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 .
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 23 January 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 23 January 2026 amended Claims 5-8. Claims 1-4 have been canceled. Currently Claims 5-8 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 5 that “in view of the amendments to the claims, Applicant resentfully request the rejection of the claim 1-8 Under U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that Under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites abstract ideas falling within both the "mental processes" and "organizing human activity" groupings enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), however for the purpose of this examination as indicated in the rejection the mental process is the only grouping identified. Specifically, the claim recites collecting information about members and their locations (step a), analyzing this information using conditional logic to determine picking states, and displaying organized picking guidance (step b). These limitations describe concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and data organization. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results are abstract ideas). The claim also recites organizing a warehouse picking workflow, which is a method of organizing human activity in commercial and manufacturing operations, but it is not clear from the claim is this is assigned to a person or an autonomous vehicle so this analysis is not provided in the rejection.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of outputting information on a "display" or "picking slip" amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic output mechanisms. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The worker performing the actual picking (step c) represents insignificant extra-solution activity merely the intended use of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The references to "production area," "storage area," and "production job" merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use (warehouse/manufacturing operations), which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h); Bilski v. Kappos. The claim does not improve computer functionality, as it does not recite any specific computer architecture, data structure, or processing technique that enhances how a computer operates. The claim also does not improve picking technology or warehouse management technology beyond applying conventional data management concepts to the picking domain.
Applicant's amendments added limitations regarding acquiring information when a member is picked up, conditional logic for determining "completed (automatic)" status based on whether a member was picked in a different production job, and information indicating movement delays. These amendments do not cure the deficiency. The added limitations merely recite additional data fields (pick-up confirmation, delay information) and more detailed conditional logic all of which are conventional data management activities that do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The conditional logic for determining picking state based on location information and production job assignment is itself an abstract idea involving mental processes of comparison and evaluation. Adding more abstract ideas to an abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Because the claim is directed to a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, which evaluates whether the claim provides an inventive concept by reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The claim fails Step 2B. Acquiring information about inventory items and their locations, generating pick lists with status indicators, using conditional logic for status determination, displaying information on screens or printed slips, and having workers perform picking are all well-understood, routine, conventional activities in warehouse and manufacturing environments. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). These activities have been performed for decades using manual recordkeeping, barcode scanners, and computerized inventory systems. The claim does not recite any unconventional computer architecture, specialized algorithm, novel sensor technology, or other technical implementation that would provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should consider amending the claim to recite specific technical implementations that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, include unconventional elements beyond well-understood routine activity, or recite specific technical details demonstrating how the claimed invention achieves a technical improvement over existing picking guidance system. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Additionally, claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering the claim(s) 5-8 as a whole and all claim elements both individually and in combination, these claim(s) 5-8 are directed to the abstract idea of generating picking guidance without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (5-8) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the MPEP 2106.05(a)), claim(s) (5-8) is/are directed to a method and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention recites a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to generating picking guidance which is a method of managing interactions between people. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to:
acquiring information of a member allocated to a production job…
generating and outputting on a display or on a picking slip, picking guidance…
picking up the member allocated by the production job by the worker based on the picking guidance.
Indicating a delay of movement…
indicating that the picking state of the member is “completed (automatic)” is outputted.
the picking guidance is generated… indicating that the picking state of the member is “not completed” …
The generating picking guidance would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to determine how to generate picking guidance. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the organizing of human activity by gathering and data analysis to determine how to generate picking guidance:
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited display element do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea and displaying the results and additionally that data acquiring, steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that are used to perform the generating picking guidance. The display in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic displaying of data (generating workflows). This generic display limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic display component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s) provided by the display: indicating that the member is picked, indicating a delay of movement, indicating the different production job is complete, indicating that the picking state of the member is “not completed” performs the generating picking steps. The indicating using the display steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of generating picking guidance), and amounts to mere displaying of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, that performs the generating step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the generating step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 5-8 recite(s) acquiring information, generating guidance, outputting guidance, picking up a member, indicating that the member is picked, indicating a delay in movement, indicating a different job is complete, and indicating that the picking state of the member is “not complete” which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for acquiring, outputting, picking, and indicating, which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (generating picking guidance) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to tracking and status analysis of electronic devices). Using a computer to generate picking guidance the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it”.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
No Claims are viewed to recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 6 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the consumer what type of marketing is to be provided to the consumer. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of inventory management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wurman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0185884 A1).
Referring to Claim 8, Wurman teaches a picking guidance system for guiding a worker in picking of a member, the picking guidance system comprising:
wherein in the step (b), when the picking guidance is generated, in a case where the member that is the picking target includes a member whose location information indicates the storage area, information indicating that the picking state of the member is "not completed" is outputted, and the member is included in the information of the picking guidance (see; par. [0058] or Wurman teaches a trigger event that identifies locations of inventory by the knowledge of how many items are in an area (i.e. trigger is a completed jobs) as well as done and need movement to a different location using guidance, par. [0041] where there is also an indication of tasks to be completed as well as communication (i.e. outputted) that indicates its status such as the completion status of the task by the receiving component (i.e. not completed)).
(c) a step of picking up the member allocated to the production job by the worker based on the picking guidance (see; par. [0076] of Wurman teaches an inventory item is picked up because of a retrieval request, par. [0018] which then is routed by a drive unit that collect the tools for delivery).
wherein in the step (a), information indicating that the member is picked up when the member is picked up from the storage area is acquired (see; par. [0058] of Wurman teaches picking guidance is provided to drive units which are a part of the inventory handling process and not a part of the requesting department (i.e. pricking guidance not created by the production department).
a step of acquiring information of a member allocated to a production job in a production area and location information related to a location of the member (see; par. [0020] of Wurman teaches the identifying of inventory holders (i.e. information about the member) and where it is located and where it needs to be transported to by the mobile drive unit (i.e. location information)).
wherein in the step (b), when the picking guidance is generated, in a case where the member that is the picking target includes a member a picked up in a production job different from the production job for generating the picking guidance and the member is in the storage area, information indicating that the picking state of the member is "completed (automatic)" is outputted, and the member is included in the information in the picking guidance, and information indicating a delay of movement to a next area is included in the information in the picking guidance (see; par. [0065] of Wurman teaches an item is selected but not specifically by a targeted department and can include a delay before being picked up (i.e. remove material or movement) by the department identified (i.e. which is viewed to be an indication of a delay, until picked up, par. [0041] where there is also an indication of tasks to be completed as well as communication that indicates tis status such as the completion of the task by the receiving component (i.e. completed), par. [0076] additionally an indication of an item being picked is noted and will conclude the retrieval request (i.e. completed)).
wherein in the step (b), when the picking guidance is generated, in a case where the member that is the picking target includes a member picked up in a production job different from the production job for generating the picking guidance, the member is not in the storage area and the production job different from the production job for generating the picking guidance is complete, information indicating that the picking state of the member is "completed (automatic)" is outputted, the member is included in the information in the picking guidance, and information indicating that the different production job is complete is included in the information in the picking guidance (see; Abstract of Wurman teaches moving material holders from one area to another, par. [0018] where picking guidance is provided to drive units which are a part of the inventory handling department and not a part of the requesting department (i.e. picking guidance not create by production department), par. [0058] a trigger event that identifies locations of inventory by the knowledge of how many items are in an area (i.e. trigger is a completed jobs) as well as done and need movement to a different location using guidance, par. [0041] where there is also an indication of tasks to be completed as well as communication that indicates tis status such as the completion of the task by the receiving component (i.e. completed), par. [0076] additionally an indication of an item being picked is noted and will conclude the retrieval request (i.e. completed)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0185884 A1) in view of Cohn (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0278051 A1).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Wurman in view of Cohn teaches the method above, Wurman does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Cohn teaches a list indicating a table of members allocated to the production job is used in a production system configured to enable the worker to check while collating the list with the picking guidance (see; par. [0018] of Cohn teaches a task assigned to a worker, par. [0060] where there is known manpower to provide support for the production inventory system linked to the, par. [0029] where the worker is assigned to a wrist transducer (i.e. list)).
The Examiner notes that Wurman teaches similar to the instant application teaches a method and system for fulfilling request in an inventory system. Specifically, Wurman discloses the fulfilling requests in an inventory system including determining trigger events that have occurred and moving selected materials to secondary locations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Cohn teaches an ultrasonic bracelet and receiver for detecting a position in a 2D plane to guide a user through inventory and as it is comparable in certain respects to Wurman which teaches a method and system for fulfilling request in an inventory system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Wurman discloses the fulfilling requests in an inventory system including determining trigger events that have occurred and moving selected materials to secondary locations. However, Wurman fails to disclose a list indicating a table of members allocated to the production job is used in a production system configured to enable the worker to check while collating the list with the picking guidance.
Cohn discloses a list indicating a table of members allocated to the production job is used in a production system configured to enable the worker to check while collating the list with the picking guidance.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Wurman a list indicating a table of members allocated to the production job is used in a production system configured to enable the worker to check while collating the list with the picking guidance as taught by Cohn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Wurman and Cohn teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage and appropriate inventory accordingly and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Wurman in view of Cohn teaches the method above, Wurman does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Cohn teaches the member allocated to the production job is allocated by using an identification code indicating unique identification information assigned to each member (see; par. [0018] of Cohn teaches a wrist band that is tracked that is associated with the, par. [0024] user tag (i.e. unique identification)), and
the picking guidance shows the identification code of the member that is the picking target (see; par. [0072] of Cohn teaches a routing planning to pick needed inventory).
The Examiner notes that Wurman teaches similar to the instant application teaches a method and system for fulfilling request in an inventory system. Specifically, Wurman discloses the fulfilling requests in an inventory system including determining trigger events that have occurred and moving selected materials to secondary locations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Cohn teaches an ultrasonic bracelet and receiver for detecting a position in a 2D plane to guide a user through inventory and as it is comparable in certain respects to Wurman which teaches a method and system for fulfilling request in an inventory system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Wurman discloses the fulfilling requests in an inventory system including determining trigger events that have occurred and moving selected materials to secondary locations. However, Wurman fails to disclose the member allocated to the production job is allocated by using an identification code indicating unique identification information assigned to each member, and the picking guidance shows the identification code of the member that is the picking target.
Cohn discloses the member allocated to the production job is allocated by using an identification code indicating unique identification information assigned to each member, and the picking guidance shows the identification code of the member that is the picking target.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Wurman the member allocated to the production job is allocated by using an identification code indicating unique identification information assigned to each member, and the picking guidance shows the identification code of the member that is the picking target as taught by Cohn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Wurman and Cohn teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage and appropriate inventory accordingly and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Wurman in view of Cohn teaches the method above, Wurman does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Cohn teaches when there is an alternative member that is a member of the same type and satisfies a condition used in the production job, the picking guidance shows the alternative member (see; par. [0032]-[0033] of Cohn teaches multiple works associated by different ultrasonic units, par. [0024] and assigning tasks to the identified tags).
The Examiner notes that Wurman teaches similar to the instant application teaches a method and system for fulfilling request in an inventory system. Specifically, Wurman discloses the fulfilling requests in an inventory system including determining trigger events that have occurred and moving selected materials to secondary locations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Cohn teaches an ultrasonic bracelet and receiver for detecting a position in a 2D plane to guide a user through inventory and as it is comparable in certain respects to Wurman which teaches a method and system for fulfilling request in an inventory system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Wurman discloses the fulfilling requests in an inventory system including determining trigger events that have occurred and moving selected materials to secondary locations. However, Wurman fails to disclose when there is an alternative member that is a member of the same type and satisfies a condition used in the production job, the picking guidance shows the alternative member.
Cohn discloses when there is an alternative member that is a member of the same type and satisfies a condition used in the production job, the picking guidance shows the alternative member.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Wurman when there is an alternative member that is a member of the same type and satisfies a condition used in the production job, the picking guidance shows the alternative member as taught by Cohn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Wurman and Cohn teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage and appropriate inventory accordingly and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625