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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on December 20, 2024, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 of current application 18/916,461 (hereinafter ‘461) are rejected on the ground of anticipatory nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the independent claims (and claimed concept in its entirety) of the current application ‘461 are encompassed by claims 1-18 presented in ‘186 (although spread over different parts/claims of ‘860’s claim set). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language/limitations of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, non-functional and non-structural field-of-use language, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. The Applicant may have reworded/rephrased some of the limitations of the independent claims but the concepts claimed in the current application are all also presented in the claims of patent ‘186.
Dependent claims 2-3, 14-15 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016):
As per claim 2, ‘186 does not disclose claim 2 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘186 nor Antonellis explicitly state dynamically re-assigning picking tasks, warehouse shelves, and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, warehouse, and warehouse shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya discloses also discloses dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders (¶¶ 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 14, claim 14 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 2 above; and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 2.
As per claim 3, ‘186 does not disclose claim 3 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., (¶¶ 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘186 nor Antonellis explicitly state picking agents, items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking agents, shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya also discloses items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order (¶¶ 0125 [item picking agents then transfer the items to the correct container about the pick wall…any empty container on the pick wall…replenished items, the item picking agent…container that stores the current depleted inventory…empty container; 0119 [WMS can notify the item picking agents], 0024-0026 [picking items for shelves…update inventory…items depleted]], 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 15, claim 15 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 3 above; and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 3.
Dependent claims 5 and 17 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016):
As per claim 5, ‘186 does not disclose claim 5 limitation. Analogous art Pandya discloses a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items (¶¶ 0049 [WMS coordination and control occurs at a lower granular level, the assigned tasks can direct or instruct each agent of the selected subset of agents of the individual steps with which to pick the items…instruct an agent on the optimal path to the item location…traverse the path, wherein the most optimal path is the fastest path to the item location as determined from distance to the item location and congestion along the path….interfacing with…the agent assigned to pick the item and highlighting the item in a display or otherwise directing the agent's movements to the item location; with 0136 [directly access sensors on devices carried by human workers…monitor position, verify picking, retrieval, and packaging operations, assist in navigation, and assist in item or container identification, picking, and retrieval...human wears an augmented reality headset (type of user interface)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in include in ‘186 a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 17, claim 17 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 5 above; and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 5.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 12 is rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621):
As per claim 9, ‘186 does not disclose claim 9 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip (for example, ¶¶ 0083-0088 [suppose there are two orders, O1 and O2… first driver, D1…D1…(time from establishment to the customers of O1 and O2 orders)…both orders…to make both deliveries; see with 0166-0170 [discusses deliveries of orders to customers with locations and geographical areas taken into account]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 10, ‘186 does not disclose claim 10 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences (¶¶ 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items; 0083 [optimization rules would preferably use these factors, and the customers' needs and preferences that are associated with the order to associate a customer's order with a particular limiting resource; with 0094-0096 [preference by Customer 102 to receive or consume the order at a particular time or after a particular point in time…system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order]], 0163 [ allowing the customer to cancel or change his or her order]], 0096 [system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order; with 0086-0089 [shows details of example of assignment and reassignments based on order preparation statuses for orders that need to be delivered, time taken and time considerations (including customer wait times, prep time, delivery time, etc.,), delivery statuses and locations of deliver persons (with time considerations)], 0169]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 12, ‘186 does not disclose claim 12 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, where the dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]], 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Dependent claims 4, 8, 16 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621), further in view of Putnam et al., (US 2014/0280510):
As per claim 4, ‘186 does not disclose claim 4 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency (see rejection and citations above for claim 1 (discussing dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks) and see ¶¶ 0010 [delivery…time estimates based on distances between pickup and delivery locations and varying traffic conditions; with 0084-0089 [delivery…nodal network…spacing between each node can be an estimate of the travel time between each node…delivers order…customer wait time is reduced (faster delivery)…achieve a lower total customer wait time (through more efficient and faster delivery)]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘186 nor Antonellis discloses fuel.
Analogous art Putnam shows taking fuel into consideration in a delivery setting and efficiency (for example, see ¶¶ 0046-0054 [delivery personnel…determining mileage traveled, determining fuel charges…delivery schedule…ensure efficient…routes]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis taking into account fuel as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 16, claim 16 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 4 above; and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 4.
As per claim 8, ‘186 does not disclose claim 8 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0083-0087 [predict…optimization rules…optimization…delivery service], 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0096-0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0166-0170 [predicting…delivery team efficiency…location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘186 nor Antonellis explicitly state data which includes a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations.
Analogous art Putnam discloses a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations (for example, ¶ 0093 [if the delivery personnel is spending too long at a particular location, the delivery personnel computing device may provide a notification to the delivery personnel to begin traveling to the next location]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘ 186 in view of Antonellis a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes and lowering costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Dependent claims 6 and 18 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621), further in view of Yang et al., (US 2009/0106124):
As per claim 6, ‘186 does not disclose claim 6 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0062 [shows devices used by agents/clients], 0149-0142 [track the location of implements used to prepare the order…real-time opportunities to enhance…service…RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘186 nor Antonellis disclose alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions.
Analogous art Yang discloses alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (¶¶ 0095 [traffic conditions around pickup locations…release another pick up point in the area for use], 0128-0129 [shows order status and changing pick up point; with 0132 [showing pickup points based on traffic conditions/volume], 0144, 0245 [server…changes the pickup location; also 0252 [taking traffic condition in consideration]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Yang in order to increase efficiency in pickup and delivery and avoid/reduce extra costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Yang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 18, claim 18 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 6 above; and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 6.
Dependent claim 7 and 19 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Shakes (US 2007/0150383):
As per claim 7, ‘186 does not disclose claim 7 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0010, 0014, 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0023-0024 [tracking…resource usage…tracking…preparing said order], 0096 [track…until an order is completely prepared…device tracking; with 0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0170 [location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons; with 0117-0121 [fulfillment agent…fulfillment…staff… perform tasks necessary for the completion of an order…chef/cook/etc.,]]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘186 nor Antonellis disclose picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers), tasks of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘186 nor Antonellis nor Pandya disclose time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility.
Analogous art Shakes discloses using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility (¶¶ 0016-0017 [time spent at a bin…picker…picking process…agent…picking agent…time (spent)…multiplied across the large number of orders fulfilled; with 0019 [reduction or minimization of time spent at a receptacle; with 0005 [warehouses, distribution centers, etc.,], 0035 [fulfilling…orders…warehouse]]], 0048 [time spent at a receptacle/location…picker]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis in view of Pandya alternate using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility as taught by analogous art Shakes in order to increase efficiency in fulfilling order by improving pick rates through the reduction or minimization of time spent (a type of cost) at a picking location within a warehouse/facility since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Shakes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 19, claim 19 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above; and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 7.
Dependent claim 11 is rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,186 (hereinafter ‘186) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Kim et al., (US 2008/0162270):
As per claim 11, ‘186 does not disclose claim 11 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents (see citations for claim 1 above and see ¶¶ 0083 [resources…predicted to become available based on optimization rule; with 0085-0089 [showing example of balancing workload among agents], 0094 [predicted…availability of limiting resource (agents/etc.,)…necessary to complete the order]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘186 nor Antonellis does not disclose machine learning.
Analogous art Pandya discloses machine learning (¶ 0118 [machine learning]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis machine learning as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to use data optimally for optimal order fulfillment and delivery since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Pandya would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘186 nor Antonellis nor Pandya disclose predicting order volumes.
Analogous art Kim discloses predicting order volumes (Kim’s claims 5-7 [forecasting warehouse product order quantities required to meet future product demands]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘186 in view of Antonellis in view of Pandya predicting order volumes as taught by analogous art Kim in order to optimally meet demand and fulfilling orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 of current application 18/916,461 (hereinafter ‘461) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 580,860 (hereinafter ‘860). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the independent claims (and claimed concept in its entirety) of the current application ‘461 are encompassed by claims 1-20 presented in ‘860 (although spread over different parts/claims of ‘860’s claim set). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language/limitations of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, non-functional and non-structural field-of-use language, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. The Applicant may have reworded/rephrased some of the limitations of the independent claims but the concepts claimed in the current application are all also presented in the claims of patent ‘186.
Dependent claims 2-3, 14-15 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016):
As per claim 2, ‘860 does not disclose claim 2 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘860 nor Antonellis explicitly state dynamically re-assigning picking tasks, warehouse shelves, and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, warehouse, and warehouse shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya discloses also discloses dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders (¶¶ 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 14, claim 14 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 2 above; and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 2.
As per claim 3, ‘860 does not disclose claim 3 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., (¶¶ 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘860 nor Antonellis explicitly state picking agents, items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking agents, shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya also discloses items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order (¶¶ 0125 [item picking agents then transfer the items to the correct container about the pick wall…any empty container on the pick wall…replenished items, the item picking agent…container that stores the current depleted inventory…empty container; 0119 [WMS can notify the item picking agents], 0024-0026 [picking items for shelves…update inventory…items depleted]], 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 15, claim 15 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 3 above; and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 3.
Dependent claims 5 and 17 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016)
As per claim 5, ‘860 does not disclose claim 5 limitation. Analogous art Pandya discloses a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items (¶¶ 0049 [WMS coordination and control occurs at a lower granular level, the assigned tasks can direct or instruct each agent of the selected subset of agents of the individual steps with which to pick the items…instruct an agent on the optimal path to the item location…traverse the path, wherein the most optimal path is the fastest path to the item location as determined from distance to the item location and congestion along the path….interfacing with…the agent assigned to pick the item and highlighting the item in a display or otherwise directing the agent's movements to the item location; with 0136 [directly access sensors on devices carried by human workers…monitor position, verify picking, retrieval, and packaging operations, assist in navigation, and assist in item or container identification, picking, and retrieval...human wears an augmented reality headset (type of user interface)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in include in ‘860 a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 17, claim 17 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 5 above; and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 5.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 12 is rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621):
As per claim 9, ‘860 does not disclose claim 9 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip (for example, ¶¶ 0083-0088 [suppose there are two orders, O1 and O2… first driver, D1…D1…(time from establishment to the customers of O1 and O2 orders)…both orders…to make both deliveries; see with 0166-0170 [discusses deliveries of orders to customers with locations and geographical areas taken into account]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 10, ‘860 does not disclose claim 10 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences (¶¶ 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items; 0083 [optimization rules would preferably use these factors, and the customers' needs and preferences that are associated with the order to associate a customer's order with a particular limiting resource; with 0094-0096 [preference by Customer 102 to receive or consume the order at a particular time or after a particular point in time…system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order]], 0163 [ allowing the customer to cancel or change his or her order]], 0096 [system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order; with 0086-0089 [shows details of example of assignment and reassignments based on order preparation statuses for orders that need to be delivered, time taken and time considerations (including customer wait times, prep time, delivery time, etc.,), delivery statuses and locations of deliver persons (with time considerations)], 0169]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 12, ‘860 does not disclose claim 12 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, where the dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]], 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Dependent claims 4, 8, 16 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621), further in view of Putnam et al., (US 2014/0280510):
As per claim 4, ‘860 does not disclose claim 4 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency (see rejection and citations above for claim 1 (discussing dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks) and see ¶¶ 0010 [delivery…time estimates based on distances between pickup and delivery locations and varying traffic conditions; with 0084-0089 [delivery…nodal network…spacing between each node can be an estimate of the travel time between each node…delivers order…customer wait time is reduced (faster delivery)…achieve a lower total customer wait time (through more efficient and faster delivery)]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘860 nor Antonellis discloses fuel.
Analogous art Putnam shows taking fuel into consideration in a delivery setting and efficiency (for example, see ¶¶ 0046-0054 [delivery personnel…determining mileage traveled, determining fuel charges…delivery schedule…ensure efficient…routes]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis taking into account fuel as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 16, claim 16 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 4 above; and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 4.
As per claim 8, ‘860 does not disclose claim 8 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0083-0087 [predict…optimization rules…optimization…delivery service], 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0096-0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0166-0170 [predicting…delivery team efficiency…location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘860 nor Antonellis explicitly state data which includes a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations.
Analogous art Putnam discloses a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations (for example, ¶ 0093 [if the delivery personnel is spending too long at a particular location, the delivery personnel computing device may provide a notification to the delivery personnel to begin traveling to the next location]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes and lowering costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Dependent claims 6 and 18 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Antonellis (US 2004/0210621), further in view of Yang et al., (US 2009/0106124):
As per claim 6, ‘860 does not disclose claim 6 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0062 [shows devices used by agents/clients], 0149-0142 [track the location of implements used to prepare the order…real-time opportunities to enhance…service…RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘860 nor Antonellis disclose alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions.
Analogous art Yang discloses alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (¶¶ 0095 [traffic conditions around pickup locations…release another pick up point in the area for use], 0128-0129 [shows order status and changing pick up point; with 0132 [showing pickup points based on traffic conditions/volume], 0144, 0245 [server…changes the pickup location; also 0252 [taking traffic condition in consideration]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Yang in order to increase efficiency in pickup and delivery and avoid/reduce extra costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Yang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 18, claim 18 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 6 above; and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 6.
Dependent claim 7 and 19 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Shakes (US 2007/0150383):
As per claim 7, ‘860 does not disclose claim 7 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0010, 0014, 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0023-0024 [tracking…resource usage…tracking…preparing said order], 0096 [track…until an order is completely prepared…device tracking; with 0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0170 [location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons; with 0117-0121 [fulfillment agent…fulfillment…staff… perform tasks necessary for the completion of an order…chef/cook/etc.,]]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘860 nor Antonellis disclose picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers), tasks of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘860 nor Antonellis nor Pandya disclose time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility.
Analogous art Shakes discloses using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility (¶¶ 0016-0017 [time spent at a bin…picker…picking process…agent…picking agent…time (spent)…multiplied across the large number of orders fulfilled; with 0019 [reduction or minimization of time spent at a receptacle; with 0005 [warehouses, distribution centers, etc.,], 0035 [fulfilling…orders…warehouse]]], 0048 [time spent at a receptacle/location…picker]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis in view of Pandya alternate using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility as taught by analogous art Shakes in order to increase efficiency in fulfilling order by improving pick rates through the reduction or minimization of time spent (a type of cost) at a picking location within a warehouse/facility since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Shakes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 19, claim 19 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above; and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 7.
Dependent claim 11 is rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,860 (hereinafter ‘860) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Kim et al., (US 2008/0162270):
As per claim 11, ‘860 does not disclose claim 11 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents (see citations for claim 1 above and see ¶¶ 0083 [resources…predicted to become available based on optimization rule; with 0085-0089 [showing example of balancing workload among agents], 0094 [predicted…availability of limiting resource (agents/etc.,)…necessary to complete the order]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘860 nor Antonellis does not disclose machine learning.
Analogous art Pandya discloses machine learning (¶ 0118 [machine learning]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis machine learning as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to use data optimally for optimal order fulfillment and delivery since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Pandya would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘860 nor Antonellis nor Pandya disclose predicting order volumes.
Analogous art Kim discloses predicting order volumes (Kim’s claims 5-7 [forecasting warehouse product order quantities required to meet future product demands]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘860 in view of Antonellis in view of Pandya predicting order volumes as taught by analogous art Kim in order to optimally meet demand and fulfilling orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 of current application 18/916,461 (hereinafter ‘461) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the independent claims (and claimed concept in its entirety) of the current application ‘461 are encompassed by claims 1-20 presented in ‘305 (although spread over different parts/claims of ‘305’s claim set). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language/limitations of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, non-functional and non-structural field-of-use language, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. The Applicant may have reworded/rephrased some of the limitations of the independent claims but the concepts claimed in the current application are all also presented in the claims of patent ‘186.
Dependent claims 2-3, 14-15 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016):
As per claim 2, ‘305 does not disclose claim 2 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘305 nor Antonellis explicitly state dynamically re-assigning picking tasks, warehouse shelves, and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, warehouse, and warehouse shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya discloses also discloses dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders (¶¶ 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 14, claim 14 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 2 above; and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 2.
As per claim 3, ‘305 does not disclose claim 3 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., (¶¶ 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘305 nor Antonellis explicitly state picking agents, items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking agents, shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya also discloses items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order (¶¶ 0125 [item picking agents then transfer the items to the correct container about the pick wall…any empty container on the pick wall…replenished items, the item picking agent…container that stores the current depleted inventory…empty container; 0119 [WMS can notify the item picking agents], 0024-0026 [picking items for shelves…update inventory…items depleted]], 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 15, claim 15 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 3 above; and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 3.
Dependent claims 5 and 17 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016)
As per claim 5, ‘305 does not disclose claim 5 limitation. Analogous art Pandya discloses a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items (¶¶ 0049 [WMS coordination and control occurs at a lower granular level, the assigned tasks can direct or instruct each agent of the selected subset of agents of the individual steps with which to pick the items…instruct an agent on the optimal path to the item location…traverse the path, wherein the most optimal path is the fastest path to the item location as determined from distance to the item location and congestion along the path….interfacing with…the agent assigned to pick the item and highlighting the item in a display or otherwise directing the agent's movements to the item location; with 0136 [directly access sensors on devices carried by human workers…monitor position, verify picking, retrieval, and packaging operations, assist in navigation, and assist in item or container identification, picking, and retrieval...human wears an augmented reality headset (type of user interface)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in include in ‘305 a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 17, claim 17 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 5 above; and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 5.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 12 is rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621):
As per claim 9, ‘305 does not disclose claim 9 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip (for example, ¶¶ 0083-0088 [suppose there are two orders, O1 and O2… first driver, D1…D1…(time from establishment to the customers of O1 and O2 orders)…both orders…to make both deliveries; see with 0166-0170 [discusses deliveries of orders to customers with locations and geographical areas taken into account]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 10, ‘305 does not disclose claim 10 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences (¶¶ 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items; 0083 [optimization rules would preferably use these factors, and the customers' needs and preferences that are associated with the order to associate a customer's order with a particular limiting resource; with 0094-0096 [preference by Customer 102 to receive or consume the order at a particular time or after a particular point in time…system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order]], 0163 [ allowing the customer to cancel or change his or her order]], 0096 [system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order; with 0086-0089 [shows details of example of assignment and reassignments based on order preparation statuses for orders that need to be delivered, time taken and time considerations (including customer wait times, prep time, delivery time, etc.,), delivery statuses and locations of deliver persons (with time considerations)], 0169]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 12, ‘305 does not disclose claim 12 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, where the dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]], 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Dependent claims 4, 8, 16 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621), further in view of Putnam et al., (US 2014/0280510):
As per claim 4, ‘305 does not disclose claim 4 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency (see rejection and citations above for claim 1 (discussing dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks) and see ¶¶ 0010 [delivery…time estimates based on distances between pickup and delivery locations and varying traffic conditions; with 0084-0089 [delivery…nodal network…spacing between each node can be an estimate of the travel time between each node…delivers order…customer wait time is reduced (faster delivery)…achieve a lower total customer wait time (through more efficient and faster delivery)]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘305 nor Antonellis discloses fuel.
Analogous art Putnam shows taking fuel into consideration in a delivery setting and efficiency (for example, see ¶¶ 0046-0054 [delivery personnel…determining mileage traveled, determining fuel charges…delivery schedule…ensure efficient…routes]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis taking into account fuel as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 16, claim 16 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 4 above; and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 4.
As per claim 8, ‘305 does not disclose claim 8 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0083-0087 [predict…optimization rules…optimization…delivery service], 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0096-0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0166-0170 [predicting…delivery team efficiency…location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘305 nor Antonellis explicitly state data which includes a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations.
Analogous art Putnam discloses a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations (for example, ¶ 0093 [if the delivery personnel is spending too long at a particular location, the delivery personnel computing device may provide a notification to the delivery personnel to begin traveling to the next location]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes and lowering costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Dependent claims 6 and 18 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621), further in view of Yang et al., (US 2009/0106124):
As per claim 6, ‘305 does not disclose claim 6 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0062 [shows devices used by agents/clients], 0149-0142 [track the location of implements used to prepare the order…real-time opportunities to enhance…service…RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘305 nor Antonellis disclose alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions.
Analogous art Yang discloses alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (¶¶ 0095 [traffic conditions around pickup locations…release another pick up point in the area for use], 0128-0129 [shows order status and changing pick up point; with 0132 [showing pickup points based on traffic conditions/volume], 0144, 0245 [server…changes the pickup location; also 0252 [taking traffic condition in consideration]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Yang in order to increase efficiency in pickup and delivery and avoid/reduce extra costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Yang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 18, claim 18 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 6 above; and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 6.
Dependent claim 7 and 19 are rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Shakes (US 2007/0150383):
As per claim 7, ‘305 does not disclose claim 7 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0010, 0014, 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0023-0024 [tracking…resource usage…tracking…preparing said order], 0096 [track…until an order is completely prepared…device tracking; with 0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0170 [location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons; with 0117-0121 [fulfillment agent…fulfillment…staff… perform tasks necessary for the completion of an order…chef/cook/etc.,]]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Neither ‘305 nor Antonellis disclose picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers), tasks of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘305 nor Antonellis nor Pandya disclose time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility.
Analogous art Shakes discloses using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility (¶¶ 0016-0017 [time spent at a bin…picker…picking process…agent…picking agent…time (spent)…multiplied across the large number of orders fulfilled; with 0019 [reduction or minimization of time spent at a receptacle; with 0005 [warehouses, distribution centers, etc.,], 0035 [fulfilling…orders…warehouse]]], 0048 [time spent at a receptacle/location…picker]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis in view of Pandya alternate using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility as taught by analogous art Shakes in order to increase efficiency in fulfilling order by improving pick rates through the reduction or minimization of time spent (a type of cost) at a picking location within a warehouse/facility since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Shakes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 19, claim 19 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above; and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 7.
Dependent claim 11 is rejected on the ground of obviousness nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,305 (hereinafter ‘305) in view of Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Kim et al., (US 2008/0162270):
As per claim 11, ‘305 does not disclose claim 11 limitation. Analogous art Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents (see citations for claim 1 above and see ¶¶ 0083 [resources…predicted to become available based on optimization rule; with 0085-0089 [showing example of balancing workload among agents], 0094 [predicted…availability of limiting resource (agents/etc.,)…necessary to complete the order]]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents as taught by analogous art Antonellis in order to optimally fulfill orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Antonellis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘305 nor Antonellis does not disclose machine learning.
Analogous art Pandya discloses machine learning (¶ 0118 [machine learning]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis machine learning as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to use data optimally for optimal order fulfillment and delivery since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Pandya would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither ‘305 nor Antonellis nor Pandya disclose predicting order volumes.
Analogous art Kim discloses predicting order volumes (Kim’s claims 5-7 [forecasting warehouse product order quantities required to meet future product demands]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in ‘305 in view of Antonellis in view of Pandya predicting order volumes as taught by analogous art Kim in order to optimally meet demand and fulfilling orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 13-19 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claim 20 is directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 13, 20) recite receiving/collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. order, time, location, availability of people (agents, etc.,), items, and the like), information/data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, determining statuses, assigning/moving information around, solving for optimization, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (for optimizing order fulfillment in a warehouse and delivering the order).
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 13, 20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions).
If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)), in the context of the independent claims (1, 13, 20), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing inventory and construction sites in view of abstract information (organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions)).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 13, 20) recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations ((“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20))) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations ((“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20))). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions)) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 13, 20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figure 4 and Pages 24-25 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 13, 20) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. order, time, location, availability of people (agents, etc.,), items, and the like), information/data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, determining statuses, assigning/moving information around, solving for optimization, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (for optimizing order fulfillment in a warehouse and delivering the order).
These dependent claims also cover methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite additional elements as generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)). Hence, the additional elements (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Also, the dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) or combination of elements in the dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016).
As per claim 1, Antonellis discloses a method for optimizing delivery assignments (¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0010, 0014, 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment]), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of orders, each associated with a delivery window and a delivery location (¶¶ 0049 [entity that receives orders…in response to the orders, provides the ordered goods or services; with 0019-0021 [information relevant to the preparation, status, or location of various orders or order components…notifying…when a delivery…arrive to a specified location, that a customer's order will be ready in a few minutes, etc., (delivery window of time is shown)]], 0052 [receives orders], 0096-0098 [rack estimated time remaining….order in completely prepared…delivery…determine a certain window of time…have the orders fulfilled within…window (of certain time)]);
identifying a plurality of available agents, the plurality of available agents includes picking agents who are responsible for tasks that include items in orders for fulfilling orders and delivery agents who are responsible for delivery tasks that include transporting picked items in orders from establishments to delivery locations (¶¶ 0009 [availability of resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons; with 0117-0121 [fulfillment agent…fulfillment…staff…perform tasks necessary for the completion of an order…chef/cook/etc.,; with 0079 [insufficient/sufficient staff (availability)]]], 0054 [term "available resource" is used herein to describe a resource which is presently available, scheduled to be available or expected to become available by some defined point in the future], 0079 [availability of delivery person…availability of delivery driver…staff can be limiting resource]);
assigning tasks and delivery tasks to available agents based on location data received from client devices of the available agents, delivery locations, and delivery windows of the plurality of orders (see citations above and see ¶¶ 0017 [assigning resources to the order and commanding the fulfillment of the order; with 0079 [resource…delivery person…driver…resource…staff (variety of resources – also 0117-0121 [staff, employee, chef, cook, delivery people, etc.,])]]);
tracking order preparation statuses of each order based on data of the agents, received from client devices associated with the agents (see citations above and see ¶¶ 0023-0024 [tracking…resource usage…tracking…preparing said order], 0096 [track…until an order is completely prepared…device tracking; with 0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…tracking system…device], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons; with 0117-0121 [fulfillment agent…fulfillment…staff… perform tasks necessary for the completion of an order…chef/cook/etc.,]]]);
tracking order delivery statuses based on location data of the delivery agents received from client devices associated with the delivery agents (see citations above and see ¶¶ 0010 [delivery person…tracks location], 0170-0172 [location of the delivery person…global positioning system, a satellite-based radio positioning system that can provide position, velocity and time information to users equipped with tracking devices and receivers]); and
dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks to the delivery agents based on order delivery statuses associated with corresponding delivery agents and preparation statuses associated with orders that are to be delivered by corresponding delivery agents (¶¶ 0096 [system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order; with 0086-0089 [shows details of example of assignment and reassignments based on order preparation statuses for orders that need to be delivered, time taken and time considerations (including customer wait times, prep time, delivery time, etc.,), delivery statuses and locations of deliver persons (with time considerations)], 0169]).
Antonellis does not explicitly state picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves, and dynamically re-assigning picking tasks to the picking agents based on order preparation statuses associated with corresponding picking agents and delivery status associated with delivery agents who are responsible for delivering orders that are to be picked by corresponding picking agents.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, warehouse, and warehouse shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya discloses also discloses dynamically re-assigning picking tasks to the picking agents based on order preparation statuses associated with corresponding picking agents and delivery status associated with delivery agents who are responsible for delivering orders that are to be picked by corresponding picking agents (¶¶ 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis dynamically re-assigning picking tasks to the picking agents based on order preparation statuses associated with corresponding picking agents and delivery status associated with delivery agents who are responsible for delivering orders that are to be picked by corresponding picking agents as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 13, claim 13 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1. Additionally, Antonellis discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (¶¶ 0045-0047 [software…computer…system…memory…data storage device, such as a hard disk, Random Access Memory, magnetic or optical storage unit (non-transitory computer readable storage medium), or CD-ROM drive (non-transitory computer readable storage medium), and stores data, databases…processor], 0083 [memory with program code]).
As per claim 20, claim 20 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1. Additionally, Antonellis discloses computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (¶¶ 0045-0047 [software…computer…system…memory…data storage device, such as a hard disk, Random Access Memory, magnetic or optical storage unit (non-transitory computer readable storage medium), or CD-ROM drive (non-transitory computer readable storage medium), and stores data, databases…processor], 0083 [memory with program code]; Antonellis’s claim 1).
As per claim 2, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses assigning/re-assigning tasks based on real-time monitoring of order preparation and tracking items in order preparation from containers includes considering real-time inventory updates (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]).
Antonellis does not explicitly state dynamically re-assigning picking tasks, warehouse shelves, and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, warehouse, and warehouse shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya discloses also discloses dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders (¶¶ 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis dynamically re-assigning picking tasks and ensuring picking agents are reassigned to orders as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 14, claim 14 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 2 above; and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 2.
As per claim 3, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses generating and alert for agents/employees/etc., (¶¶ 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]). However, Antonellis does not explicitly state picking agents, items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking agents, shelves (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, warehouse, warehouse shelves of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers) of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
Analogous art Pandya also discloses items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order (¶¶ 0125 [item picking agents then transfer the items to the correct container about the pick wall…any empty container on the pick wall…replenished items, the item picking agent…container that stores the current depleted inventory…empty container; 0119 [WMS can notify the item picking agents], 0024-0026 [picking items for shelves…update inventory…items depleted]], 0051-0052 [picking agents…assigns tasks…task assignment; 0098 [monitors…reassigns two item retrieval agents to retrieve additional picked items from item picking agents that have also been reassigned to pick additional items for customer orders; with 0109 [WMS 1205 continues the retrieve-then-pick workflow until the items from each container retrieved by a queued container retrieval agent has been processed and the customer order has been fulfilled. The WMS 1205 can then reassign the container retrieval agents in retrieving and delivering a different set of containers to a second order packaging station and assign the item picking agents at the second order packaging station in picking items]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis items in an order are not available on the warehouse shelves, prompting reassignment of picking tasks to other agents or modification of the order as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 15, claim 15 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 3 above; and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 3.
As per claim 5, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly state a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items.
Analogous art Pandya discloses a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items (¶¶ 0049 [WMS coordination and control occurs at a lower granular level, the assigned tasks can direct or instruct each agent of the selected subset of agents of the individual steps with which to pick the items…instruct an agent on the optimal path to the item location…traverse the path, wherein the most optimal path is the fastest path to the item location as determined from distance to the item location and congestion along the path….interfacing with…the agent assigned to pick the item and highlighting the item in a display or otherwise directing the agent's movements to the item location; with 0136 [directly access sensors on devices carried by human workers…monitor position, verify picking, retrieval, and packaging operations, assist in navigation, and assist in item or container identification, picking, and retrieval...human wears an augmented reality headset (type of user interface)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Antonellis a user interface on the client devices of the picking agents that displays optimized picking paths within a warehouse, thereby reducing a time taken to pick items as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to optimally fulfill orders using resources/agents/etc., efficiently since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 17, claim 17 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 5 above; and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 5.
As per claim 9, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of clustering multiple orders to be delivered within proximate geographic regions to a same delivery agent, thereby maximizing a number of deliveries per trip (for example, ¶¶ 0083-0088 [suppose there are two orders, O1 and O2… first driver, D1…D1…(time from establishment to the customers of O1 and O2 orders)…both orders…to make both deliveries; see with 0166-0170 [discusses deliveries of orders to customers with locations and geographical areas taken into account]]).
As per claim 10, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on feedback received from customers regarding preferences preferred delivery times, allowing for dynamic adjustment of delivery schedules to meet customer preferences (¶¶ 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items; 0083 [optimization rules would preferably use these factors, and the customers' needs and preferences that are associated with the order to associate a customer's order with a particular limiting resource; with 0094-0096 [preference by Customer 102 to receive or consume the order at a particular time or after a particular point in time…system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order]], 0163 [ allowing the customer to cancel or change his or her order]], 0096 [system can assign the order to a particular delivery driver, which may include reassigning the order from a delivery driver that had previously been assigned the order; with 0086-0089 [shows details of example of assignment and reassignments based on order preparation statuses for orders that need to be delivered, time taken and time considerations (including customer wait times, prep time, delivery time, etc.,), delivery statuses and locations of deliver persons (with time considerations)], 0169]).
As per claim 12, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, where the dynamically re-assigned tasks are updated in real-time on the client devices of the corresponding staff/employees and delivery agents, notifying the staff/employees and delivery agents updated assignments see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0140-0142 [RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]], 0122 [notification…alarm/alert on recipient device]) and modification to orders (¶¶ 0025 [change order; with 0167 [notification…agent/employee/driver notified…change as circumstance change]]].
Claims 4, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Putnam et al., (US 2014/0280510).
As per claim 4, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks includes optimizing a travel route for delivery agents based on current traffic conditions received from client devices, thereby reducing delivery times and improving efficiency (see rejection and citations above for claim 1 (discussing dynamically re-assigning delivery tasks) and see ¶¶ 0010 [delivery…time estimates based on distances between pickup and delivery locations and varying traffic conditions; with 0084-0089 [delivery…nodal network…spacing between each node can be an estimate of the travel time between each node…delivers order…customer wait time is reduced (faster delivery)…achieve a lower total customer wait time (through more efficient and faster delivery)]]).
Neither Antonellis nor Pandya discloses fuel.
Analogous art Putnam shows taking fuel into consideration in a delivery setting and efficiency (for example, see ¶¶ 0046-0054 [delivery personnel…determining mileage traveled, determining fuel charges…delivery schedule…ensure efficient…routes]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Antonellis in view of Pandya taking into account fuel as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 16, claim 16 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 4 above; and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 4.
As per claim 8, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking of order delivery statuses further includes monitoring delivery agent and this data is used to optimize subsequent delivery task assignments (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0083-0087 [predict…optimization rules…optimization…delivery service], 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0096-0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0166-0170 [predicting…delivery team efficiency…location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons). However, neither Antonellis nor Pandya explicitly state data which includes a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations.
Analogous art Putnam discloses a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations (for example, ¶ 0093 [if the delivery personnel is spending too long at a particular location, the delivery personnel computing device may provide a notification to the delivery personnel to begin traveling to the next location]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Antonellis in view of Pandya a time each delivery agent spends at delivery locations as taught by analogous art Putnam in order to optimally deliver orders while taking all costs into account for efficiency purposes and lowering costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Putnam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Yang et al., (US 2009/0106124).
As per claim 6, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses client devices of the delivery agents are configured to receive instructions in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (see citations above in claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0139 [track…prepare the order in order to facilitate an automated computerized service tracking system…provide the establishment with real time opportunities…improvements], 0062 [shows devices used by agents/clients], 0149-0142 [track the location of implements used to prepare the order…real-time opportunities to enhance…service…RF ID tags on items and items tracked for decision-making; with 0142 [update…inventory], with 0009 [availability of ingredients to prepare food/order], with 0144-0145 [progress tracked…(for items regarding an order)…tracked through kitchen/establishment…RF ID tags are used to track ingredients and order fulfillment by tracking service items associated with an order and their proximity to containers; with 0025 [available order change options, allowing said customer to change order items]]]).
However, neither Antonellis nor Pandya disclose alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions.
Analogous art Yang discloses alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions (¶¶ 0095 [traffic conditions around pickup locations…release another pick up point in the area for use], 0128-0129 [shows order status and changing pick up point; with 0132 [showing pickup points based on traffic conditions/volume], 0144, 0245 [server…changes the pickup location; also 0252 [taking traffic condition in consideration]]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Antonellis in view of Pandya alternate pick-up or delivery points in response to real-time changes in order status or traffic conditions as taught by analogous art Yang in order to increase efficiency in pickup and delivery and avoid/reduce extra costs since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Yang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 18, claim 18 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 6 above; and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 6.
Claim 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Shakes (US 2007/0150383).
As per claim 7, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses tracking of order preparation statuses, monitoring agents at locations, and using this data to further optimize an assignment of tasks in an establishment (see citations above for claim 1 and see ¶¶ 0007 [optimization…optimizes resource allocation (delivery agents etc., - see 0010, 0014, 0041 [applied to order and delivery business (e.g. restaurant)])…order fulfillment], 0023-0024 [tracking…resource usage…tracking…preparing said order], 0096 [track…until an order is completely prepared…device tracking; with 0098 [tracked continuously or periodically…location tracking…tracking system…device; with 0170 [location…tracking…agent]; claim 51], 0009 [resource (includes agents/staff/delivery persons/etc., (0079 – shows staff and delivery persons as limiting resources))…number of available delivery persons; with 0117-0121 [fulfillment agent…fulfillment…staff… perform tasks necessary for the completion of an order…chef/cook/etc.,]]]).
Antonellis does not disclose picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse.
Analogous art Pandya discloses picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse (¶¶ 0002 [order fulfillment including traversing a warehouse in order to locate, pick, and retrieve ordered items], 0009 [picking tasks; with 0013 [picking agents], 0024 [picking items from shelves], 0036 [shelving or racks…agents picking items]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Antonellis picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse as taught by analogous art Pandya since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the picking, picking tasks, picking agents, warehouse of Pandya for broadly claimed establishment/restaurant (and its implements), staff/cooks (order preparers), tasks of Antonellis – thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither Antonellis nor Pandya disclose time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility.
Analogous art Shakes discloses using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility (¶¶ 0016-0017 [time spent at a bin…picker…picking process…agent…picking agent…time (spent)…multiplied across the large number of orders fulfilled; with 0019 [reduction or minimization of time spent at a receptacle; with 0005 [warehouses, distribution centers, etc.,], 0035 [fulfilling…orders…warehouse]]], 0048 [time spent at a receptacle/location…picker]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Antonellis in view of Pandya alternate using information of time spent by picking agents at each location within a warehouse/facility as taught by analogous art Shakes in order to increase efficiency in fulfilling order by improving pick rates through the reduction or minimization of time spent (a type of cost) at a picking location within a warehouse/facility since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Shakes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 19, claim 19 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above; and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonellis (US 20040210621) in view of Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), further in view of Kim et al., (US 2008/0162270).
As per claim 11, Antonellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a model to predict future order and agent availability, wherein re-assigning delivery tasks is also based on the predicted future order and agent availability to balance workload among available agents (see citations for claim 1 above and see ¶¶ 0083 [resources…predicted to become available based on optimization rule; with 0085-0089 [showing example of balancing workload among agents], 0094 [predicted…availability of limiting resource (agents/etc.,)…necessary to complete the order]]).
However, Antonellis does not disclose machine learning.
Analogous art Pandya discloses machine learning (¶ 0118 [machine learning]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Antonellis machine learning as taught by analogous art Pandya in order to use data optimally for optimal order fulfillment and delivery since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Pandya would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
However, neither Antonellis nor Pandya disclose predicting order volumes.
Analogous art Kim discloses predicting order volumes (Kim’s claims 5-7 [forecasting warehouse product order quantities required to meet future product demands]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Antonellis in view of Pandya predicting order volumes as taught by analogous art Kim in order to optimally meet demand and fulfilling orders since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the prior art is as follows:
Buchmann, (US 2021/0221615): Provides for operating a storage and order-picking system in accordance with a rendezvous-picking principle, wherein at locally variable picking stations goods to be picked are retrieved from source containers and delivered to target containers in accordance with picking orders, wherein the system comprises: a plurality of vehicles for transporting the source containers and the target containers within the system; a warehouse area and an action area; a locally variable picking station comprising a variable relative position within the action area which changes again and again over time dependent on a customer order; and a controlling device configured for planning and performing the rendezvous-picking process; wherein the method comprises: analyzing a plurality of customer orders, in particular for the criteria: source-container location, target-container location, and/or batch potential of the customer orders; selecting an (optimal) relative position for the variable picking station and determining transport orders for the vehicles, wherein the transport orders for the vehicles define a temporally and locally synchronized meeting (“rendezvous”) of a customer-order specific number of the source containers and of a customer-order specific number of the target containers at the selected relative position of the variable picking station; and performing the transport orders and the picking at the variable picking station.
CAI, (US 2016/0260046): Illustrates technologies for facilitating activity tracking In accordance with one aspect, sensor data is received from a wearable device. An activity type associated with a worker is recognized based on the sensor data. A fitness analysis may be performed, based on the sensor data and recognized activity type, to determine a stress level of the worker. One or more suggestions for improving the well-being of the worker may then be generated based on the stress level.
Carr et al., (US 2014/0095350): Discusses techniques for allowing a store to provide same day delivery to customers are disclosed. The techniques include receiving a delivery location for delivery of the item with a customer order, providing the delivery location to a delivery server, the delivery server comparing the delivery location to existing delivery locations for a same day delivery route, and providing potential delivery times to the store server. The techniques also include the store server correlating the possible delivery times with predetermined delivery windows, presenting to the customer potential delivery windows for the order, and receiving from the customer a selection of a delivery window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights