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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed 10/24/2024.
Claims 2-21 have been added.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/06/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 10, 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12086760 to KREIS et al. (hereinafter “KREIS760”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 2. (New) A system comprising: machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to at least: (KREIS760, claim 1; “A system comprising: a communication device; and machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit in communication with the communication device, the at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to”)
identify, based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, an exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle, the pick job associated with a consolidation order; (KREIS760, claim 1; “receive, via the communication device and based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, a message including a first exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle”)
in response to the identification of the exception, store, in a memory, a first indicator associating the first item with the exception; (KREIS760, claim 1; “store, in a memory accessible by one or more of the at least one processor circuit and in response to receiving the message, a short indicator associating the first item with the first exception”)
determine, after storing the first indicator, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception; (KREIS760, claim 1; “determine, after storing the short indicator, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, store a first resolvable short indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the first resolvable short indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the first exception”)
determine, after storing the second indicator, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order (KREIS760, claim 3; “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to further determine that the trigger condition is satisfied by determining that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order”) and, in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and (KREIS760, claim 1; “create a heal job that directs collection of the first item and the second item responsive to the trigger condition being satisfied; and”)
control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle. (KREIS760, claim 1; “control the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the identified one of the autonomous vehicles to cause the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item and the second item in an environment”)
Regarding claim 9. (New) A method comprising:
identifying, based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, an exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle, the pick job associated with a consolidation order; (KREIS760, claim 10; “A method comprising: receiving, via a communication device and based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, a message including a first exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle”)
in response to the identification of the exception, storing, in a memory, a first indicator associating the first item with the exception; (KREIS760, claim 10; “in response to receiving the message, storing, by at least one processor circuit programmed by at least one instruction and in a memory accessible by one or more of the at least one processor circuit, a short indicator associating the first item with the first exception”)
determining, after storing the first indicator and by at least one processor circuit programmed by at least one instruction, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception; (KREIS760, claim 10; “determining, by one or more of the at least one processor circuit after storing the short indicator, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, storing, by the one or more of the at least one processor circuit, a first resolvable short indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the first resolvable short indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the first exception”)
determining, after storing the second indicator and by one or more of the at least one processor circuit, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order (KREIS760, claim 12; “determining, by one or more of the at least one processor circuit, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order”) and, in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and (KREIS760, claim 10; “creating, by one or more of the at least one processor circuit, a heal job that directs collection of the first item and the second item responsive to the trigger condition being satisfied; and”)
controlling one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle. (KREIS760, claim 10; “controlling the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles to cause the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item and the second item in an environment”)
Regarding claim 15. (New) At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine- readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least:
identify, based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, an exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle, the pick job associated with a consolidation order; (KREIS760, claim 19; “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least: receive, via a communication device and based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, a message including a first exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle”)
in response to the identification of the exception, store, in a memory, a first indicator associating the first item with the exception; (KREIS760, claim 19; “store, in a memory and in response to receiving the message, a short indicator associating the first item with the first exception”)
determine, after storing the first indicator, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception; (KREIS760, claim 19; “determine, after storing the short indicator, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, store a first resolvable short indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the first resolvable short indicator identifying the first item as no second associated with the first exception”)
determine, after storing the second indicator, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order (KREIS760, claim 3; “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to further determine that the trigger condition is satisfied by determining that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order”) and, in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and (KREIS760, claim 19; “create a heal job that directs collection of the first item and the second item responsive to the trigger condition being satisfied; and”)
control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle. (KREIS760, claim 19; “control the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles to cause the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the identified one of the one or more autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item and the second item in an environment”)
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 2-8 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 9-14 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 15-21 recite a one non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 2, 9 and 15 recite the abstract idea of dynamically managing order fulfillment, and more specifically, to managing missing items in a consolidation order, see specification [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of
identify an exception indicating a first item cannot be collected, the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle, the pick job associated with a consolidation order;
in response to the identification of the exception, store a first indicator associating the first item with the exception;
determine, after storing the first indicator, that the first item can be collected and, in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception;
determine, after storing the second indicator, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and, in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and
perform the heal job, including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to manage fulfill purchased items (i.e., inventory management).
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 2: machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions, on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, a memory, control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles,
Claim 9: on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, memory, at least one processor circuit programmed by at least one instruction, controlling one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles,
Claim 15: At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine- readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit, based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, a memory, control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the claims utilizing a “autonomous vehicle” does not provide more than linking the judicial exception to a particular technology field of using vehicle that do not provide an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2016.05 (h).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-14 and 16-21 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 2, 9 and 15 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 3-8, 10-14 and 16-21 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 2, 9 and 15 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 3-6, 8: one or more of the at least one processor circuit,
Claim 7: one or more of the at least one processor circuit, memory,
Claim 13: memory,
Claims 16-19, 21: at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit,
Claim 20: at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit, the memory,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of dynamically managing order fulfillment, and more specifically, to managing missing items in a consolidation order, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 2-21, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 20200310391 A1, hereinafter “Cole”) in view of LI et al. (US 2020/0302391 A1, hereinafter “LI”).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15. Cole discloses a system comprising:
machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to at least:
identify, based on one or more first signals transmitted by a first autonomous vehicle, an exception indicating a first item cannot be collected (Cole, [0019]; “The processor 182 can also process a subprogram, module, algorithm, or routine, referred to herein as an exception detection program 198, to determine if the assigned task can be completed based on the product information, task instructions, and other capabilities of the robotic unit 100”), the first item associated with a pick job assigned to the first autonomous vehicle, the pick job associated with a consolidation order; (Cole, Fig. 3; “assign task 302” > “assess exception to task 304”. [0021]; “the classification engine 200 can receive an exception signal 206 from the robotic unit 100 … the robotic unit 100 may also communicate a task signal 208 identifying the task or the type of task from among the task instructions that the robotic unit is attempting to execute”)
in response to the identification of the exception, store, in a memory, a first indicator (Cole, Fig. 3; “product identification exception 210”, “product location exception 220”, “computational exception 230”. [0021-0022]; “Classification … A product identification exception 210”) associating the first item with the exception; (Cole, Fig. 3; “classify exception 312” > “generate request 314” > data request 212”. [0021-0022]; “the classification engine 200 may analyze and process the information associated the exception signal 206 and the task signal according to hierarchal tiers or categories … as a product identification exception 210 … as a product identification exception 210 … may be encoded as an electrical signal using any suitable protocol”)
determine, after storing the first indicator, that the first item can be collected (Cole, Fig. 3; “corrective assistance direct assist. Center 320”. [0032]; “the data assistance center 130 may identify the product and the clerk associated with the data assistance center 130 may provide updated product data 322 to the robotic unit 100”) and,
Cole substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Cole fails to explicitly disclose the “in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception; determine, after storing the second indicator, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and, in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle”. However, LI teaches
in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception; determine, after storing the second indicator, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and, (LI, [0196-0197]; “The preliminary filtering module is configured to perform preliminary filtering on the pending orders according to a preset filtering rule and at least partly according to … order cut-off time … The picking order group determining module is further configured to combine the filtered pending orders whose order item overlapping degree is greater than or equal to the first overlapping degree threshold”)
in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and (LI, [0059]; “In step S30, for any of the at least one batch of task, the batch of task is allocated to a corresponding target workstation, a target inventory container matching an order item is selected for a pending order in the batch of task, and a target robot for carrying the target inventory container is selected for the batch of task”)
control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job (LI, [0060]; “In step S40, the target robot is controlled to carry the target inventory container matching the order item to the target workstation corresponding to the batch of task”), the one or more second signals including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle. (LI, [0070-0071]; “S30 may include step S130. In step S130, according to the parameter of the order item of the pending order in each batch of task, at least one batch of task is allocated to the corresponding target workstation, and the corresponding target inventory container is found for the order item of the pending order in the batch of task”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cole to include in response thereto, store a second indicator associated with the first item in the memory, the second indicator identifying the first item as no longer associated with the exception; determine, after storing the second indicator, that an estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order equals or exceeds a threshold time associated with a shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and, in response thereto, create a heal job that directs collection of the first item for the consolidation order; and control one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles based on one or more second signals transmitted to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to cause the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to perform the heal job, the one or more second signals including location information for use by the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles in navigating to the first item in an environment, the plurality of autonomous vehicles including the first autonomous vehicle, as taught by LI, where this would be performed in order to improve the picking efficiency. See LI [0003].
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of LI further in view of WILLARD, III et al. (US 11120378 B1, hereinafter “WILLARD”).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16. The combination of Cole in view of LI discloses the system of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to
The combination of Cole in view of LI substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determine the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order based on one or more of an activity level of workers; a number of incoming orders; or an average pick rate”. However, WILLARD teaches:
determine the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order based on one or more of an activity level of workers; a number of incoming orders; or an average pick rate. (WILLARD, col. 7-lines 4-8; “ The order generating unit 14 or the bulk pick order fulfillment unit 18 can schedule the bulk pick at a time of day that is convenient based on the total number of customer orders being handled, the time of day, the number of pick agents assigned to the warehouse floor, and the like”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cole to include determine the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order based on one or more of an activity level of workers; a number of incoming orders; or an average pick rate, as taught by WILLARD, where this would be performed in order to optimize the item picking and packaging process. See WILLARD, col. 1-line 43.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17. The combination of Cole in view of LI discloses the system of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to
The combination of Cole in view of LI substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determine the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order based on one or more of a number of further exceptions associated with the consolidation order or a number of further items still to be collected for the consolidation order”. However, WILLARD teaches
determine the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order based on one or more of a number of further exceptions associated with the consolidation order or a number of further items still to be collected for the consolidation order. (WILLARD, col. 2-lines 37-44; “The customer order fulfillment system of the present invention further comprises an automated fulfillment sub-system for automatically retrieving the items that form the bulk pick or that form the pick tour, … The system can also employ a controller for scheduling one or more selected time periods for performing the bulk pick tours”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cole to include determine the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order based on one or more of a number of further exceptions associated with the consolidation order or a number of further items still to be collected for the consolidation order, as taught by WILLARD, where this would be performed in order to optimize the item picking and packaging process. See WILLARD, col. 1-line 43.
Claims 5-6, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of LI further in view of Patel et al. (US 20200357040 A1, hereinafter “Patel”).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18. The combination of Cole in view of LI discloses the system of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to:
The combination of Cole in view of LI substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determine that a second item associated with the consolidation order cannot be collected; and create the heal job based on the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order being equal to or exceeding the threshold time associated with the shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and the determination that the second item cannot be collected”. However, Patel teaches
determine that a second item associated with the consolidation order cannot be collected; (Patel, Fig. 2; “generate one or more tasks associated with preparing second order portion ay hub store 214” > “notify central order management system if any items unavailable at hub store 216”. [0075-0080]; “At block 214, one or more tasks associated with preparing the order portion assigned to the hub store may be generated automatically … If any items within the order portion assigned to the hub store are not available or in stock at the hub store, a notification (block 216) may be provided to the central order management system”) and
create the heal job based on the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order being equal to or exceeding the threshold time associated with the shipping cutoff (Patel, [0071]; “different parts of the order portion at the fulfillment center may be assigned to a cart based, at least in part, on the item size, item type, or location in the fulfillment center”, see [0079]) for the consolidation order and the determination that the second item cannot be collected. (Patel, [0007]; “one or more tasks associated with combining the first and second portions of the first order and loading the combined first and second portions of the first order onto a transportation vehicle for transfer to the second retail store”. [0084]; “At block 218 … one or more tasks associated with combining the order portion prepared at the fulfillment center with the order portion prepared at the hub store may be generated. The one or more tasks associated with combining these two order portions may be generated automatically”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cole to include determine that a second item associated with the consolidation order cannot be collected; and create the heal job based on the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order being equal to or exceeding the threshold time associated with the shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and the determination that the second item cannot be collected, as taught by Patel, where this would be performed in order to avoid delays or unreliable provision of the purchased item that may cause customers to be dissatisfied with those systems or the retailer . See Patel [0003].
Regarding claims 6 and 19. The combination of Cole in view of LI discloses the system of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to:
The combination of Cole in view of LI substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determine that a second item associated with the consolidation order can be collected; perform a comparison of a size of the first item and a size of the second item relative to a storage capacity threshold of the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; determine, based on the comparison, the size of the first item and the size of the second item fail to satisfy the storage capacity threshold; and create the heal job based on the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order being equal to or exceeding the threshold time associated with the shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and not based on the storage capacity threshold”. However, Patel teaches
determine that a second item associated with the consolidation order can be collected; (Patel, [0075]; “At block 214, one or more tasks associated with preparing the order portion assigned to the hub store may be generated automatically”)
perform a comparison of a size of the first item and a size of the second item relative to a storage capacity threshold of the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; determine, based on the comparison, the size of the first item and the size of the second item fail to satisfy the storage capacity threshold; and create the heal job based on the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order being equal to or exceeding the threshold time associated with the shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and not based on the storage capacity threshold. (Patel, [0069-0071]; “the one or more tasks associated with preparing the order portion at the fulfillment center may comprise the use of one or more carts … carts may be automated … different parts of the order portion at the fulfillment center may be assigned to a cart based, at least in part, on the item size, item type, or location in the fulfillment center … generating the one or more tasks may comprise determining the optimal assignment of items in one or more order portions being fulfilled at the fulfillment center to bins in one or more carts. Optimization may comprise optimizing for space, efficiency, preparation time, or other suitable factor”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cole to include determine that a second item associated with the consolidation order can be collected; perform a comparison of a size of the first item and a size of the second item relative to a storage capacity threshold of the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; determine, based on the comparison, the size of the first item and the size of the second item fail to satisfy the storage capacity threshold; and create the heal job based on the estimated fulfillment time for the consolidation order being equal to or exceeding the threshold time associated with the shipping cutoff for the consolidation order and not based on the storage capacity threshold, as taught by Patel, where this would be performed in order to avoid delays or unreliable provision of the purchased item that may cause customers to be dissatisfied with those systems or the retailer . See Patel [0003].
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Claims 7-8, 13-14 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627