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 Claim(s)
This action is a non-final office action in response to application 19/275,658 filed on 07/21/2025. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,387,167 B2 (hereinafter Patent 167) in view of Shakes et al. (US 10,040,631 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Patent 167, teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by an online system, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a user client device of a user of a plurality of users and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with an authorization identifier. (Claim 1)(Patent 167 teaches receiving, by an online system, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a user client device of a user of a plurality of users and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with an authorization identifier)
determining, by the online system, whether to transmit the plurality of orders to a picker client device associated with a picker based on item data associated with items in the lists of items of the plurality of orders. (Claim 1)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, based on the received orders, a first batched order, the first batched order comprising a plurality of lists of items for delivery from a particular warehouse, wherein the plurality of lists of items corresponds to a subset of the plurality of orders)
receiving, by the online system, from a third party system associated with the warehouse, logged data associated with the plurality of orders, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier of one user of the plurality of users. (Claim 1)(Patent 167 teaches receiving, by the online system, from a third party system associated with the particular warehouse, logged data associated with the first batched order, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier of one user of the plurality of users)
detecting, by the online system, that a sorting error occurred based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being associated with an incorrect order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 1)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the first batched order, that a sorting error occurred, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being incorrectly associated with a first user of the plurality of users)
tracking, by the online system, a location of the
detecting, by the online system, that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 1)(Patent 167 detecting, by the online system, that the shopper client device has entered a geofence around a destination location of an order of the subset of the plurality of orders)
responsive to detecting that the picker client device is within the threshold distance of the destination location, sending, by the online system to the picker client device, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the picker client device to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a different order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 1)(Patent 167 responsive to detecting that the shopper client device has entered the geofence, sending, by the online system to the shopper client device, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the shopper client device to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a second user of the plurality of users)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 167 teaches determining a sorting error for an item, which a shopper can enter a geofence and a sorting error will be displayed to a client device. However, Patent 167, doesn’t explicitly teach determining to transmit the plurality of orders to the picker device.
But, Shakes in the analogous art of sorting items, teaches sending, by the online system responsive to determining to transmit the plurality of orders, the plurality of orders to the picker client device. (Column 15, Lines 1-15)(Shakes et al. teaches a list of items can be presented to a pick agent. The location information for the items to be picked and information on the orders that the picked items are for can be displayed to the picker)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining if an item belongs to a user of Patent 167, by incorporating the teachings of providing items to pick to a picker device of Shakes et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve the efficiency of lowering picking and sorting errors. (Shakes et al.: Column 11, Lines 26-40)
Regarding Claim 2, Patent 167/Shakes, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred, comprises:
determining, by the online system, an intended user for each item in the lists of items of the plurality of orders. (Claim 2)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, for each picked item, based on the first batched order, an intended use)
generating, by the online system, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and the intended user corresponding to the item in the data pair. (Claim 2)(Patent 167 teaches generating, by the online system, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and the intended user corresponding to the picked item in the data pair)
determining, by the online system, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates a first user based on a corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and a second user based on a corresponding intended user at a second column. (Claim 2)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates the first user based on the corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and the second user based on the corresponding intended user at a second column)
Regarding Claim 3, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred, comprises:
applying, by the online system, a sorting error machine-learning model to at least part of the logged data to generate a text sequence output. (Claim 3)(Patent 167 teaches applying, by the online system, at least part of the logged data to a machine-learned sorting error model, to generate a text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, a user identified in the text sequence output; determining, by the online system, a picked item identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 3)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, a user identified in the text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, an intended user for the picked item, based on the plurality of orders. (Claim 3)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, an intended user for the picked item, based on the first batched order)
determining, by the online system, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 3)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output)
Regarding Claim 4, Patent 167/Shakes, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and further comprising:
determining, by the online system, for the sorting error, a sorting error confidence value. (Claim 4)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, for the sorting error, a sorting error confidence value)
wherein sending, by the online system, to the picker client device, the alert to correct the sorting error, is responsive to the sorting error confidence value being greater than a threshold value. (Claim 4)(Patent 167 teaches wherein sending, by the online system, to the shopper client device, the instruction to correct the sorting error, is responsive to the sorting error confidence value being greater than a predetermined confidence threshold value)
Regarding Claim 5, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and further comprising:
receiving, from the picker client device, a confirmation of delivery to the destination location. (Claim 5)(Patent 167 teaches receiving, from the shopper client device, a confirmation of delivery to the destination location)
wherein sending, by the online system, to the picker client device, the alert to correct the sorting error, is responsive to receiving the confirmation of delivery. (Claim 5)(Patent 167 teaches wherein sending, by the online system, to the shopper client device, the instruction to correct the sorting error, is responsive to receiving the confirmation of delivery)
Regarding Claim 6, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein detecting that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of the destination location comprises: detecting that the picker client device is within a geofence around the destination location. (Claim 7)(Patent 167 teaches detecting, by the online system, that the shopper client device has entered the geofence around the destination location of the order of the subset of the plurality of orders, comprises: receiving location data from a location sensor of the shopper client device)
Regarding Claim 8, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to perform operations comprising: (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to)
receiving, by an online system, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a user client device of a user of a plurality of users and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with an authorization identifier. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches receive, by an online system, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a respective customer client device of each customer of a plurality of customers and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each customer of the plurality of customers is associated with an authorization identifier)
determining, by the online system, whether to transmit the plurality of orders to a picker client device associated with a picker based on item data associated with items in the lists of items of the plurality of orders. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, based on the received orders, a first batched order, the first batched order comprising a plurality of lists of items for delivery from a particular warehouse, wherein the plurality of lists of items corresponds to a subset of the plurality of orders)
receiving, by the online system, from a third party system associated with the warehouse, logged data associated with the plurality of orders, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier of one user of the plurality of users. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches receive, by the online system, from a third party system associated with the particular warehouse, logged data associated with the first batched order, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier)
detecting, by the online system, that a sorting error occurred based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being associated with an incorrect order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, based on the logged data and the first batched order, that a sorting error occurred, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being incorrectly associated)
tracking, by the online system, a location of the picker client device by receiving location data from a location sensor of the picker client device over a time period after the sorting error was detected. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches track, by the online system, a location of the shopper client device over a time period after determining that the sorting error occurred, by receiving location data from a location sensor of the shopper client device)
detecting, by the online system, that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches detect, by the online system, that the shopper client device has entered a geofence around a destination location of an order of the subset of the plurality of orders)
responsive to detecting that the picker client device is within the threshold distance of the destination location, sending, by the online system to the picker client device, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the picker client device to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a different order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 9)(Patent 167 teaches responsive to detecting that the shopper client device has entered the geofence, send, by the online system to the shopper client device, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the shopper client device to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a second user of the plurality of users)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 167 teaches determining a sorting error for an item, which a shopper can enter a geofence and a sorting error will be displayed to a client device. However, Patent 167, doesn’t explicitly teach determining to transmit the plurality of orders to the picker device.
But, Shakes in the analogous art of sorting items, teaches sending, by the online system responsive to determining to transmit the plurality of orders, the plurality of orders to the picker client device. (Column 15, Lines 1-15)(Shakes et al. teaches a list of items can be presented to a pick agent. The location information for the items to be picked and information on the orders that the picked items are for can be displayed to the picker)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining if an item belongs to a user of Patent 167, by incorporating the teachings of providing items to pick to a picker device of Shakes et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve the efficiency of lowering picking and sorting errors. (Shakes et al.: Column 11, Lines 26-40)
Regarding Claim 9, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred, comprises:
determining, by the online system, an intended user for each item in the lists of items of the plurality of orders. (Claim 10)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, for each picked item, based on the first batched order, an intended user)
generating, by the online system, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and the intended user corresponding to the item in the data pair. (Claim 10)(Patent 167 teaches generate, by the online system, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and the intended user corresponding to the picked item in the data pair)
determining, by the online system, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates a first user based on a corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and a second user based on a corresponding intended user at a second column. (Claim 10)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates the first user based on the corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and the second user based on the corresponding intended user at a second column)
Regarding Claim 10, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred, comprises:
applying, by the online system, a sorting error machine-learning model to at least part of the logged data to generate a text sequence output. (Claim 11)(Patent 167 teaches apply, by the online system, at least part of the logged data to a machine-learned sorting error model, to generate a text sequence output, wherein the logged data comprises receipt data)
determining, by the online system, a user identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 11)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, a user identified in the text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, a picked item identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 11)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, a picked item identified in the text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, an intended user for the picked item, based on the plurality of orders. (Claim 11)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, an intended user for the picked item, based on the first batched order)
determining, by the online system, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 11)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output)
Regarding Claim 11, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and the operations further comprising:
determining, by the online system, for the sorting error, a sorting error confidence value. (Claim 12)(Patent 167 teaches determine, by the online system, for the sorting error, a sorting error confidence value)
wherein sending, by the online system, to the picker client device, the alert to correct the sorting error, is responsive to the sorting error confidence value being greater than a threshold value. (Claim 12)(Patent 167 teaches wherein sending, by the online system, to the shopper client device, the instruction to correct the sorting error, is responsive to the sorting error confidence value being greater than a predetermined confidence threshold value)
Regarding Claim 12, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and the operations further comprising:
receiving, from the picker client device, a confirmation of delivery to the destination location. (Claim 13)(Patent 167 teaches receive, from the shopper client device, a confirmation of delivery to the destination location)
wherein sending, by the online system, to the picker client device, the alert to correct the sorting error, is responsive to receiving the confirmation of delivery. (Claim 13)(Patent 167 teaches wherein sending, by the online system, to the shopper client device, the instruction to correct the sorting error, is responsive to receiving the confirmation of delivery)
Regarding Claim 13, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein detecting that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of the destination location comprises: detecting that the picker client device is within a geofence around the destination location. (Claim 15)(Patent 167 teaches herein the instructions for detecting, by the online system, that the shopper client device has entered the geofence around the destination location of the order of the subset of the plurality of orders, comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive location data from a location sensor of the shopper client device)
Regarding Claim 15, Patent 167, teaches a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches a system with a processor. The system includes a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions and when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations)
receiving, by an online system, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a user client device of a user of a plurality of users and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with an authorization identifier. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches receiving, by an online system, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a user client device of a user of a plurality of users and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with an authorization identifier)
determining, by the online system, whether to transmit the plurality of orders to a picker client device associated with a picker based on item data associated with items in the lists of items of the plurality of orders. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, based on the received orders, a first batched order, the first batched order comprising a plurality of lists of items for delivery from a particular warehouse, wherein the plurality of lists of items corresponds to a subset of the plurality of orders)
receiving, by the online system, from a third party system associated with the warehouse, logged data associated with the plurality of orders, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier of one user of the plurality of users. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches receiving, by the online system, from a third party system associated with the particular warehouse, logged data associated with the first batched order, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier of one user of the plurality of users)
detecting, by the online system, that a sorting error occurred based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being associated with an incorrect order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the first batched order, that a sorting error occurred, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being incorrectly associated with a first user of the plurality of users)
tracking, by the online system, a location of the picker client device by receiving location data from a location sensor of the picker client device over a time period after the sorting error was detected. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches tracking, by the online system, a location of the shopper client device over a time period after determining that the sorting error occurred, by receiving location data from a location sensor of the shopper client device)
detecting, by the online system, that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches detecting, by the online system, that the shopper client device has entered a geofence around a destination location of an order of the subset of the plurality of orders)
responsive to detecting that the picker client device is within the threshold distance of the destination location, sending, by the online system to the picker client device, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the picker client device to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a different order of the plurality of orders. (Claim 17)(Patent 167 teaches responsive to detecting that the shopper client device has entered the geofence, sending, by the online system to the shopper client device, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the shopper client device to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a second user of the plurality of users)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 167 teaches determining a sorting error for an item, which a shopper can enter a geofence and a sorting error will be displayed to a client device. However, Patent 167, doesn’t explicitly teach determining to transmit the plurality of orders to the picker device.
But, Shakes in the analogous art of sorting items, teaches sending, by the online system responsive to determining to transmit the plurality of orders, the plurality of orders to the picker client device. (Column 15, Lines 1-15)(Shakes et al. teaches a list of items can be presented to a pick agent. The location information for the items to be picked and information on the orders that the picked items are for can be displayed to the picker)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining if an item belongs to a user of Patent 167, by incorporating the teachings of providing items to pick to a picker device of Shakes et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve the efficiency of lowering picking and sorting errors. (Shakes et al.: Column 11, Lines 26-40)
Regarding Claim 16, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred, comprises:
determining, by the online system, an intended user for each item in the lists of items of the plurality of orders. (Claim 18)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, for each picked item, based on the first batched order, an intended user)
generating, by the online system, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and the intended user corresponding to the item in the data pair. (Claim 18)(Patent 167 teaches generating, by the online system, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and an intended user corresponding to the picked item in the data pair)
determining, by the online system, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates a first user based on a corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and a second user based on a corresponding intended user at a second column. (Claim 18)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates a first user based on the corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and a second user based on the corresponding intended user at a second column)
Regarding Claim 17, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein determining, by the online system, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred, comprises:
applying, by the online system, a sorting error machine-learning model to at least part of the logged data to generate a text sequence output. (Claim 19)(Patent 167 teaches applying, by the online system, at least part of the logged data to a machine-learned sorting error model, to generate a text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, a user identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 19)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, a user identified in the text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, a picked item identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 19)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, a picked item identified in the text sequence output)
determining, by the online system, an intended user for the picked item, based on the plurality of orders. (Claim 19)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, an intended user for the picked item, based on the first batched order)
determining, by the online system, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output. (Claim 19)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output)
Regarding Claim 18, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and the operations further comprising:
determining, by the online system, for the sorting error, a sorting error confidence value. (Claim 20)(Patent 167 teaches determining, by the online system, for the sorting error, a sorting error confidence value)
wherein sending, by the online system, to the picker client device, the alert to correct the sorting error, is responsive to the sorting error confidence value being greater than a threshold value. (Claim 20)(Patent 167 teaches wherein sending, by the online system, to the shopper client device, the instruction to correct the sorting error, is responsive to the sorting error confidence value being greater than a predetermined confidence threshold value)
Regarding Claim 19, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and the operations further comprising:
receiving, from the picker client device, a confirmation of delivery to the destination location. (Claim 13)(Patent 167 teaches receive, from the shopper client device, a confirmation of delivery to the destination location)
wherein sending, by the online system, to the picker client device, the alert to correct the sorting error, is responsive to receiving the confirmation of delivery. (Claim 13)(Patent 167 teaches wherein sending, by the online system, to the shopper client device, the instruction to correct the sorting error, is responsive to receiving the confirmation of delivery)
Regarding Claim 20, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein detecting that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of the destination location comprises: detecting that the picker client device is within a geofence around the destination location. (Patent 167 teaches wherein detecting, by the online system, that the shopper client device has entered the geofence around the destination location of the order of the subset of the plurality of orders, comprises: receiving location data from a location sensor of the shopper client device)
Claim(s) 7 and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,387,167 B2 (hereinafter Patent 167) in view of Shakes et al. (US 10,040,631 B2) and further in view of Todeschini (US 2018/0322444 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Patent 167/Shakes et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Patent 167/Shakes et al., do not explicitly teach wherein detecting that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of the destination location comprises:
computing a distance between a location of the picker client device and the destination location.
determining whether the computed distance is less than a threshold value.
But, Todeschini in the analogous art of picking items, teaches wherein detecting that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of the destination location comprises:
computing a distance between a location of the picker client device and the destination location. (Paragraph(s) 0008 and 0022)(Todeschini teaches the system can use a depth sensor data to determine the distance to any surface. Todeschini, further, teaches that the depth sensor and system determine the distance of a picker from the pick location)
determining whether the computed distance is less than a threshold value. (Paragraph 0028)(Todeschini teaches the system can determine if the picker distance is less than a distance threshold, n feet, the pick operation may continue)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining if an item belongs to a user of Patent 167 and providing items to pick to a picker device of Shakes et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining a distance of a picker from a pick location, which the system can determine the picker distance is less than the threshold distance of Todeschini, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order for pickers to accurately and efficiently verify the selection of the product in a warehouse. (Todeschini: Paragraph 0003)
Regarding Claim 14, Patent 167/Shakes et al./Todeschini, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein detecting that the picker client device is within a threshold distance of the destination location comprises:
computing a distance between a location of the picker client device and the destination location. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7(a) and 8)
determining whether the computed distance is less than a threshold value. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7(b) and 8)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites an entity receiving orders from customers, which the orders will be batched together. The entity will then determine a sorting error based on observing transaction data for the orders, intended customer information, and second customer information. The entity will then be provided a correction notice for sorting errors that have occurred with the ordered items. Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and/or following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites “receiving, a plurality of orders, each order in the plurality of orders received from a user of a plurality of users and comprising a list of items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with an authorization identifier,” “determining, whether to transmit the plurality of orders associated with a picker based on item data associated with items in the lists of items of the plurality of orders,” “sending, responsive to determining to transmit the plurality of orders, the plurality of orders,” “receiving, logged data associated with the plurality of orders, the logged data comprising a plurality of data pairs, each data pair of the plurality of data pairs associating a picked item with the authorization identifier of one user of the plurality of users,” “detecting, that a sorting error occurred based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, wherein the sorting error comprises a picked item being associated with an incorrect order of the plurality of orders,” “tracking, a location by receiving location data over a time period after the sorting error was detected,” “detecting, a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders,” “responsive to detecting that the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location,” and “sending, to the picker, an alert to correct the sorting error, wherein sending the alert causes the picker to display the alert associated with the sorting error by displaying a message to associate the picked item with a different order of the plurality of orders,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and/or following rules or instructions). Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.) For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, is similar to an entity receiving order information and batching those orders together based on transaction information. The entity will then determine if the orders are batched wrong based on analyzing transaction data and customer data. The entity will then receive a message to correct the wrong orders. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: an online concierge system, a user client device, a picker client device, and a third party system; Claim 8: a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer system, an online system, a user client device, a picker client device, and a third party system; and Claim 15: a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, an online system, a user client device, a picker client device, and a third party system) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “receiving,” “determining,” “sending,” “receiving,” “detecting,” “tracking,” “detecting,” “sending,” and “displaying,” information in a computer environment as applied to Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: an online concierge system, a user client device, a picker client device, and a third party system; Claim 8: a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer system, an online system, a user client device, a picker client device, and a third party system; and Claim 15: a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, an online system, a user client device, a picker client device, and a third party system). Examiner, notes that the online concierge system, user client device, picker client device, third party system, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer system, and processor, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely receiving, determining, sending, receiving, detecting, tracking, detecting, sending, and displaying, sorting errors which is no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., determining how to handle incorrectly sorted items) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception
Also, see a recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when increasing efficiency in preventing incorrect items/errors, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0004, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of determining and correcting incorrect sorting errors thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result(s). Here, in this case receiving a plurality of orders and receiving logged data associated with the plurality of orders (e.g., gathering). The system can determine to transmit the plurality of orders to a picker (e.g., analyzing). The system will then detect a sorting error and threshold distance, which the system can track the location of the entity (e.g., analyzing). The system will then send an alert message to the picker associated with the sorting error (e.g., displaying), thus merely receiving order and logged data information. The system will then analyzing the plurality to transmit. The system analyzing the sorting error and a distance, which the system will display an alert message about the sorting error are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining, detecting, and presenting sorting errors. Also, see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting information, including when limited to particular content’” as well as analyzing and presenting information). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 : The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16: The additional limitation of “determining,” “determining,” “generating,” and “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, as described in Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15. The online system, respectively, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “determining, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred,” “determining, an intended user for each item in the lists of items of the plurality of orders,” “generating, a discrepancy table, wherein the discrepancy table comprises rows, wherein each row corresponds to a data pair in the logged data and the intended user corresponding to the item in the data pair,” and “determining, whether a row in the discrepancy table indicates a first user based on a corresponding authorization identifier at a first column and a second user based on a corresponding intended user at a second column,” step(s)/function(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, determining, generating, and determining, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 889 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the court found that providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," was not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17: The additional limitation of “determining,” “applying,” “determining,” “determining,” “determining,” and “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, as described in Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15. The online system and a sorting error machine-learning model, respectively, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “determining, based on the logged data and the plurality of orders, whether a sorting error occurred,” “applying, a model to at least part of the logged data to generate a text sequence output,” “determining, a user identified in the text sequence output,” “determining, a picked item identified in the text sequence output,” “determining, an intended user for the picked item, based on the plurality of orders,” and “determining, whether the intended user matches the user identified in the text sequence output,” step(s)/function(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, applying, determining, determining, and determining, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, the court provided "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). The court also stated "[T]he only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 13. In this case, there is no improvement to the sorting error machine-learning model, merely providing an ML model to be used in determining warehouse sorting errors is not enough to be considered significantly more. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 and 14: The additional limitation of “detecting,” “computing,” and “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 8. The picker client device, respectively, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “detecting,” “”computing a distance between a location of the picker and the destination location,” and “determining whether the computed distance is less than a threshold value,” step(s)/function(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely detecting, computing, and determining, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 7 and 14 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, doesn’t provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, are distinguished from the art
Shakes et al. (US 10,040,631 B2). Shakes teaches determining a batch order. The system will then determine a sorting error, which will then alert the picker of the sorting error. However, Shakes et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the locations of the customer and shopper, which the system will detect when shopper has crossed a geofence. The system will then provide an alert to the shopper upon the shopper crossing the geofence, to correct a sorting error or the associated picked item for a second user.
Cantrell et al. (US 2019/0236542 A1). Cantrell et al. teaches determining an order. The system will then determine a sorting error, which will then alert the carrier of the sorting error. Cantrell et al., also, teaches using customer, payment, and order information. However, Cantrell et al., doesn’t explicitly teach system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Aaron et al. (US 10,909,563 B1). Aaron et al. teaches a database table that is able to store various fields of information such as transaction ID information in a first column, customer ID information in a second column. However, Aaron, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Jones et al. (US 11,468,443 B2). Jones et al. teaches extracting information from a receipt. Jones et al., further, teaches the system can extract merchant information, item information, and customer information. Jones et al., also, teaches using machine learning or artificial intelligence models for forming textual content. However, Jones et al., doesn’t explicitly teach system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Kamiyama (US 2005/0144089). Kamiyama teaches a system can create a shipment management table data. The shipment management table data can be created using order data and transaction reference numbers that are related to each order. The system can use this shipment table to determine if a shipment will be delayed. However, Kamiyama, doesn’t explicitly teach system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Mahringer (WO-2022020870-A1). Mahringer teaches a large number of images with a known number of goods are fed into a data algorithm. The algorithm can evaluate the images to determine with low confidence images and compare those images to the corresponding known item count to determine if the correct item count is determined. If the number of goods differ from the order then a picking error will be determined. However, Mahringer, doesn’t explicitly teach system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Curlander et al. (US 9,120,621 B1). Curlander et al. teaches the system will determine a confidence score. The confidence threshold may be defined as a score for determining if the actual change in the bin content corresponds to the actual change. If the confidence threshold is defined at 95% and the confidence score is higher than 95% then the system will determine that the actual change to the bin content corresponds to the expected change. Curlander et al., further, teaches when the confidence score threshold exceeds the confidence score then the bin content is accurate. If the confidence threshold is not exceeded then the bin content is not expected to be accurate than an agent is scheduled to review the contents of the bin. However, Curlander et al., doesn’t explicitly teach system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Nandury (US 10,929,799 B2). Nandury teaches a delivery server that is able to determine a deliverability score that is indicative of a likelihood of a successful package delivery. Nandury, also, teaches a predetermined threshold can be set at 800. If the predetermined threshold is set for a range between 400-800 then the corrective actions may be associated with the predetermined threshold range. The system can require the package be assigned to a specific delivery agent, which the agent will be notified to call or text the percipient for additional delivery information Nandury, also, teaches a delivery server that is able to determine a predetermined deliverability score that is indicative of a likelihood of a successful package delivery. However, while, Nandury teaches a high confidence score that indicates a delivery error the sorting error would not be combinable with Shakes. Shakes deals with the picking stage (e.g., before packages are delivered) and Nandury deals with delivery of packages (i.e., after packages are packed and ready for delivery). Nandury, also, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Dong et al. (US 2016/0337308). Dong et al. teaches storing a first identity identifier, a second identity identifier and the relationship data is performed using a data table. The first column of the table includes identity identifiers from a first person, a second column of the data records includes identity identifiers of target persons, and the third column is used to represent respective relationship data. However, Dong et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Knutsen, II (US 5,832,517 A). Knutsen, II teaches a table that includes three columns. The first column is for customers, the second column is for unique identifiers from first transactor, and a third column for unique identifiers from second transactor. However, Knutsen, II, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Vadapandeshwara et al. (US 2018/0217835 A1)(hereinafter Vada). Vada teaches a banking table that includes columns of attributes. The table includes a first column with a customer ID attribute, a second column with an account number attribute, a third column with an account balance attribute. However, Vada, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Fitzgerald et al. (US 2020/0151665 A1). Fitzgerald teaches a picker will place items into their respective boxes and scan the label on the box. Fitzgerald, further, teaches that if the picker scans a wrong item, the application will indicate an error and if the picker puts the item in the wrong box the application will indicate an error. However, Fitzgerald, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Lecky (US 9,489,655 B1). Lecky teaches pickers can help fulfill orders or shipments by placing items into a bin. Lecky, also, teaches picker can scan a label of the item. The picker tracking application determines that the unique identifier received from the client device matches a unique identifier of an item in a pick list assigned to the picker, then the tracking application marks the item in the pick list and/or the order as having been retrieved by the picker. Lecky, also, teaches that if the unique identifier received from the client device does not match the unique identifier of the item in the pick list, then the tracking application will send an error message to the pickers client device. The error message may notify the picker that the wrong item at the item location has been retrieved. The error message may contain additional instructions for the picker, such as the name and description of the item to be retrieved from the item location and/or other information. However, Lecky, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Bacco et al. (US 7,693,758 B1). Bacco et al. teaches if an item has been picked from a wrong inventory location by mistake, a flashing light or alarm will be triggered in the location of the error so the agent can reassess their action to ensure the proper items are shipped to customer. However, Bacco, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Moyne et al. (US 2023/0156158 A1). Moyne et al. teaches a reviewing worker can determine is a product was misplaced and/or if a product has been wrongly picked. Moyne et al., further, teaches if an incorrect product is picked for an order then the server will generate and transmit a notification to the client device of the worker. The server will provide instructions to the worker for resolving the exception, for indicating the correct product to pick and from where and instructing the worker to return the mispicked product to its original location. However, Moyne et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Shmueli (US 2021/0027360 A1). Shmueli teaches a shopper/picker that wears a wearable smart device for manual fulfilment of a shipping order of a customer. The system can identify that a mismatched item has been picked then the system will provide an alert to the picker that a mismatched item has been picked. However, Shmueli, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Mohr (US 2023/0245512 A1). Mohr teaches an incorrect signal can be provided to a picker. The system will determine when the picker has picked the wrong item then the system will provide the picker an message alert that an incorrect pickup has occurred. However, Mohr, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
O’Shea et al. (US 2005/0149391 A1)(hereinafter Shea). Shea teaches an alert can be provided to a shopper that the last product is incorrect. The alert will give the shopper an opportunity to switch the product with another product before proceeding to check-out. However, Shea, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Bhatia et al. (US 9,699,606 B1). Bhatia et al. teaches that a delivery device and a customer device can determine if they are within a geofenced delivery area based on the devices proximity to each other. The device can provide the devices current location using GPS. However, Bhatia et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
“Different Picking System in a Warehouse,” by iThink Logistics, August 1, 2020, (hereinafter Different). Different teaches warehouse operations for order picking. Different, further, teaches that pickers can go through the warehouse retrieving item SKU’s for single or batch orders. Different, also, teaches that the workers are provided mobile scanners that display the pick-up list and also the exact location of the items. If the workers scan and pick up the wrong item then the scanner will display an error sign. This error sign will notify the worker that they have picked up the wrong item. However, Different, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Hill et al. (US 2021/0406632 A1). Hill et al. teaches geofencing principles that guide a costumer to the article-identification-and-location- device. When the customer arrives at the article-identification-and-location device’s location to take the item of interest, the article-identification-and-location device can employ one or more mechanisms to avoid mistakes of the customer taking the wrong item. Hill et al., further, teaches the system can sense changes of state such that when the wrong customer is removing the product if the unique identifier received from the customer device does not match the unique identifier in the programmed device, then the system will alert the customer that he or she is removing the wrong item. Hill et al., also, teaches that an alert can be issued if the article-identification-and location device crosses over a threshold of a zone. While, Hill et al., is the closest prior art to “geofencing alerts,” however, Hill et al. doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
“Benefits of a barcode driven inventory system, January 29, 2022, (hereinafter Barcode). Barcode teaches order picking by a picker at a warehouse. Barcode, further, teaches the picker can scan a barcode on a picked item, which the system can alert the picker if they have picked the wrong item thus helping reduce picking errors. However, Barcode, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
“How to reduce picking and packing errors in grocery stores,” by Sofia Spagnuolo, July 15, 2021, (hereinafter Picking). Picking teaches aisle scanners that allow pickers to pick and pack items. The aisle scanning device can help avoid the human error of picking the wrong item by validating the item is picked correctly. If a picker needed to fulfill an order with dog food, but accidentally added food for the wrong breed, an in-aisle scanner would notice and notify the picker that they made an order picking mistake. The aisle scanning devices can ensure shoppers get the exact products they ordered while being able to budget time and money. However, Picking, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Todeschini (US 2018/0322444 A1). Todeschini teaches verifying a location of a product in a warehouse. The system will receive a notification to retrieve or deliver a product at a pick location. The system can determine a device is in proximity to the pick location, wherein a user attempts to retrieve or pick-up the product wearing haptic feedback gloves. The system will determine if the user are within a distance threshold to the pick location and in response to determining that the haptic feedback gloves worn by the user are within a distance threshold to the pick location then the system will send positive indicator to actuators of the haptic feedback gloves to alert the user to retrieve or deliver the product. If the gloves are not within the threshold distance of the pick location then the device will receive a negative indicator to then direct the user to not pick-up or deliver the product. The indicator includes a notification to retrieve or deliver the product, which can include a visual, audible, or alert. While Todeschini is the closest prior art to determining the threshold distance. However, Todeschini, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will detect the device is within the threshold distance and based on being within the threshold distance then the system will send an alert to the picker indicating a sorting error. Todeschini, also, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected.
Chen (CN-110837743-A). Chen teaches the picker wearable device can receive the picking item error information or the picking item correct information, which the system will prompt the user that the picking item is wrong or the picking item is correct. However, Chen, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected. The system will detect the picker is within a threshold distance of a destination location of an order of the plurality of orders and if the picker is within the threshold distance of the destination location then an alert message for sorting error will be displayed to the picker.
Wissinger et al. (US 2018/0039935 A1). Wissinger et al. teaches the system can determine a step count of a picker. The system can determine if the step count is greater than a minimum threshold to cover an approximate distance. The threshold value can be a warehouse distance information and/or stride length of the picker. If the step count will not cover the approximate distance then it will be determined the picker has not moved to the proper location to pick the item and the system can signal an error has occurred and transmit an error signal to the picker device. While Wissinger et al. is the closest prior art to determining the threshold distance. However, Wissinger et al., the system will detect the device is within the threshold distance and based on being within the threshold distance then the system will send an alert to the picker indicating a sorting error. Todeschini, also, doesn’t explicitly teach the system will track the location of the picker device after a sorting error is detected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights