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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
We first observe, generally, that applicant’s claims, which recite a number of terms not formally defined in the instant specification and that are also not standard terms of art, are susceptible to extremely broad interpretations.
Claims 3-7, 10-13, and 15 recite numbered “supplementary tasks” from first to fifth. However, none of the claims that recite different numbered tasks are in the same claim subtrees. From the point of view of, for example, claim 15/1, which recites a fifth supplementary task, no first through fourth supplementary tasks have been disclosed. This cross-claim-tree task numbering is somewhat confusing in itself but also serves no real purpose because being in different claim subtrees, the tasks could either be different from one another or the same as each other regardless of nomenclature. This note does not rise to the level of a clam objection but rather is meant to suggest a possible drafting logic issue. In this office action, all instances of “a [numbered] supplementary task” are considered to be the same as “a supplementary task”. Where a claim recites “the [numbered] supplementary task”, it is of course considered to be the same one introduced in the parent.
We note as an aside that claims referring to these supplementary tasks generally do not relate the tasks to other limitations of the claim; typically the task is generated as a step in the method “based on” some scalar quantity, but how the step relates to the features of the other limitations is not claimed. Thus, any supplementary task whatsoever that has to do with dealing with inventory shortages and that has to do with the claimed quantity is satisfactory as a teaching from a reference cited in rejection.
Claims 13-16 recite the term “inventory allocation”. This usage is supported by many examples throughout the instant specification. However, the specification fails to define the term. Even if we were to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the meaning of the term in view of the specification would still be very broad. Our interpretation is based on plain English as illuminated by our understanding of the warehousing arts. “Allocate” means “to set aside, distribute, or assign resources.” We consider “inventory allocation” to be any method or step that selects (“assigns”) articles in inventory, which broad activity is the basis for the narrower examples of picking articles from inventory, storing articles to inventory, and arranging for articles to be ordered so as to restock inventory. Thus virtually any warehousing activity apart from inventorying itself that occurs with respect to stock involves “inventory allocation”. In particular, every phase of order fulfillment, from picking to packing to shipping, involves “inventory allocation” in some manner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lists two alternative limitations in lines 4-7 and 8-11. We find no substantial difference between these two alternatives. While we consider it possible that one of the alternatives was meant to indicate a sufficiency of materials while the other was meant to indicate a shortfall, in fact both indicate a sufficiency. Other slight differences in wording between the two alternatives do not appear to be substantive. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11, and 19 are 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.
Claims 2 and 19 recite the limitation "the workstation" in lines 11 and 9 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In both claims, “a workstation” would properly introduce the new term.
Claim 6 discloses a circumstance wherein there is a stock shortage of materials. However, claim 6’s parent claim 5 discloses two alternative situations, and in both there is a sufficient stock of materials. Claim 6 thus does not further limit claim 5 but appears to contradict it. This confusion amounts to a point of indefiniteness in claim 6. Claim 8 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 6. This rejection could perhaps be addressed by reparenting claim 6 and 8.
Claim 11 discloses determining a time difference between the “current moment” and the “latest outbound time”, which, though not formally defined, we take to be the time of the last actual shipment from the warehouse. All well and good, but the claim then recites, “determining a quantity of to-be-replenished materials based on the time difference”. We do not understand how it is possible to determine a replenishment quantity based on the disclosed time difference. A replenishment quantity would conventionally be determined based on the order’s requirements compared to a stock shortfall, or else based on expected future demand. Basing this quantity solely on a time difference is not understood. Applicant’s specification paragraph [0021] supports the claim almost verbatim, but it too merely states the determination without disclosing a means, criterion, or procedure for performing the claimed determination. As we do not believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed method without further explanation, this claim too is indefinite.
Claim 14 discloses a circumstance wherein a quantity of picked materials is less than a minimum outbound quantity and so the order should not be shipped until stock is replenished. However, parent claim 13 discloses the circumstance where the quantity of picked materials is greater or equal to the minimum outbound quantity. Thus, Claim 14 thus does not further limit claim 13 but appears to contradict it. This confusion amounts to a point of indefiniteness in claim 14. This rejection could perhaps be addressed by reparenting claim 14.
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 an abstract idea (primarily mental processes) without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more because the additional elements fail to both integrate into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all non-abstract elements are either deemed insignificant extra-solution activity or else are part of the well-understood field of use of the invention. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements apart from the abstract method of the claims are materials (all claims), an intelligent warehousing system (claim 1), a container (claims 2 and 19), a workstation (claims 2 and 19) and a control device (claim 19). No inventive feature or novelty is claimed for the container or the workstation, which we consider to be part of the technological environment or field of use of a warehousing system, which generally comprise both workstations and control devices. Similarly, the claimed materials are wholly abstract and devoid of limitation; as all warehouses store materials we consider the materials to be part of the environment of the warehousing system. The warehousing system has no claimed structure and is presumed to largely be software running on the control device in the form of a general purpose computer. No mechanical devices are claimed for the invention whatsoever and although we note that the instant specification discloses a robot in fig. 1 to which tasks are assigned and a material outbound apparatus (an abstract black box in fig. 8), neither the tasks, the robot, nor the apparatus are claimed.
The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below. Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 are considered together as representative of all rejected claims and will be considered as an exemplar for these claims. (Note: ordinarily the analysis pattern for judicial exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 101 considers a single independent claim as an exemplar, but because claim 2 is significantly longer and more detailed than its parent claim, and because its limitations are substantially reprised in independent claim 19, we take both together as a combined exemplar.)
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry, the material outbound method of claims 1-2 is ostensibly directed to an eligible category of subject matter, i.e. an industrial method or process. Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and a method of organizing human activity.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. In this case, the invention is primarily concerned with “mental processes” and also secondarily with “mathematical ideas” and “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Analysis of the further limitations of claims 1-2 follows:
(claim 1)
receiving first notification information, wherein the first notification information is used for indicating that picking shortage occurs during outbound of first materials corresponding to an outbound order;This step is abstract communication as part of what is a method of human organization if the entities involved are human or which is a accepted form of insignificant extra-solution activity if the entities are machines. Communication per se is an abstract idea unless it is grounded in some significant technological advance in or application of communications. We note that no entity originating or receiving the communication is claimed, and though these entities would not rescue the limitation from abstraction if they were claimed, at least some more substantial setting for the communication could be understood.
determining an outbound policy for the outbound order according to a picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information;The determination of a policy according to information received is a wholly mental process.
and performing material outbound processing based on the outbound policy;This processing step could well amount to “significantly more” if it were grounded in concrete details regarding the mechanical steps of “material outbound processing”. However, as this step is in effect a black box as regards the claim, it is wholly abstract. There is no indication that material outbound processing involves any machine, and the mere implication that it may involve real materials of some sort is insufficient to reify the abstraction.
(claim 2)
wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: determining an inventory quantity of the first materials in an inventory;Gathering information is a mental process.
determining the outbound policy based on the picking shortage quantity if the inventory quantity of the first materials is greater than the picking shortage quantity;A simple comparison of two numbers is both a mental process and a mathematical concept and the consequent if-then determination is a mental process.
and determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity;A simple comparison of two numbers is both a mental process and a mathematical concept and the consequent if-then determination is a mental process.
wherein the picking shortage occurring during outbound of first materials indicates at least one of that, during picking the first materials at the workstation, an actual quantity of the first materials in the container is less than a quantity of the first materials that need to be picked from the container, and that the actual quantity of the first materials in the container is less than the quantity of the first materials in the container stored by the system;This clarification of the nature of a picking shortage regarding the comparison of two quantities regards a mental process and a mathematical concept.
wherein the picking shortage quantity of the first materials indicates at least one of a difference between the actual quantity of the first materials in the container and the quantity of the first materials that need to be picked from the container, and a difference between the actual quantity of the first materials in the container and the quantity of the first materials in the container stored by the systemYet more mental process and mathematical concept based on the comparison of two quantities.
All these limitations are within the scope of human capabilities. No special hardware or other inventive structures appears in these claims. To the extent any computer system is implied by the term “intelligent warehousing system”, per MPEP 2106.05(a) the invention does not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” nor does it improve “any other technology or technical field.“ In particular, the courts have indicated that the mere automation of manual processes does not constitute an improvement in computer functionality (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), second paragraph iii, and cases such as Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) and Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a method for determining the disposition of abstract “materials”, which we broadly interpret to be virtually any physical things whatsoever. No particular machine is claimed. The determination of a disposition in the form of the selection of a policy for handling materials is not a practical application. These elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The final limitation of claim 1, “performing material outbound processing based on the outbound policy” at least suggests some real process for handling real materials as part of order fulfillment (which typically involves some concrete article handling steps in a warehouse or similar facility), but the mechanical details of the process itself are unclaimed and undisclosed. In the absence of machines or a process using machines for this step, no evidence of “significantly more” than the judicial exception has been found. This element has been considered, but adds nothing more to what is essentially an act of mental process with secondary aspects of human organization and mathematical concept.
Independent control device claim 19 substantially parallels method claims 1-2 and recites limitations of similar scope. This claim does in fact disclose a machine, but the machine, a control device, appears to be a general purpose computer, which has been held (per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), Alice and Ultramercial as noted above) not to add significantly more to a method. Independent computer-readable storage medium claim 20 substantially parallels method claim 1 and is held to be ineligible for the same reasons.
Dependent claims 3-18 have been fully considered as well. The dependent claims add no inventive material substantially different from the analysis associated with claim 1; rather, they merely elaborate the method of the independent claims with more essentially abstract details, none of which add significant elements that transcend what is essentially a mental process combined with aspects of methods of human organization and mathematical ideas. For example, claim 18 adds customer feedback, but this is more communication, and the feedback itself is an abstraction dealt with as part of a mental process. There is no indication that the combinations of elements in these claims improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen Ke, CN 108502435 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1,
Chen discloses:
A material outbound method ([0001]), applied to an intelligent warehousing system ([0004]),
the material outbound method comprising: receiving first notification information (outbound instruction, [0016]-[0017]), wherein the first notification information is used for indicating that picking shortage occurs during outbound of first materials corresponding to an outbound order;
determining an outbound policy for the outbound order according to a picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information; (specified strategy, [0020])
and performing material outbound processing based on the outbound policy. (specified strategy, [0020])
Regarding claim 19,
Chen discloses:
A control device (outbound distribution device: fig. 6), comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, Chen discloses in [0050] its outbound distribution device, responsible for the control functions of the invention, may be a server. Servers universally comprise at least one processor and memory storing instructions executable by the processor.
to cause the control device to: receive first notification information (outbound instruction, [0016]-[0017]), wherein the first notification information is used for indicating that picking shortage occurs during outbound of first materials corresponding to an outbound order, wherein the picking shortage occurring during outbound of first materials indicates at least one of that, during picking the first materials at the workstation, an actual quantity of the first materials in the container is less than a quantity of the first materials that need to be picked from the container, and that the actual quantity of the first materials in the container is less than the quantity of the first materials in the container stored by the system;
determine an outbound policy for the outbound order according to a picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information, wherein the picking shortage quantity of the first materials indicates at least one of a difference between the actual quantity of the first materials in the container and the quantity of the first materials that need to be picked from the container, and a difference between the actual quantity of the first materials in the container and the quantity of the first materials in the container stored by the system; (specified strategy, [0020])
and perform material outbound processing based on the outbound policy. (specified strategy, [0020])
Regarding claim 20,
Chen discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer executable instructions,Chen discloses in [0050] its outbound distribution device, responsible for the control functions of the invention, may be a server. Servers universally comprise at non-transitory computer-readable storage media on which executable instructions are stored.
and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor, are configured to: receive first notification information (outbound instruction, [0016]-[0017]), wherein the first notification information is used for indicating that picking shortage occurs during outbound of first materials corresponding to an outbound order;
determine an outbound policy for the outbound order according to a picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information; (specified strategy, [0020])
and perform material outbound processing based on the outbound policy. (specified strategy, [0020])
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 2-5, 9-10, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jenkins, et al., US 2002/0188499 (hereinafter Jenkins)
Regarding claim 2,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the determining the outbound policy (specified strategy, [0020]) for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: determining an inventory quantity of the first materials in an inventory; (inventory quantity, [0010])
determining the outbound policy based on the picking shortage quantity if the inventory quantity of the first materials is greater than the picking shortage quantity; (sufficient quantity, [0013]-[0014]; insufficient quantity, [0016]-[0017])
wherein the picking shortage occurring during outbound of first materials indicates at least one of that, during picking the first materials at the workstation (workstation, [0004]), an actual quantity of the first materials in the container is less than a quantity of the first materials that need to be picked from the container, and that the actual quantity of the first materials in the container is less than the quantity of the first materials in the container stored by the system;We consider the container to map to the first inventory quantity of [0016].
wherein the picking shortage quantity of the first materials indicates at least one of a difference between the actual quantity of the first materials in the container and the quantity of the first materials that need to be picked from the container, and a difference between the actual quantity of the first materials in the container and the quantity of the first materials in the container stored by the system. This comparison is performed in [0016].
However, Chen does not disclose all aspects of:
and determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity;While Chen discloses in [0020] an abstract strategy (policy) to be followed in the case where total inventory quantities are insufficient, it does not disclose examples of this strategy such as the claimed partial picking of the outbound order.
Jenkins, an invention in the field of order fulfillment, teaches:
and determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity;Jenkins teaches partial order fulfillment as a strategy in [0160].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen with determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity, as taught by Jenkins, because evidently many customers would prefer to receive a partial order immediately rather than either waiting to receive a complete order or canceling their order entirely.
Regarding claim 3,
Chen in view of Jenkins discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the determining the outbound policy based on the picking shortage quantity if the inventory quantity of the first materials is greater than the picking shortage quantity comprises: generating a first supplementary task based on the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order, when the first supplementary task and an outbound picking task for the outbound order except the picking shortage quantity corresponding to the first materials are completed. Chen discloses this method in [0016]-[0017], the supplementary task being the picking of inventory from a second picking area when stock is insufficient in a first picking area but sufficient available stock is present in the second picking area.
Regarding claim 4,
Chen in view of Jenkins discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity comprises: generating a second supplementary task based on the inventory quantity of the first materials; determining that the outbound order supports partial picking; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on outbound materials corresponding to the second supplementary task and picked materials, wherein the picked materials are materials corresponding to the outbound order except the picking shortage quantity corresponding to the first materials. Chen and Jenkins together teach this method, Chen disclosing the supplementary task of [0016]-[0017] and the circumstance of [0020] wherein there is insufficiency inventory even in the second picking area, and Jenkins teaching the partial fulfillment of an order in [0160] when inventory is insufficient.
Regarding claim 5,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 4, and also:
wherein before the determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on the outbound materials corresponding to the second supplementary task and the picked materials, the method further comprises one of:
determining a minimum outbound quantity corresponding to the outbound order (Jenkins, “major ship quantity”, [00154]); determining a total material picking quantity corresponding to the picked materials and the second supplementary task (first quantity and second quantity, Chen, [0016]-[0020]); and determining that the total material picking quantity is greater than or equal to the minimum outbound quantity (Chen, [0017]-[0018]);
and determining a minimum outbound quantity of the first materials in the outbound order (Jenkins, “major ship quantity”, [00154]); determining a total picking quantity of the picked materials and first materials in the second supplementary task (Chen, first quantity and second quantity, [0016]-[0020]); and determining that the total picking quantity is greater than or equal to the minimum outbound quantity of the first materials. (Chen, [0017]-[0018])
Regarding claim 9,
Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
and determining the outbound policy according to an inventory quantity of the first materials and picked materials, wherein the picked materials are materials corresponding to the outbound order except the picking shortage quantity corresponding to the first materials.Chen’s method of [0016]-[0017] determines the difference in inventory between an order and available stock in a first area, and applies this difference to a supplementary picking instruction in a second area. This disclosure combines the claimed policy and the circumstance of a difference between “first materials” and “picked materials”.
However, Chen does not disclose all aspects of:
wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: determining that the outbound order supports partial picking;While Chen discloses in [0020] an abstract strategy (policy) to be followed in the case where total inventory quantities are insufficient, it does not disclose examples of this strategy, partially filling the order as in the current limitation being one such strategy.
Jenkins, an invention in the field of order fulfillment, teaches:
wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: determining that the outbound order supports partial picking;Jenkins teaches partial order fulfillment as a strategy in [0160].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen with wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: determining that the outbound order supports partial picking, as taught by Jenkins, because evidently many customers would prefer to receive a partial order immediately rather than either waiting to receive a complete order or canceling their order entirely; this manner of order fulfillment has been known to the art since the dawn of commerce.
Regarding claim 10,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the determining the outbound policy according to the inventory quantity and the picked materials comprises: determining an inventory quantity of the first materials in an inventory; generating a third supplementary task based on the inventory quantity of the first materials when the inventory quantity is less than the picking shortage quantity; or generating a third supplementary task based on the picking shortage quantity when the inventory quantity is greater than the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on outbound materials corresponding to the third supplementary task and the picked materials. Chen teaches the selection of an abstract strategy (policy) when insufficient materials are available to fill an order in [0020], and teaches a supplementary task in [0016]-[0017]. Jenkins teaches partial order fulfillment in [0160]. Together they teach the steps of the claim.
Regarding claim 12,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 9, and also:
wherein before the determining the outbound policy according to the inventory quantity of the first materials and the picked materials, the method further comprises: determining a minimum outbound quantity corresponding to the outbound order (Jenkins, “major ship quantity”, [00154]); and determining that a material quantity of the picked materials is greater than or equal to the minimum outbound quantity (Chen, first quantity satisfactory, [0014]).
Regarding claim 13,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 12, and also:
further comprising: generating a fourth supplementary task corresponding to a difference according to the difference between the material quantity of the picked materials and the minimum outbound quantity (Chen, [0016]-[0017]), if the material quantity of the picked materials is less than the minimum outbound quantity, wherein the fourth supplementary task is a task of reselecting first materials through inventory allocation for outbound; and performing the fourth supplementary task. We consider Chen’s method of [0016]-[0017] of picking goods from a second inventory area to make up the shortage in the first to be the claimed supplementary task for which “reselecting first materials through inventory allocation for outbound” is performed.
Claims 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jenkins, and further in view of Rey-Tinat, Agnes, “Essential techniques for handling inventory shortfalls and when to apply them” (Linked-In, 2016).
Regarding claim 6,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 5, but not all aspects of:
wherein after the determining the total material picking quantity corresponding to the picked materials and the second supplementary task, the method further comprises: sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity when the total material picking quantity is less than the minimum outbound quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving first materials corresponding to the replenishment order. While Chen teaches a supplementary task in [0016]-[0017] and Jenkins teaches considerations for restocking missing inventory in the event of a shortfall in [0241]-[0242], neither reference teaches the claimed method in full.
Rey-Tinat, a publication on the subject of strategies for coping with shortfalls, teaches the missing aspects of:
wherein after the determining the total material picking quantity corresponding to the picked materials and the second supplementary task, the method further comprises: sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity when the total material picking quantity is less than the minimum outbound quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving first materials corresponding to the replenishment order. Rey-Tinat teaches the strategy (policy) “2. BACKORDER ENTIRE ORDER IF ANYTHING IS OUT OF STOCK” in page 2. This corresponds to the method steps of the claim, and is compatible with Chen’s strategy selection of [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen and Jenkins, wherein after the determining the total material picking quantity corresponding to the picked materials and the second supplementary task, the method further comprises: sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity when the total material picking quantity is less than the minimum outbound quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving first materials corresponding to the replenishment order, as taught by Rey-Tinat, because shipping only a complete shipment after a backorder completes inventory stock is an age-old strategy widespread in the art since the dawn of commerce.
Regarding claim 7,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 2, but not all aspects of:
wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity comprises: generating a second supplementary task based on the inventory quantity of the first materials; determining that the outbound order does not support partial picking; sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving first materials corresponding to the replenishment order.While Chen teaches a supplementary task in [0016]-[0017] and Jenkins teaches considerations for restocking missing inventory in the event of a shortfall in [0241]-[0242], neither reference teaches the claimed method in full.
Rey-Tinat, a publication on the subject of strategies for coping with shortfalls, teaches the missing aspects of:
wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity comprises: generating a second supplementary task based on the inventory quantity of the first materials; determining that the outbound order does not support partial picking; sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving first materials corresponding to the replenishment order.Rey-Tinat teaches the strategy (policy) “2. BACKORDER ENTIRE ORDER IF ANYTHING IS OUT OF STOCK” on page 2 in the claimed situation. This corresponds to the method steps of the claim in the situation where local inventory allocation at the warehouse fails to complete the order and partial picking is not an option, and is compatible with Chen’s strategy selection of [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen and Jenkins, wherein the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order depending on whether the outbound order supports partial picking, if the inventory quantity of the first materials is less than the picking shortage quantity comprises: generating a second supplementary task based on the inventory quantity of the first materials; determining that the outbound order does not support partial picking; sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving first materials corresponding to the replenishment order, as taught by Rey-Tinat, because shipping a complete shipment after a backorder completes inventory stock is not is an age-old strategy widespread in the art since the dawn of commerce.
Regarding claim 14,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 3, but not all aspects of:
further comprising: if an inventory quantity of the first materials after the inventory allocation is less than the difference between the material quantity of the picked materials and the minimum outbound quantity, sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity, and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing according to a material demand quantity corresponding to the outbound order after receiving materials corresponding to the replenishment order. While Jenkins teaches considerations for restocking missing inventory in the event of a shortfall in [0241]-[0242], neither reference teaches the claimed method in full.
Rey-Tinat, a publication on the subject of strategies for coping with shortfalls, teaches the missing aspects of:
further comprising: if an inventory quantity of the first materials after the inventory allocation is less than the difference between the material quantity of the picked materials and the minimum outbound quantity, sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity, and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing according to a material demand quantity corresponding to the outbound order after receiving materials corresponding to the replenishment order. Rey-Tinat teaches the strategy (policy) “2. BACKORDER ENTIRE ORDER IF ANYTHING IS OUT OF STOCK” in page 2. This corresponds to the method steps of the claim in the situation where local inventory allocation at the warehouse fails to complete the order and partial picking is not an option, and is compatible with Chen’s strategy selection of [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen and Jenkins, further comprising: if an inventory quantity of the first materials after the inventory allocation is less than the difference between the material quantity of the picked materials and the minimum outbound quantity, sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the picking shortage quantity, and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing according to a material demand quantity corresponding to the outbound order after receiving materials corresponding to the replenishment order, as taught by Rey-Tinat, because shipping a complete shipment after a backorder completes inventory stock is an age-old strategy widespread in the art since the dawn of commerce.
Regarding claim 15,
Chen in view of Jenkins teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
where the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: performing inventory allocation for the first materials when the outbound order does not support partial picking; generating a fifth supplementary task based on the picking shortage quantity if an inventory quantity of the first materials in an inventory after the inventory allocation is greater than or equal to the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on materials corresponding to the fifth supplementary task and the picked materials. While Chen teaches a supplemental task associated with an inventory shortage, neither reference teaches the circumstance wherein an order does not support partial picking.
Rey-Tinat, a publication on the subject of strategies for coping with shortfalls, teaches the missing aspects of:
where the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: performing inventory allocation for the first materials when the outbound order does not support partial picking; generating a fifth supplementary task based on the picking shortage quantity if an inventory quantity of the first materials in an inventory after the inventory allocation is greater than or equal to the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on materials corresponding to the fifth supplementary task and the picked materials. Rey-Tinat teaches the strategy (policy) “5. SHIP COMPLETE ORDERS ONLY & RESERVE AVAILABLE STOCK” in page 2. This corresponds to the method steps of the claim, and is compatible with Chen’s strategy selection of [0020]. The reservation is the claimed supplemental task incorporating inventory allocation, the allocation being the reservation of stock for completing the order.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen and Jenkins, where the determining the outbound policy for the outbound order according to the picking shortage quantity of the first materials in the first notification information comprises: performing inventory allocation for the first materials when the outbound order does not support partial picking; generating a fifth supplementary task based on the picking shortage quantity if an inventory quantity of the first materials in an inventory after the inventory allocation is greater than or equal to the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on materials corresponding to the fifth supplementary task and the picked materials, as taught by Rey-Tinat, because reserving stock to complete an order is an age-old strategy widespread in the art since the dawn of commerce.
Regarding claim 16,
Chen in view of Jenkins and Rey-Tinat teaches the limitations of claim 15, and also:
wherein after the performing inventory allocation for the first materials, the method further comprises: sending a replenishment order to an upstream interface based on the materials on which picking shortage occurs, if the inventory quantity of the first materials in the inventory after the inventory allocation is less than the picking shortage quantity; and determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound processing on all materials corresponding to the outbound order after receiving materials corresponding to the replenishment order.Rey-Tinat teaches the strategy (policy) “2. BACKORDER ENTIRE ORDER IF ANYTHING IS OUT OF STOCK” in page 2. This corresponds to the method steps of the claim in the situation where local inventory allocation at the warehouse fails to complete the order and partial picking is not an option, and is compatible with Chen’s strategy selection of [0020].
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jenkins and Rey-Tinat and further in view of Yu, et al., CN 113191713 (hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 8,
Chen in view of Jenkins and Rey-Tinat teaches the limitations of claim 6, but not:
further comprising: sending confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order to a customer, if replenishment is unachievable or replenishment time exceeds set duration for the outbound order. None of the references teach the claimed confirmation and cancellation policy.
Yu, an invention in the field of warehouse shortage management, teaches:
further comprising: sending confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order to a customer, if replenishment is unachievable or replenishment time exceeds set duration for the outbound order.Yu teaches this method in [n0109] and [n0113]. In combination with Chen, Yu’s method becomes one of Chen’s selected strategies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen, Jenkins, and Rey-Tinat, further comprising: sending confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order to a customer, if replenishment is unachievable or replenishment time exceeds set duration for the outbound order, as taught by Yu, because many customers may prefer to cancel an order rather than receiving a partial shipment or waiting too long to receive a complete one, and because a confirmation step enables them to select which choice is best in the particular case. Like the other claimed strategies, this strategy dates to ancient history.
Regarding claim 17,
Chen in view of Jenkins and Rey-Tinat teaches the limitations of claim 16, but not:
further comprising: sending confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order to a customer, if replenishment is unachievable or replenishment time exceeds set duration for the outbound order. None of the references teach the claimed confirmation and cancelation policy.
Yu, an invention in the field of warehouse shortage management, teaches:
further comprising: sending confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order to a customer, if replenishment is unachievable or replenishment time exceeds set duration for the outbound order.Yu teaches this method in [n0109] and [n0113]. In combination with Chen, Yu’s method becomes one of Chen’s selected strategies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Chen, Jenkins, and Rey-Tinat, further comprising: sending confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order to a customer, if replenishment is unachievable or replenishment time exceeds set duration for the outbound order, as taught by Yu, because many customers may prefer to cancel an order rather than receiving a partial shipment or waiting too long to receive a complete one, and because a confirmation step enables them to select which choice is best in the particular case. Like the other claimed strategies, this strategy dates to ancient history.
Regarding claim 18,
Chen in view of Jenkins and Rey-Tinat teaches the limitations of claim 17, and also:
wherein after the sending the confirmation information confirming whether to cancel the outbound order, the method further comprises: determining feedback on the confirmation information from a customer in response to received second notification information, wherein the second notification information is used for indicating a selection made by the customer based on the confirmation information on whether to accept shipment of the order; determining that the outbound policy is to perform outbound based on materials in the materials corresponding to the outbound order except the picking shortage quantity corresponding to the first materials, when the feedback from the customer is direct shipment; and determining that the outbound policy is to cancel the order and perform inbound processing on the picked materials corresponding to the order, when the feedback from the customer is disagreement to shipment.In the first of the two cases of the claim, confirmation occurs as Yu teaches in [n0113] and a shipment is subsequently sent to the customer. In the second case, the customer or user chooses to cancel the order as in [n0109], the shipment is not sent, and the materials are returned to the shipping warehouse.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claim 11, the claimed time difference between the current moment and a latest outbound time used as the basis for determining a quantity of materials to be replenished was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. However, as we consider claim 11 indefinite specifically because we do not understand its method, we caution applicant that amendment to repair the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) will necessarily trigger new search that may result in rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 if a definitely-disclosed method is found to be obvious in view of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examples of art teaching warehouse methods in response to inventory shortfalls include: US 2002/0183892, US 2006/0250248, US 6,868,397, and US 9,120,622.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights