DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 02/12/2026. Currently, claims 4-23 are pending. Claims 4, 16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-3 have been cancelled. No newly added claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0226649 (Grissom) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,796,278 (Wintz et al. – hereinafter Wintz), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0034780 (Sikka et al. – hereinafter Sikka).
Referring to claim 4, Grissom discloses a method for storing an item in a facility, the method comprising:
identifying a set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type from among a plurality of locations in the facility; [See paragraphs 0036, 0044, 0090]
determining a type score for each available location storing physical items of the particular type in the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type to generate a set of scores corresponding to the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type; [See paragraphs 0032, 0041, 0052, 0096, 0097]
generating a set of scores corresponding to the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type based on determining the type score for each available location storing physical items of the particular type; and [See paragraphs 0032, 0041, 0052, 0096, 0097]
selecting a location from among the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type based on the selected location having a most favorable type score amongst the set of scores corresponding to the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type. [See paragraphs 0041, 0096, 0097]
Grissom does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
receiving a request to store a physical item of a particular type in a facility;
dynamically weighting the type score for each available location storing physical items of the particular type based on applying a machine learning algorithm to the type score, wherein the machine learning algorithm is continuously trained in real-time on data corresponding to (i) other physical items of the particular type that are stored in the facility and (ii) conditions and a layout of the facility; and
executing instructions by a mechanical moving system to cause the mechanical moving system to route the physical item from its current location to the selected location in the facility, wherein the instructions comprise location coordinates for the selected location that, when executed, cause the mechanical moving system to generate control signals that actuate movement of the mechanical moving system to the selected location corresponding to the location coordinates.
Wintz teaches a method with the limitation: receiving a request to store a physical item of a particular type in a facility. [See col. 8, line 58-col. 9, line 49 – It is obvious that a request to storage the new pallet in a favorable location is received by the computer system.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Grissom to have incorporated an item location placement feature as in Wintz with the motivation of storing items in suitable locations in a storage facility according to one or more constraints. [See Grissom paragraphs 0021-0035; Wintz col. 6, line 66-col. 7, line 3]
Sikka teaches a method with the limitations:
dynamically weighting the type score for each available location storing physical items of the particular type based on applying a machine learning algorithm to the type score, wherein the machine learning algorithm is continuously trained in real-time on data corresponding to (i) other physical items of the particular type that are stored in the facility and (ii) conditions and a layout of the facility; and [See paragraphs 0087-0090]
executing instructions by a mechanical moving system to cause the mechanical moving system to route the physical item from its current location to the selected location in the facility, wherein the instructions comprise location coordinates for the selected location that, when executed, cause the mechanical moving system to generate control signals that actuate movement of the mechanical moving system to the selected location corresponding to the location coordinates. [See paragraphs 0090-0094]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of combined teachings of Grissom and Wintz to have incorporated an inventory organization process as in Sikka with the motivation of storing items in suitable locations in a storage facility. [See Grissom paragraphs 0021-0035; Sikka paragraph 0020]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type comprises identifying the set of available locations storing the physical items with a same perishable date as the physical item. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0045]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type comprises identifying the set of available locations storing the physical items with a same storage temperature as the physical item. [See Grissom paragraph 0045]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the storage temperature is a freezing temperature. [See Grissom paragraph 0045]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type comprises identifying the set of available locations storing the physical items with a same product as the physical item. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0045]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type comprises identifying the set of available locations storing the physical items with a same unique identifier as the physical item. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0045]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the unique identifier comprises a SKU. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0045]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the unique identifier comprises a customer identifier. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0045]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the selected location comprises a cold storage location. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0045]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type comprises identifying the set of available locations storing the physical items with same storage conditions as the physical item. [See Grissom paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0045]
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining the type score for each available location storing physical items of the particular type in the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type comprises:
determining a quantity of the physical items of the particular type stored at the available location; and [See Grissom paragraphs 0032, 0041, 0052, 0096, 0097]
assigning the type score to the available location based on the quantity of the physical items of the particular type stored at the available location exceeding a threshold value. [See Grissom paragraphs 0032, 0041, 0052, 0096, 0097]
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Grissom, Wintz and Sikka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein selecting the location from among the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type based on the selected location having the most favorable type score comprises selecting the location having a greatest quantity of the physical items of the particular type among the set of available locations storing physical items of the particular type. [See Grissom paragraphs 0041, 0096, 0097]
Referring to claims 16-19, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 4, 6, 8 and 12, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claims 20-22, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 4, 6, 8 and 12, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-23 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4-23 has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights