DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed September 9, 2026. Claims 1–2, 6, 9–10, 13–16, and 18–20 are amended; claims 3, 7, 11–12, and 17 are canceled; and claims 21–22 are newly added. Currently, claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–10, 13–16, and 18–22 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objections to claims 2–3 and 16–17 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objections to claims 2–3 and 16–17 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejections of claims 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory transitory signals. Accordingly, the previous rejections of claims 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks address the amended subject matter, which is addressed for the first time herein. Accordingly, Examiner directs Applicant to the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
However, with respect to the element reciting “communicating … the at least one assignment to initiate the specific resource executing the at least one request, wherein the specific resource comprises autonomous equipment and communicating the at least one assignment comprises transmitting an electronic instruction to the autonomous equipment that causes the autonomous equipment to move the item”, Examiner notes that the element is interpreted as requiring no more than a generic data transmission. Examiner further notes that “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is identified under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as a conventional computer function. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending the independent claims to recite “controlling, by the computing hardware and according to the at least one assignment, the specific resource executing the at least one request to move the item from the first location to the second location, wherein the specific resource comprises autonomous equipment.”
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “a movement plan” in the element reciting “processing the set of requests”. However, claim 15, from which claim 22 depends, previously recites “a movement plan”. As a result, the scope of claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 22 to reference the recitation of claim 15 or intends to introduce a second, different “movement plan”.
For purposes of examination, claim 22 is interpreted as reciting “[[a]] the movement plan” in the element reciting “processing the set of requests”.
In view of the above, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “obtaining (1) a set of requests that involve moving items between a plurality of locations found at a facility and (2) a priority for each request of the set of requests”; obtaining geographical data for the facility …”; “obtaining state data for the facility …; “generating a movement plan that identifies a specific resource from the plurality of resources to execute each of the set of requests by: generating, based at least in part on the priority, a set of clusters …”; “processing each of the set of clusters by conducting iterations on a corresponding cluster from the set of clusters, wherein each iteration involves: processing remaining requests found in the corresponding cluster …”; “identifying, using the geographical data, one or more routes …”; “generating, based at least in part on the geographical data and the state data, at least one of an estimated amount of time or an estimated distance for each of the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request …”; “adjusting at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance …”; “identifying, based at least in part on at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance for each of the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request, the specific resource to execute the highest priority request”; and “generating based at least in part on the movement plan, at least one assignment for having the specific resource identified for at least one request of the set of requests execute the at least one request”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to commercial sales activities or behaviors and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for managing item movement tasks in a facility. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 9 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further recites an element for “determining to evaluate a movement plan,” the element recites certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 9 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 13–14, 16, and 18–22 further describe the process for managing item movement tasks in a facility and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 13–14, 16, and 18–22 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include computing hardware, autonomous equipment, and a step for ““communicating … the at least one assignment to initiate the specific resource executing the at least one request, wherein the specific resource comprises autonomous equipment and communicating the at least one assignment comprises transmitting an electronic instruction to the autonomous equipment that causes the autonomous equipment to move the item”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; the autonomous equipment does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the step for “communicating” does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 9 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further includes a computer-readable medium and a processing device and claim 15 includes a computer-readable medium, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 9 and 15 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 14, and 16 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include “sending an electronic communication over a wireless network” (claims 2 and 16) and a machine-learning model (claim 14). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2, 14, and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 18–22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 18–22 depend. As a result, claims 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 18–22 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements includes computing hardware, autonomous equipment, and a step for ““communicating … the at least one assignment to initiate the specific resource executing the at least one request, wherein the specific resource comprises autonomous equipment and communicating the at least one assignment comprises transmitting an electronic instruction to the autonomous equipment that causes the autonomous equipment to move the item”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; the autonomous equipment does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the step for “communicating” does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies “receiving or transmitting data over a network” as a conventional computer function. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 9 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further includes a computer-readable medium and a processing device and claim 15 includes a computer-readable medium, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 9 and 15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 14, and 16 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include “sending an electronic communication over a wireless network” (claims 2 and 16) and a machine-learning model (claim 14). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2, 14, and 16 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 18–22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 18–22 depend. As a result, claims 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 18–22 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–10, 13–16, and 18–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz et al. (U.S. 9,551,987) in view of SARKAR et al. (U.S. 2019/0212753), and in further view of Darmour et al. (U.S. 2021/0334682).
Claims 1, 9, and 15: Mountz discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by computing hardware (See FIG. 2), (1) a set of requests that involve moving items between a plurality of locations found at a facility (See col. 5, l. 59–col. 6, l. 4, wherein inventory requests for moving inventory are received by the management system, and col. 4, ll. 47–64, wherein requests are associated with inventory items and associated inventory containers, such that each item/container represents a subtask request; see also col. 6, ll. 44–58) and (2) a priority for each of the set of requests (See FIG. 10 and col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein inventory containers and associated inventory items are assigned priority scores);
obtaining, by the computing hardware, geographical data for the facility, wherein the geographical data comprises at least one of a set of amounts of time or a set of distances involved in moving the items between the plurality of locations (See col. 23, ll. 17–31, wherein travel times and distances between containers and stations are obtained; see also col. 5, ll. 26–58 and col. 6, ll. 19–43, wherein locations are monitored for mobile drive units, inventory holders, and work stations within the workspace) and a set of constraints on moving the items between the plurality of locations (See col. 6, ll. 23–28 and 39–43, wherein mobile drive unit availability constraints are considered; see also, col. 19, ll. 26–59, wherein constraint criteria is utilized by a selection module in resource scheduling and col. 8, ll. 36–60, wherein path and collision-avoidance reservations are further disclosed as movement constraints);
obtaining, by the computing hardware, state data for the facility, wherein the state data comprises current locations of a plurality of resources available to execute the set of requests (See col. 5, ll. 26–58 and col. 6, ll. 19–43, wherein locations are monitored for mobile drive units, inventory holders, and work stations within the workspace; see also col. 3, ll. 59–64, col. 14, ll. 9–24, and col. 10, l. 53–col. 11, l. 2);
generating, by the computing hardware, a movement plan that identifies a specific resource from the plurality of resources to execute each of the set of requests (See col. 6, ll. 8–43, in view of col. 6, l. 65–col. 7, l. 14, wherein a movement plan is generated by assigning tasks and pathways to selected mobile drive units; see also col. 6, ll. 44–58 and col. 8, ll. 20–35) by:
generating, based at least in part on the priority, a set of tasks, wherein each of the set of tasks comprises requests from the set of requests with the priority being same or similar (See col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein inventory holder retrieval tasks are generated using dynamic priority scores, and wherein the inventory holder retrieval task priority scores are iteratively modified to assign similar inventory holder retrieval tasks a same priority); and
processing, by the computing hardware, each of the set of tasks by conducting iterations on the tasks (See col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein inventory holder retrieval tasks are generated using dynamic priority scores, and wherein the inventory holder retrieval task priority scores are iteratively modified to assign similar inventory holder retrieval tasks a same priority), wherein each iteration involves:
processing remaining requests found in the tasks that have yet to be assigned the specific resource using a rules-based engine to identify a highest priority request from the remaining requests (See col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein inventory holder retrieval tasks are generated using dynamic priority scores, and wherein the inventory holder retrieval task priority scores are iteratively modified to assign similar inventory holder retrieval tasks a same priority; see also col. 6, ll. 8–43, in view of col. 6, l. 65–col. 7, l. 14, wherein a movement plan is generated by assigning tasks and pathways to selected mobile drive units and col. 7, ll. 15–24, wherein rule-based decision making is disclosed);
identifying, using the geographical data, one or more routes between a first location associated with the highest priority request and a second location associated with the highest priority request (See col. 6, l. 65–col. 7, l. 14, in view of col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein a movement plan is generated by planning pathways for tasks)
generating, based at least in part on the geographical data and the state data, at least one of an estimated amount of time or an estimated distance for each of the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request, wherein at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance is based at least in part on: (i) a current location of a corresponding resource, (ii) at least one of an amount of time or an amount of distance associated with traversing the one or more routes, (iii) one or more route constraints associated with the one or more routes, and (iv) one or more current operating conditions of the facility (See col. 23, ll. 17–31, wherein task performance times and distances are estimated based on the current workspace configuration, including resource locations and travel times, and col. 8, ll. 8-12 and 49–60, wherein route pathways are planned based on segment reservations; see also col. 6, ll. 23–28 and 39–43, wherein mobile drive unit availability is considered and col. 21, ll. 3–45, col. 5, ll. 26–58, and col. 6, ll. 19–43, as cited above, wherein task priority and workspace component location monitoring are disclosed); and
identifying, based at least in part on at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance for each of the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request, the specific resource to execute the highest priority request (See col. 6, ll. 8–43, wherein mobile drive units are assigned to tasks; see also col. 21, ll. 3–45 and col. 23, ll. 17–31, as cited above, wherein tasks are assigned according to time and distance estimates and task priority);
generating, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the movement plan, at least one assignment for having the specific resource identified for at least one request of the set of requests execute the at least one request (See col. 6, ll. 8–43, wherein mobile drive units are assigned to tasks); and
communicating, by the computing hardware, the at least one assignment to initiate the specific resource executing the at least one request to move the item from the first location to the second location (See col. 6, ll. 8–43, wherein mobile drive units are assigned to tasks, and wherein tasks are transmitted by the management system to appropriate components), wherein the specific resource comprises autonomous equipment (See col. 3, ll. 30–38, wherein mobile drive units are automated devices) and communicating the at least one assignment comprises transmitting an electronic instruction to the autonomous equipment that causes the autonomous equipment to move the item from the first location to the second location without human intervention (See col. 6, ll. 8–18, wherein task assignments are transmitted to mobile drive units). Although Mountz implicitly generates at least one of an estimated amount of time or an estimated distance for each resource (See col. 21, ll. 3–45 and col. 23, ll. 17–31, in view of col. 7, ll. 32–38, wherein tasks assignments are optimized by considering time and distance estimates of each inventory containers and monitoring the current state of all components within the system, such that resource time and distance estimates are implicitly considered), Mountz does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Sarkar discloses generating a set of clusters, wherein each of the set of clusters comprises requests from the set of requests (See FIG. 3, wherein task nodes are clustered, and paragraph 26, wherein the system operates in a warehouse scenario);
processing each of the set of clusters by conducting iterations on a corresponding cluster from the set of clusters (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 45, in view of paragraph 26, wherein the clusters are processed iteratively to optimize task assignments for an associated resource); and
generating at least one of an estimated amount of time or an estimated distance for each resource (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 5, in view of paragraphs 26–27, wherein each route is optimized to minimize a distance of travel for the associated vehicle, and wherein distance estimates simultaneously minimize time; see also paragraph 52, wherein distance is considered with respect to each resource in the system).
Mountz discloses a system directed to managing inventory requests within a warehouse system. Sarkar discloses a system directed to optimizing resource paths for warehouse tasks. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing inventory tasks in a warehouse. The technique of utilizing clusters is applicable to the system of Mountz as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing inventory tasks in a warehouse.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sarkar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sarkar to the teachings of Mountz would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate inventory task management into similar systems. Further, applying request clusters to Mountz would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results. Mountz and Sarkar do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Darmour discloses adjusting at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance for at least one eligible resource based at least in part on a comparison between: (i) at least one of an actual amount of time or an actual distance previously required by the at least one eligible resource to perform a prior movement request, and (ii) at least one of a previously generated estimated amount of time or a previously generated estimated distance for the prior movement request (See paragraphs 97–98, in view of FIG. 2B and paragraphs 76 and 92, wherein actual completion times and routes are compared to expected route and timing data to update training data for the machine learning model, and wherein the updated training data is utilized to adjust subsequent projections).
As disclosed above, Mountz discloses a system directed to managing inventory requests within a warehouse system, and Sarkar discloses a system directed to optimizing resource paths for warehouse tasks. Darmour discloses a system directed to managing inventory and transfer tasks. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing inventory tasks. The technique of comparing actual and expected routes and times is applicable to the systems of Mountz and Sarkar as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing inventory tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Darmour would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Darmour to the teachings of Mountz and Sarkar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate inventory task management into similar systems. Further, applying actual and expected route and timing comparisons to Mountz and Sarkar would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 9, Mountz further discloses a computer-readable medium storing instructions (See FIG. 2 and col. 8, ll. 8–19);
a processing device communicatively coupled to the computer-readable medium, wherein the processing device is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising (See FIG. 2 and col. 7, l. 66–col. 8, l. 19);
determining to evaluate a movement plan for the facility that involves the set of requests to move the items between the plurality of locations (See col. 5, l. 59–col. 6, l. 18, wherein a movement plan is evaluated with respect to a plurality of inventory requests; see also Abstract).
With respect to claim 15, Mountz further discloses a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by computing hardware, configure the computing hardware to perform operations (See FIG. 2 and col. 7, l. 66–col. 8, l. 19).
Claims 2 and 16: Mountz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein communicating the assignment involves sending an electronic communication over a wireless network to the specific resource (See col. 6, ll. 8–18, wherein task assignments are transmitted to mobile drive units; see also col. 3, l. 59–col. 4, l. 6, wherein wireless transmission capabilities are disclosed).
Claims 4 and 18: Mountz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specific resource has at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance that is shorter than at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance for each other resource in the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request (See col. 23, ll. 17–31, in view of col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein tasks are assigned according to time and distance estimates and task priority).
As noted above, although Mountz implicitly considers at least one of an estimated amount of time or an estimated distance for each resource (See col. 21, ll. 3–45 and col. 23, ll. 17–31, in view of col. 7, ll. 32–38, wherein tasks assignments are optimized by considering time and distance estimates of each inventory containers and monitoring the current state of all components within the system, such that resource time and distance estimates are implicitly considered), Sarkar expressly discloses the remaining claim elements.
Sarkar discloses at least one of the estimated amount of time or the estimated distance for the specific resource (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 5, in view of paragraphs 26–27, wherein each route is optimized to minimize a distance of travel for the associated vehicle, and wherein distance estimates simultaneously minimize time; see also paragraph 52, wherein distance is considered with respect to each resource in the system).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sarkar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5 and 19: Mountz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of constraints identifies each of the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request (See col. 6, ll. 23–28 and 39–43, wherein mobile drive unit eligibility is determined with respect to availability).
Claim 6: Mountz discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of resources comprises equipment configured to haul the items between the plurality of locations, and the set of constraints identifies each of the plurality of resources that is eligible to execute the highest priority request as able to at least one of travel to or have a capability needed for at least one of the first location or the second location (See col. 6, ll. 23–28 and 39–43, wherein mobile drive unit eligibility is determined with respect to availability).
Claims 8 and 20: Mountz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one constraint of the set of constraints is based at least in part on a time of day (See col. 6, ll. 8–18, wherein assignments may be limited according to a start-up time).
Claims 10 and 21–22: Mountz discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise detecting a triggering event that comprises at least one of a change in availability of a resource, a change in availability of a route, or an expiration of a predetermined period of time has occurred, and determining to evaluate the movement plan for the facility is responsive to detecting the triggering event (See col. 5, l. 59–col. 6, l. 18, wherein a movement plan is evaluated with respect to a plurality of inventory requests, and wherein consideration may be triggered in response to the occurrence of particular events, including expiration of a predetermined time; see also FIG. 10 and col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein changes in resource availability trigger updates in item routing).
Claim 13: Mountz discloses the system of claim 9, wherein processing the remaining requests found in the tasks that have yet to be assigned the specific resource to identify the highest priority request is performed considering at least one of a type of request involved for each of the remaining requests or a type of item involved in each of the remaining requests (See col. 21, ll. 3–45, in view of col. 19, ll. 48–60, wherein request tasks are prioritized in the context of item types and inventory holder fitness; see also col. 2, ll. 64–65 and col. 4, ll. 20–28). Mountz does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Sarkar discloses the cluster of requests (See FIG. 3, wherein task nodes are clustered).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sarkar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14: Mountz discloses the system of claim 9, wherein processing the remaining requests found in the tasks that have yet to be assigned the specific resource to identify the highest priority request involves processing characteristics of each of the remaining requests to generate a representation on an importance of having a corresponding remaining request executed to move the item associated with the corresponding remaining request from the first location to the second location, and selecting a remaining request from the remaining requests with the representation having a highest importance as the highest priority request (See col. 21, ll. 3–45, wherein inventory holder retrieval tasks are generated using dynamic priority scores, and wherein the inventory holder retrieval task priority scores are determined according to retrieval task characteristics). Mountz does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Sarkar discloses the cluster of requests (See FIG. 3, wherein task nodes are clustered).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sarkar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Mountz and Sarkar do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Darmour discloses using a machine-learning model to generate a representation on an importance of having the request executed to move the item associated with the request from the first location to the second location (See paragraphs 49 and 54–55, in view of paragraph 70, wherein a machine-learning model learns task attributes, including urgency, and wherein tasks include transport tasks).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Darmour would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Puchta (U.S. 2024/0152826) discloses a system directed to managing task assignments according to travel distance calculations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
