which are somewhat broader than the recited steps of claim 1, and also to perform “causing a sensor to capture first sensor data associated with a an order cart”. This could refer to any kind of sensor capturing sensor data of an unspecified type, and is therefore at a high level of abstraction. Hence, claims 1, 12, and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims depending from independent claims 1, 12, and 16 have also been considered, and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. As set forth above with regard to step 2A, Prong Two, the independent claims are written at a high level of abstraction, and without much specific technology. Further, under Step 2B, claim 12 recites. “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: [listed operations].” Similarly, claim 17 recites: “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: [listed operations].” Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions and the one or more processors of claims 12-16 and 17-20 need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 12, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 17, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed computer-readable media storing instructions to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, does not recite any significant technology. The limitation of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, does not recite any significant technology. The limitation of claim 3, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, does not recite any significant technology. The limitation of claim 4, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, includes the element “causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator.” The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The determining step of claim 5 need not be technological at all. The limitations of claim 5, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, does not recite any significant technology. The limitation of claim 6, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, does not recite any significant technology. Partitioning the order cart into two or more regions and causing a sensor to capture regionalized sensor data need not involve specific technology, beyond the use of a sensor of unspecified type. The determining and assigning steps need not be technological. The limitations of claim 7, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, does not recite any significant technology. The limitation of claim 8, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites determining steps that need not be significantly technological. Claim 9 further recites, “causing a label including the correct identifier to print; and sending a visual indication of the item, a location relative to the order cart associated with the item, and instructions to place the label on the item to a display.” Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0063296) discloses (paragraph 5, emphasis added), “Firstly, a conventional label printer is used to print relevant product information onto the label, and then an RFID writing device independent from the label printer is used to write the relevant data on the chip of the label that has already been printed with a specific content.” Hence, the step of causing a label to print requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, sending a visual indication of an item, a location, and instructions to a display need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites “responsive to detecting an order cart within a scanning area, causing one or more sensors to capture the sensor data.” The detecting need not be technological, and causing a sensor to capture sensor data need not involve specific technology, beyond the use of a sensor of unspecified type. Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, recites, “determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an identity of the order cart and accessing an order list associated with the order cart.” The determining step need not be technological. Further, the courts have recognized the computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, and conventional, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092. Hence, the step of accessing an order list associated with the order cart need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claims 10 and 11, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, recites, “accessing image data associated with the order cart, the image data captured by two or more image device[s]; and wherein determining the identity of the item is based at least in part on the image data.” Accessing the image data might be accomplished by directly receiving data from two or more image devices, or accessing information stored in memory; based on judicial precedents cited above (see the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 9 and 10), either would require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The determining step need not be technological.
Claim 14, which depends from claim 13, recites determining steps that need not be significantly technological. Claim 9 further recites, “causing a label including the correct identifier to print; and sending a visual indication of the item, a location relative to the order cart associated with the item, and instructions to place the label on the item to a display.” Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0063296) discloses (paragraph 5, emphasis added), “Firstly, a conventional label printer is used to print relevant product information onto the label, and then an RFID writing device independent from the label printer is used to write the relevant data on the chip of the label that has already been printed with a specific content.” Hence, the step of causing a label to print requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, sending a visual indication of an item, a location, and instructions alert to be sent to a display need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
Claim 15, which depends from claim 14, recites that the first identifier is the correct identifier, which is not in itself technological. Therefore, the limitations of claims 13, 14, and 15, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 12, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 16, which depends from claim 12, does not recite any significant technology. Partitioning the order cart into two or more regions and causing an image device to capture regionalized sensor data need not involve specific technology, beyond the use of an image device of unspecified type. The determining step need not be technological. The limitations of claim 16, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 12, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, does not recite any significant technology.
Claim 19, which depends from claim 17, includes the element “causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator.” The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The operation of determining need not be specifically technological. The limitations of claim 19, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 16, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable media to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 20, which depends from claim 17, recites determining steps that need not be significantly technological. Claim 9 further recites, “causing a label including the correct identifier to print; and sending a visual indication of the item, a location relative to the order cart associated with the item, and instructions to place the label on the item to a display.” Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0063296) discloses (paragraph 5, emphasis added), “Firstly, a conventional label printer is used to print relevant product information onto the label, and then an RFID writing device independent from the label printer is used to write the relevant data on the chip of the label that has already been printed with a specific content.” Hence, the step of causing a label to print requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, sending a visual indication of an item, a location, and instructions alert to a display need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claim 20, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 16, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable media to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205). As per claim 1, Francis discloses sensors receiving first sensor data associated with an order cart, and determining the identity of an item. Francis discloses mobile scanning devices, which are sensors, and discloses referring to them as MSD’s (paragraph 71, emphasis added), “The OFS [order filing system] of the present disclosure may include a central computing system (CCS) and one or more mobile scanning devices (MSD’s).” Francis discloses using the mobile scanning devices to capture item data (paragraph 79, emphasis added): “Each of the items in the store may be associated with an item indicator (e.g., a barcode/sticker/RFID), which may be located along with the item, such as on the item (e.g., a barcode), attached to the item (e.g., a sticker/tag), or located with the item (e.g., an RFID tag within the item’s box). In general, an item indicator may be any object or device that the MSDs/CCS can use to identify (e.g., uniquely identify) the item. For example, the item indicators may be barcodes or analogous indicators. In some examples, the MSDs may scan the item indicators (e.g., scan the barcodes) and identify the items based on the scanned item indicators. In other examples, the item indicators may generate item signals (e.g., via a RFID device). For example, the item indicators may wirelessly transmit the item signals. The MSDs may receive the transmitted item signals and determine one or more items located within the store based on the detected item signals.”
Francis further discloses (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed.” Francis does not use the words “order cart” in paragraph 536, but Francis discloses (paragraph 73, emphasis added), “In other examples, the MSDs may be placed in carts (e.g., a shopping cart, basket, or similar cart for carrying items), which may be pushed around the store by users while the users gather items to fill customer orders.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 240, emphasis added), “In general, a user may scan an item ID using an MSD when the user picks the item off a rack. After scanning the item ID code, the user may place the item in a cart and take the item to a collection area of the store where the items of a customer order are put together for customer order or delivery.” Thus, Francis discloses carts which fit the meaning of “order cart”.
Francis discloses determining, based at least in part on the [first] sensor data, the identity of items (paragraph 79, emphasis added): “Each of the items in the store may be associated with an item indicator (e.g., a barcode/sticker/RFID), which may be located along with the item, such as on the item (e.g., a barcode), attached to the item (e.g., a sticker/tag), or located with the item (e.g., an RFID tag within the item’s box). In general, an item indicator may be any object or device that the MSDs/CCS can use to identify (e.g., uniquely identify) the item. For example, the item indicators may be barcodes or analogous indicators. In some examples, the MSDs may scan the item indicators (e.g., scan the barcodes) and identify the items based on the scanned item indicators. In other examples, the item indicators may generate item signals (e.g., via a RFID device). For example, the item indicators may wirelessly transmit the item signals. The MSDs may receive the transmitted item signals and determine one or more items located within the store based on the detected item signals.” Francis further discloses items being placed in physical carts (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 73, emphasis added), “In other examples, the MSDs may be placed in carts (e.g., a shopping cart, basket, or similar cart for carrying items), which may be pushed around the store by users while the users gather items to fill customer orders.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 240, emphasis added), “In general, a user may scan an item ID using an MSD when the user picks the item off a rack. After scanning the item ID code, the user may place the item in a cart and take the item to a collection area of the store where the items of a customer order are put together for customer order or delivery.” Thus, an item may be scanned when first placed in a physical cart, or may still be in the cart when it is taken to the “collection/packing area”. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of commerce for the item to be physically located on the order cart.
Francis further discloses determining, based at least in part of the identity of an item, that the item is associated with an order corresponding to the order cart; and, responsive to determining that the item is associated with the order, determining that the order is complete (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed. Knowledge of the items that have been picked may allow the CCS and/or MSDs to optimize item picking based on a variety of factors described herein. For example, knowledge of which items have been picked for different orders, and the user(s) that picked the items, may allow routing of MSDs to pick items that will quickly complete pending customer orders (e.g., orders that have not been completely picked). As another example, the CCS may use knowledge of the picked items to determine when customer orders have been completely picked.” Yet further, Francis discloses (paragraph 872, emphasis added), “In some implementations, the CCS/MSDs may automatically determine that a complete order is in the packing area based on the detection of one or more items/carriers associated with the customer order. In a specific example, if a customer order is assigned to a single picker and the CCS/MSDs detect that a specific carrier and/or item (e.g., a unique carrier/item) is in the packing area, the CCS/MSDs may determine that the complete customer order is in the packing area.”
Francis does not disclose alerting a facility operator that the order may be loaded on a transport. However, Mutarelli teaches (paragraph 62, emphasis added), “When the sortation of an individual order has been completed (such that a receptacle contains all of the items for the individual order) the order sortation system 200 will notify a worker 10 attending to the matrix of receptacle stations 220 so that the worker can move the ordered items to a next operation (e.g., to a packaging operation in preparation for shipping the order). In some cases, the order sortation system 200 will utilize signal lights to notify the worker 10 when a receptacle contains all the items for the individual order. In response, in some cases the worker 10 will simply remove the receptacle containing the items from the matrix of receptacle stations 220 and then transfer the items from a the receptacle to a box for shipment.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to alert a facility operator that the order may be loaded on a transport, for at least the obvious advantage of causing the order to be loaded on a transport and/or prepared for such loading, so as to be shipped to the customer who ordered the items making up the order.
As per claim 2, Francis discloses an order list (paragraph 529, emphasis added), “A shopping application interface may show items available for purchase, provide item descriptions, and provide item images (e.g., Img in FIG. 70A). A shopping application may also provide a custom interface in which a user may search for items, add the items to their digital shopping cart, and purchase the items.” See also Figure 70A. (What is described is a digital shopping cart distinct from the physical order cart usable by a picker/user.) Francis further discloses determining items to be associated with the order corresponding to the order cart based at least in part on an order list associated with the order cart (paragraph 218, emphasis added), “For example, processing module 358 may store a list of items in memory 360 from the customer items that have been placed.” Francis then discloses (paragraph 219, emphasis added), “As described hereinafter, processing module 358 may keep track of which items have been scanned by MSD 350 and other MSDs. For example, processing module 358 may remove the item ID code from the list of currently ordered items in memory 360 after the item has been scanned.” Francis then discloses (paragraph 368, emphasis added), “In some implementations, an MSD may be configured to display a subset of the items included in a customer order (e.g., items that are located proximate to the MSD at that time).”
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Mutarelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0286737). Francis discloses image processing to obtain and interpret item ID codes, and thus identify items (paragraph 212, emphasis added), “MSD 350 includes a scanning module 364 that may represent any devices (e.g., electronic hardware, software/firmware) configured to scan item ID codes. For example, scanning module 364 may be configured to scan printed codes (e.g., linear, 2D, or QR barcodes). . . In some examples, scanning module 364 may include one or more lasers and associated electronics/software for scanning back and forth across an item ID code to read the item ID code. In some examples, scanning module 364 may include one or more charge-coupled device readers (‘CCD readers’) In some examples, scanning module 364 may include for reading light and dark portions of an item on the item. In some examples, scanning module 364 may include a small camera (e.g., CCD reader or CMOS imaging) and associated image processing electronics/software for interpreting the item ID code.” Francis does not expressly disclose one or more pixels. However, Ozawa teaches pixels in the context of reading a barcode and identifying a barcode image (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “Thus identifying the extended end pixels EL and ER ensures that a barcode image identified in the next processing step of S220 contains the left and right ends of the barcode. Alternatively, in place of identifying the extended end pixels EL and ER, the CPU 32 may use the left-end pixel CL and the right-end pixel CR to identify the barcode image.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for determining the identity of the item to be based at least in part on one or more pixels of the sensor data associated with the item, for at least the obvious advantage, as per Ozawa, of properly locating and reading a barcode or barcodes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Mutarelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beghtol et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0157881). Francis does not disclose that the item is a first item and determining the identity of the first item is based at least in part on second sensor data representative of a second item adjacent to the first item on the order cart. However, Beghtol teaches scanning at least first and second adjacent items, and determining the identity of an item based at least in part on sensor data of a second item adjacent to a first item (paragraph 28, emphasis added), “In some instances, the scanner units 12, 18 may capture a partial barcode (such as when items 46 are too close and one item obscures the barcode of a neighboring item). In such instances, the exception handling system 135 may be configured to generate information for all barcodes that match the captured portion of the barcode and display all the potential matches on the display screen 150 for the user so that the exception may be cleared.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the item to be a first item and determining the identity of the first item to be based at least in part on second sensor data representative of a second item adjacent to the first item on the order cart, for the obvious advantage, as in Beghtol, of resolving difficulties arising from multiple items being closely adjacent.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Mutarelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi (U.S. Patent 12,416,917). Francis does not disclose determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the item is damaged; and responsive to determining that the item is damaged, causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator. However, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the item is damaged; and responsive to determining that the item is damaged, causing an alert to be sent to a device and/or to an individual who can be described as some kind of facility operator or troubleshooter (column 13, lines 43-58, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, a robotic device may comprise sensors for determining whether an item has a defect such as being damaged, spoiled, or the like. For example, the robotic device may include a mechanism such as a sensor arrangement or determining if goods obtained by the robotic device are broken, defective, or have spoiled. For example, the sensors may determine that a set of plates are broken, that clothing is damaged, food items have spoiled, or the like. In embodiments, if an item obtained is deemed to have a defect the robotic device may obtain a replacement. In embodiments, if an item obtained is deemed to have a defect the robotic device may dispose of the item. In embodiments, if an item obtained is deemed to have a defect the robotic device may alert an individual, a purchaser, control system, a device, another robotic device, or the like that it contains a defective item.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the item is damaged; and responsive to determining that the item is damaged, cause an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator, for such obvious advantages as providing for a damaged item to be replaced by an undamaged item, or having a facility operator take other actions, such as apologizing to a customer for a delay in shipping the item(s) which the customer had ordered.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Mutarelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0213426). Francis does not disclose that the first sensor data includes data associated with two or more image devices, but Chen teaches sensor data including data associated with two or more image devices (cameras) (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “As another example, a camera system can include a plurality of cameras that capture sensor data associated with one or more overlapping perspectives.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the first sensor data to include data associated with two or more image devices, for at least the obvious advantage of obtaining perspective views of an item or items on the order cart, and thereby being better able to identify the item or items.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Mutarelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holmes (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0372440). Francis discloses sensor data (see the 10 rejection of claim 1, set forth above), but does not disclose responsive to determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, that a second item is not present on the order cart, alerting a facility operator that the order is incomplete, but Holmes teaches, responsive to determining that an item or items is nor/are not present in a tote or an automated storage system, alerting a person or persons that an order is incomplete (first, paragraph 87, which introduces paragraphs 88-129, emphasis added): “Alternatively, or in addition to the other examples described herein, examples include any combination of the following:” This is followed by (paragraph 96, emphasis added), “wherein the inventory manager identifies incomplete portions of the multipart order based on missing items associated with unreceived items in the multipart order”, by (paragraph 106, emphasis added), “generating, by an alert component, a notification identifying a set of unreceived items associated with the first multipart order, on condition a set of unreceived items associated with the first multipart order remains un-inducted into the automated storage device at an occurrence of a maximum wait threshold time”, by (paragraph 107, emphasis added), “outputting, via a user interface device, an incomplete order notification associated with the first multipart order, the incomplete order notification comprising an identification of each item in the set of unreceived items and the induction duration for each item in a set of received items associated with the multipart order inducted into the automated storage device”, by (paragraph 122, emphasis added), outputting a partial order induction notification via a user interface device identifying the set of received items inducted into the automated storage system and a set of unreceived items associated with the multipart order”, and by (paragraph 124, emphasis added), “generating an alert on condition at least one item in the set of unreceived items remains un-inducted into the automated storage system on occurrence of a maximum threshold wait time”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, responsive to determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, that a second item is not present on the order cart, alerting a facility operator that the order is incomplete, for such obvious advantages as enabling the facility operator to delay shipment of an order, regretfully notify a customer that the order is incomplete, initiate action to obtain the second item, etc.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Mutarelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glasfurd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108071). As per claim 10, Francis does not disclose responsive to detecting an order cart within a scanning area, causing one or more sensors to capture the sensor data, but Glasfurd teaches, responsive to a placement which could not be effective without some form of detection, causing one or more sensors to capture sensor data (claim 5 of Glasfurd, emphasis added), “The method of claim 1, further comprising scanning, by a bar code reader, a bar code of each of the plurality of products, responsive to placing each of the plurality of products within a scanning area of the automatic multi-component cart sorting system.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, responsive to detecting an order cart within a scanning area, to cause one or more sensors to capture the sensor data, for at least the obvious advantage of identifying the items in the order cart, and, for example, determining whether they did or did not include all of the items needed to complete one or more customer orders.
As per claim 11, Francis discloses an identity of an order cart, which may further be associated with a customer (paragraph 833, emphasis added), “In a specific example, a carrier ID for a cart may include a barcode, RFID tag, or other wirelessly readable ID that may be fixed to the cart or removable (e.g., clamped on, thrown in, or magnetized to the cart). . . . In other implementations, removable IDs (e.g., removable barcodes or RFID tags may be moved to different carriers (e.g., thrown in different carts for the duration of picking). In some implementations, a carrier ID may be associated with a customer. For example, the carrier ID may be a removable sticker with customer order information (e.g., customer name, pickup date/time, and additional information). As another example, the carrier ID(s) may be associated with the customer that placed the order for items in the carriers. The associations between the customers/orders and the carriers may be stored in the CCS.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 833, emphasis added), “In this specific example, the packing area (e.g., racks or cart corrals) may include RFID readers, barcode readers, or other types of readers that may read corresponding carrier IDs (e.g., cart ID, tote ID, basket ID, etc.).” Hence, determining the identity of a cart would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, as strongly implied by Francis.
Francis further discloses customer order lists (paragraph 399, emphasis added), “Instead, the MSD may maintain the initial arrangement of items on the display, such that the customer order is presented as affixed sequential list of items.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 632, emphasis added), “In some cases, the CCS/MSD generates a list of items for the route (e.g., based on one or more customer orders) and sends the list of items to the MSD without location information, such that the MSD does not use the zone data.” Hence, accessing an order list associated with the order cart follows, as requisite to doing what Francis discloses.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205) and Glasfurd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108071). Francis discloses mobile scanning devices, which are sensors, and discloses referring to them as MSD’s (paragraph 71, emphasis added), “The OFS [order filing system] of the present disclosure may include a central computing system (CCS) and one or more mobile scanning devices (MSD’s).” Francis discloses using the mobile scanning devices to capture item data (paragraph 79, emphasis added): “Each of the items in the store may be associated with an item indicator (e.g., a barcode/sticker/RFID), which may be located along with the item, such as on the item (e.g., a barcode), attached to the item (e.g., a sticker/tag), or located with the item (e.g., an RFID tag within the item’s box). In general, an item indicator may be any object or device that the MSDs/CCS can use to identify (e.g., uniquely identify) the item. For example, the item indicators may be barcodes or analogous indicators. In some examples, the MSDs may scan the item indicators (e.g., scan the barcodes) and identify the items based on the scanned item indicators. In other examples, the item indicators may generate item signals (e.g., via a RFID device). For example, the item indicators may wirelessly transmit the item signals. The MSDs may receive the transmitted item signals and determine one or more items located within the store based on the detected item signals.”
Francis further discloses (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed.” Francis does not use the words “order cart” in paragraph 536, but Francis discloses (paragraph 73, emphasis added), “In other examples, the MSDs may be placed in carts (e.g., a shopping cart, basket, or similar cart for carrying items), which may be pushed around the store by users while the users gather items to fill customer orders.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 240, emphasis added), “In general, a user may scan an item ID using an MSD when the user picks the item off a rack. After scanning the item ID code, the user may place the item in a cart and take the item to a collection area of the store where the items of a customer order are put together for customer order or delivery.” Thus, Francis discloses carts which fit the meaning of “order cart”.
Francis further discloses determining, based at least in part of the identity of an item, that the item is associated with an order corresponding to the order cart; and determining that the order is complete (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed. Knowledge of the items that have been picked may allow the CCS and/or MSDs to optimize item picking based on a variety of factors described herein. For example, knowledge of which items have been picked for different orders, and the user(s) that picked the items, may allow routing of MSDs to pick items that will quickly complete pending customer orders (e.g., orders that have not been completely picked). As another example, the CCS may use knowledge of the picked items to determine when customer orders have been completely picked.” Yet further, Francis discloses (paragraph 872, emphasis added), “In some implementations, the CCS/MSDs may automatically determine that a complete order is in the packing area based on the detection of one or more items/carriers associated with the customer order. In a specific example, if a customer order is assigned to a single picker and the CCS/MSDs detect that a specific carrier and/or item (e.g., a unique carrier/item) is in the packing area, the CCS/MSDs may determine that the complete customer order is in the packing area.”
Francis does not disclose alerting a facility operator that the item may be loaded on a transport. However, Mutarelli teaches (paragraph 62, emphasis added), “When the sortation of an individual order has been completed (such that a receptacle contains all of the items for the individual order) the order sortation system 200 will notify a worker 10 attending to the matrix of receptacle stations 220 so that the worker can move the ordered items to a next operation (e.g., to a packaging operation in preparation for shipping the order). In some cases, the order sortation system 200 will utilize signal lights to notify the worker 10 when a receptacle contains all the items for the individual order. In response, in some cases the worker 10 will simply remove the receptacle containing the items from the matrix of receptacle stations 220 and then transfer the items from a the receptacle to a box for shipment.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to alert a facility operator that the item (as all or part of an order) may be loaded on a transport, for at least the obvious advantage of causing the item to be loaded on a transport and/or prepared for such loading, so as to be shipped to the customer who ordered the item or items making up an order.
Francis does not expressly disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, but does disclose a central computing system (item 104 in Figure 1) The central computing system or CCS is further described in paragraphs 92-94; specifically, Francis discloses (paragraph 93, emphasis added), “For example CCS 104 may include computer networks, servers (e.g., web servers), data stores, routers, software, etc.” Glasfurd teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (paragraph 6, emphasis added), “The computer program product includes a non-transitory computer-readable having program instructions embodied therewith.” Glasfurd further teaches (paragraph 15, emphasis added), “The processing system 100 includes at least one processor (CPU) 104 operatively coupled to other components via a system bus 102.” See also Figure 1 of Glasfurd. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the system to comprise one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, for at least the obvious advantage of causing the computing system disclosed by Francis to perform the desired operations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis, Mutarelli, and Glasfurd as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0213426). Francis does not disclose accessing image data associated with the order cart, the image data captured by two or more images devices, but Chen teaches sensor data including data associated with two or more image devices (cameras) (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “As another example, a camera system can include a plurality of cameras that capture sensor data associated with one or more overlapping perspectives.” Francis discloses image devices for scanning item IDs and therefore determining the identities of items (both barcode scanners and cameras can qualify as image devices) (paragraph 457, emphasis added), “For example, carts may include location signal detection components, one or more barcode scanners for scanning item IDs and location indicators, and/or one or more cameras.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to access image data associated with the order cart, the image data captured by two or more image devices, for at least the obvious advantage of obtaining perspective views of an item or items on the order cart, and thereby being better able to identify the item or items; and for determining the identity of the item to be based at least in part on the image data, for such obvious advantages as using barcodes to identify merchandise, and/or using more complete images of items, which may be recognizable by a human being or a computer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) in view of Glasfurd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108071). Francis discloses causing a sensor to capture first sensor data associated with an order cart. Francis discloses mobile scanning devices, which are sensors, and discloses referring to them as MSD’s (paragraph 71, emphasis added), “The OFS [order filing system] of the present disclosure may include a central computing system (CCS) and one or more mobile scanning devices (MSD’s).” Francis discloses using the mobile scanning devices to capture item data (paragraph 79, emphasis added): “Each of the items in the store may be associated with an item indicator (e.g., a barcode/sticker/RFID), which may be located along with the item, such as on the item (e.g., a barcode), attached to the item (e.g., a sticker/tag), or located with the item (e.g., an RFID tag within the item’s box). In general, an item indicator may be any object or device that the MSDs/CCS can use to identify (e.g., uniquely identify) the item. For example, the item indicators may be barcodes or analogous indicators. In some examples, the MSDs may scan the item indicators (e.g., scan the barcodes) and identify the items based on the scanned item indicators. In other examples, the item indicators may generate item signals (e.g., via a RFID device). For example, the item indicators may wirelessly transmit the item signals. The MSDs may receive the transmitted item signals and determine one or more items located within the store based on the detected item signals.”
Francis further discloses (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed.” Francis does not use the words “order cart” in paragraph 536, but Francis discloses (paragraph 73, emphasis added), “In other examples, the MSDs may be placed in carts (e.g., a shopping cart, basket, or similar cart for carrying items), which may be pushed around the store by users while the users gather items to fill customer orders.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 240, emphasis added), “In general, a user may scan an item ID using an MSD when the user picks the item off a rack. After scanning the item ID code, the user may place the item in a cart and take the item to a collection area of the store where the items of a customer order are put together for customer order or delivery.” Thus, Francis discloses carts which fit the meaning of “order cart”.
Francis discloses determining, based at least in part on the [first] sensor data, the identity of items (paragraph 79, emphasis added): “Each of the items in the store may be associated with an item indicator (e.g., a barcode/sticker/RFID), which may be located along with the item, such as on the item (e.g., a barcode), attached to the item (e.g., a sticker/tag), or located with the item (e.g., an RFID tag within the item’s box). In general, an item indicator may be any object or device that the MSDs/CCS can use to identify (e.g., uniquely identify) the item. For example, the item indicators may be barcodes or analogous indicators. In some examples, the MSDs may scan the item indicators (e.g., scan the barcodes) and identify the items based on the scanned item indicators. In other examples, the item indicators may generate item signals (e.g., via a RFID device). For example, the item indicators may wirelessly transmit the item signals. The MSDs may receive the transmitted item signals and determine one or more items located within the store based on the detected item signals.” Francis further discloses items being placed in physical carts (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 73, emphasis added), “In other examples, the MSDs may be placed in carts (e.g., a shopping cart, basket, or similar cart for carrying items), which may be pushed around the store by users while the users gather items to fill customer orders.” Francis further discloses (paragraph 240, emphasis added), “In general, a user may scan an item ID using an MSD when the user picks the item off a rack. After scanning the item ID code, the user may place the item in a cart and take the item to a collection area of the store where the items of a customer order are put together for customer order or delivery.” Thus, an item may be scanned when first placed in a physical cart, or may still be in the cart when it is taken to the “collection/packing area”. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of commerce for the item to be physically located on the order cart.
Francis further discloses determining, based at least in part of the identity of an item, that the item is associated with an order corresponding to the order cart; and, responsive to determining that the item is associated with the order, determining that the order is complete (paragraph 536, emphasis added), “Each customer order may be assigned an order ID number. Each item of the customer order can also be associated with the order ID number. Accordingly, each item of a customer order may be defined by a customer order ID number and an item ID code. Associating items of a customer order with a customer ID number may allow the CCS, MSDs, and/or other computing devices to determine when the items of the customer order have been picked from the racks (e.g., scanned), taken to a collection/packing area, and/or packed. Knowledge of the items that have been picked may allow the CCS and/or MSDs to optimize item picking based on a variety of factors described herein. For example, knowledge of which items have been picked for different orders, and the user(s) that picked the items, may allow routing of MSDs to pick items that will quickly complete pending customer orders (e.g., orders that have not been completely picked). As another example, the CCS may use knowledge of the picked items to determine when customer orders have been completely picked.” Yet further, Francis discloses (paragraph 872, emphasis added), “In some implementations, the CCS/MSDs may automatically determine that a complete order is in the packing area based on the detection of one or more items/carriers associated with the customer order. In a specific example, if a customer order is assigned to a single picker and the CCS/MSDs detect that a specific carrier and/or item (e.g., a unique carrier/item) is in the packing area, the CCS/MSDs may determine that the complete customer order is in the packing area.”
Francis does not expressly disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, but does disclose a central computing system (item 104 in Figure 1) The central computing system or CCS is further described in paragraphs 92-94; specifically, Francis discloses (paragraph 93, emphasis added), “For example CCS 104 may include computer networks, servers (e.g., web servers), data stores, routers, software, etc.” Glasfurd teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (paragraph 6, emphasis added), “The computer program product includes a non-transitory computer-readable having program instructions embodied therewith.” Glasfurd further teaches (paragraph 15, emphasis added), “The processing system 100 includes at least one processor (CPU) 104 operatively coupled to other components via a system bus 102.” See also Figure 1 of Glasfurd. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to have one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, for at least the obvious advantage of causing the computing system disclosed by Francis to perform the desired operations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Glasfurd as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205). Francis does not disclose alerting a facility operator that the order may be loaded on a transport. However, Mutarelli teaches (paragraph 62, emphasis added), “When the sortation of an individual order has been completed (such that a receptacle contains all of the items for the individual order) the order sortation system 200 will notify a worker 10 attending to the matrix of receptacle stations 220 so that the worker can move the ordered items to a next operation (e.g., to a packaging operation in preparation for shipping the order). In some cases, the order sortation system 200 will utilize signal lights to notify the worker 10 when a receptacle contains all the items for the individual order. In response, in some cases the worker 10 will simply remove the receptacle containing the items from the matrix of receptacle stations 220 and then transfer the items from a the receptacle to a box for shipment.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to alert a facility operator that the order may be loaded on a transport, for at least the obvious advantage of causing the order to be loaded on a transport and/or prepared for such loading, so as to be shipped to the customer who ordered the items making up the order.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis and Glasfurd as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi (U.S. Patent 12,416,917). Francis does not disclose determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the item is damaged; and responsive to determining that the item is damaged, causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator. However, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the item is damaged; and responsive to determining that the item is damaged, causing an alert to be sent to a device and/or to an individual who can be described as some kind of facility operator or troubleshooter (column 13, lines 43-58, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, a robotic device may comprise sensors for determining whether an item has a defect such as being damaged, spoiled, or the like. For example, the robotic device may include a mechanism such as a sensor arrangement or determining if goods obtained by the robotic device are broken, defective, or have spoiled. For example, the sensors may determine that a set of plates are broken, that clothing is damaged, food items have spoiled, or the like. In embodiments, if an item obtained is deemed to have a defect the robotic device may obtain a replacement. In embodiments, if an item obtained is deemed to have a defect the robotic device may dispose of the item. In embodiments, if an item obtained is deemed to have a defect the robotic device may alert an individual, a purchaser, control system, a device, another robotic device, or the like that it contains a defective item.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the operations to include determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the item is damaged; and responsive to determining that the item is damaged, causing an alert to be sent to a device associated with a facility operator, for such obvious advantages as providing for a damaged item to be replaced by an undamaged item, or having a facility operator take other actions, such as apologizing to a customer for a delay in shipping the item(s) which the customer had ordered.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and depends from claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but claim 7 recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) discloses elements of claim 1, with a further element being obvious in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205), as set forth above with regard to claim 1. However, Francis does not disclose that receiving the first sensor data associated with an order cart further comprises: partitioning the order cart into two or more discretized regions; causing the sensor to capture regionalized sensor data associated with individual regions of the two or more discretized regions; determining that determining that the item is represented in the regionalized sensor data associated with a first discretized region of the two or more discretized regions and the regionalized sensor data associated with a second discretized region of the two or more discretized regions; and assigning the item to the first discretized region; and determining the identity of the item physically located on the order cart is based at least in part on the regionalized sensor data associated with the first discretized region. Neither Mutarelli nor any other prior art of record supplies the deficiencies of Francis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and depends from claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but claim 9 recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) discloses elements of claim 1, with a further element being obvious in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205), as set forth above with regard to claim 1. Francis does not disclose that determining the identity of the item physically located on the order cart further comprises: determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, that the item includes a first identifier and a second identifier; determining that the first identifier differs from the second identifier; determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a correct identifier for the item; causing a label including the correct identifier to print; and sending a visual indication of the item, a location relative to the order cart associated with the item, and instructions to place the label on the item to a display. Hoggatt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/03344789) teaches receiving at a printer, which implies sending to the printer, a serial number label for placement on a finished item (paragraph 166, emphasis added) “As such, an exemplary operation at Station S10 may include reading the barcode 573, sending the decoded data (e.g. serial number) to a relevant workflow server 23a-23b, and receiving at a printer (as directed by the workflow server) a serial number label for placement on the finished item 572.” Hoggatt further teaches reading a plurality of different barcodes corresponding to different items (not to the same item) (paragraph 176, emphasis added), “As a plurality of items are assembled, the devices 518a-e may be used to read a plurality of different barcodes corresponding to the different items.” However, neither Hoggatt nor any other prior art of record sufficiently supplies the deficiencies of Francis.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and depend from claims 12 and 13, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and are also objected to because of an informality in claim 13, but claims 14 and 15 recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) discloses elements of claim 12, with further elements being obvious in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205) and Glasfurd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108071), as set forth above with regard to claim 12. The teaching of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0213426) is further applied in rejecting claim 13 over the prior art, as set forth above with regard to claim 13.
Francis does not disclose determining, based at least in part on the image data, that the item includes a first identifier and a second identifier; determining that the first identifier differs from the second identifier; determining, based at least in part on the image data, a correct identifier for the item; causing a label including the correct identifier to print; and sending a visual indication of the item, a location relative to the order cart associated with the item, and instructions to place the label on the item to a display. Hoggatt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/03344789) teaches receiving at a printer, which implies sending to the printer, a serial number label for placement on a finished item (paragraph 166, emphasis added) “As such, an exemplary operation at Station S10 may include reading the barcode 573, sending the decoded data (e.g. serial number) to a relevant workflow server 23a-23b, and receiving at a printer (as directed by the workflow server) a serial number label for placement on the finished item 572.” Hoggatt further teaches reading a plurality of different barcodes corresponding to different items (not to the same item) (paragraph 176, emphasis added), “As a plurality of items are assembled, the devices 518a-e may be used to read a plurality of different barcodes corresponding to the different items.” However, neither Hoggatt nor any other prior art of record sufficiently supplies the deficiencies of Francis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and depends from claim 12, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but claim 12 recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) discloses elements of claim 12, with further elements being obvious in view of Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205) and Glasfurd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108071), as set forth above with regard to claim 12. However, Francis does not disclose: partitioning the order cart into two or more discretized regions; causing an image device to capture regionalized image data associated with individual regions of the two or more discretized regions; and does not disclose that determining the identity of the item is based at least in part on the regionalized image data. Neither Mutarelli, nor Glasfurd, not any other prior art of record supplies the deficiencies of Francis.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and depends from claim 17, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but claim 20 recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) discloses elements of claim 17, with a further element being obvious in view of Glasfurd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108071), as set forth above with regard to claim 17. Francis does not disclose that determining the identity of the item physically located on the order cart further comprises: determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, that the item includes a first identifier and a second identifier; determining that the first identifier differs from the second identifier; determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a correct identifier for the item; causing a label including the correct identifier to print; and sending a visual indication of the item, a location relative to the order cart associated with the item, and instructions to place the label on the item to a display. Hoggatt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/03344789) teaches receiving at a printer, which implies sending to the printer, a serial number label for placement on a finished item (paragraph 166, emphasis added) “As such, an exemplary operation at Station S10 may include reading the barcode 573, sending the decoded data (e.g. serial number) to a relevant workflow server 23a-23b, and receiving at a printer (as directed by the workflow server) a serial number label for placement on the finished item 572.” Hoggatt further teaches reading a plurality of different barcodes corresponding to different items (not to the same item) (paragraph 176, emphasis added), “As a plurality of items are assembled, the devices 518a-e may be used to read a plurality of different barcodes corresponding to the different items.” However, neither Hoggatt nor any other prior art of record sufficiently supplies the deficiencies of Francis.
Note on Priority
Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652), used as the primary reference in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, was not itself filed before inventors’ priority date of March 9, 2022, but claims priority to Provisional Application 63/256,025, filed earlier, on October 15, 2021. Examiner has verified that: Figures 1 and 70A of Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0121652) correspond to Figures 1 and 70A, respectively, of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 71 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 58 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 73 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 60 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 79 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 66 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 93 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 80 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 218 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 205 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 219 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 206 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 240 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 227 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 399 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 386 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 457 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 444 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 529 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 516 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 536 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 523 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 632 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 619 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 833 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 781 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 853 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 801 of the ‘025 Provisional. Paragraph 872 of the ‘652 publication corresponds to paragraph 820 of the ‘025 Provisional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singel et al. (U.S. Patent 9,443,222) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0104109, made of record by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement of April 18, 2024. Battles et al. (U.S. Patent 9,751,693) disclose automated shipment set item consolidation. Hamilton et al. (U.S. Patent 9,834,380) disclose warehouse automation systems and methods. Ozawa (U.S. Patent 10,032,059) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0286737, and used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Beghtol et al. (U.S. Patent 10,055,626) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0157881, and used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Chen et al. (U.S. Patent 10,657,391) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0213426, and used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Hoggatt et al. (U.S. Patent 11,361,181) disclose controlling access to barcode-reading functionality. Mutarelli et al. (U.S. Patent 12,077,385) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0371205, and used in making multiple rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Prasad et al. (U.S. Patent 12,190,619) has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made). Prasad et al. (U.S. Patent 12,229,722) has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made.
Koke et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0078673) disclose a dynamic queueing and management system. Hamilton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0158413) disclose warehouse automation systems and methods. Hoggatt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0334489) disclose controlling access to barcode-reading functionality. Prasad et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0263190) has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 January 8, 2026