Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This communication is a Non-Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 3/17/2026 filling of Application 15/322,392. All claims were cancelled. Claims 23-44 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 23-34 are directed toward a system for a system for managing shipment containers in a shipping network. Claims 35-44 are directed toward A method of managing shipment containers in a shipping network. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of managing shipment containers in a shipping network which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 23 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A system for managing shipment containers in a shipping network, the system comprising:
a first storage-and-retrieval system at a first geographic location, the first storage-and- retrieval system comprising:
a first framework defining a plurality of adjacent stacks, each stack configured for receiving a plurality of stackable storage containers, each stackable storage container being adapted to contain at least one shipment container;
tracks arranged above the first framework; and
a first plurality of robotic load handlers configured to move on the tracks and to deposit or retrieve selected stackable storage containers to or from the first framework;
a second storage-and-retrieval system at a second geographic location separate from the first geographic location, the second storage-and-retrieval system comprising:
a second framework defining a plurality of adjacent stacks, each stack configured for receiving a plurality of stackable storage containers;
tracks arranged above the second framework; and
a second plurality of robotic load handlers configured to move on the tracks and to deposit or retrieve selected stackable storage containers to or from the second framework; and at least one processor configured to:
receive or access destination address information for a plurality of shipment containers entering the first storage-and-retrieval system;
identify a group of shipment containers for dispatch from the first geographic location to the second geographic location for loading onto a specific shipping vehicle assigned to deliver shipment containers from the second geographic location;
generate signals for instructing at least one of the first plurality of robotic load handlers to rearrange stackable storage containers containing the group of shipment containers into one or more proximate stacks in the first framework, the one or more proximate stacks being dedicated to the specific shipping vehicle;
generate signals for instructing at least one of the first plurality of robotic load handlers to arrange the stackable storage containers in the one or more proximate stacks according to a delivery stop sequence for the specific shipping vehicle;
generate signals for causing the arranged stackable storage containers to be transported from the first geographic location to the second geographic location; and
upon receipt of the arranged stackable storage containers at the second storage-and- retrieval system, generate signals for instructing at least one of the second plurality of robotic load handlers to retrieve the arranged stackable storage containers for direct loading onto the specific shipping vehicle in the delivery stop sequence, with reduced or no additional sorting at the second geographic location.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant claims the following limitations:
identify a group of shipment containers for dispatch from the first geographic location to the second geographic location for loading onto a specific shipping vehicle assigned to deliver shipment containers from the second geographic location;
generate signals for instructing at least one of the first plurality of robotic load handlers to rearrange stackable storage containers containing the group of shipment containers into one or more proximate stacks in the first framework, the one or more proximate stacks being dedicated to the specific shipping vehicle;
generate signals for instructing at least one of the first plurality of robotic load handlers to arrange the stackable storage containers in the one or more proximate stacks according to a delivery stop sequence for the specific shipping vehicle;
generate signals for causing the arranged stackable storage containers to be transported from the first geographic location to the second geographic location; and
upon receipt of the arranged stackable storage containers at the second storage-and- retrieval system, generate signals for instructing at least one of the second plurality of robotic load handlers to retrieve the arranged stackable storage containers for direct loading onto the specific shipping vehicle in the delivery stop sequence, with reduced or no additional sorting at the second geographic location
are directed to mental processes. In the new claims, the generation of signals is recited broadly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the generation of signals can amount to a human generating instructions for handlers to perform the steps recited in the instructions. Further, the claims do not actually recite the robotic handlers are implement the acts defined in the instruction. As such, there is nothing in the claims that precludes these steps from being performed mentally or via a pen and paper. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of
A system for managing shipment containers in a shipping network, the system comprising:
identify a group of shipment containers for dispatch from the first geographic location to the second geographic location for loading onto a specific shipping vehicle assigned to deliver shipment containers from the second geographic location;
generate signals for instructing at least one of the first plurality of robotic load handlers to rearrange stackable storage containers containing the group of shipment containers into one or more proximate stacks in the first framework, the one or more proximate stacks being dedicated to the specific shipping vehicle;
generate signals for instructing at least one of the first plurality of robotic load handlers to arrange the stackable storage containers in the one or more proximate stacks according to a delivery stop sequence for the specific shipping vehicle;
generate signals for causing the arranged stackable storage containers to be transported from the first geographic location to the second geographic location; and
upon receipt of the arranged stackable storage containers at the second storage-and- retrieval system, generate signals for instructing at least one of the second plurality of robotic load handlers to retrieve the arranged stackable storage containers for direct loading onto the specific shipping vehicle in the delivery stop sequence, with reduced or no additional sorting at the second geographic location
are directed to managing shipment containers in a shipping network which amounts to business relations including analyzing data to optimizing container shipment which is abstract.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a first storage-and-retrieval system at a first geographic location, the first storage-and- retrieval system comprising:
a first framework defining a plurality of adjacent stacks, each stack configured for receiving a plurality of stackable storage containers, each stackable storage container being adapted to contain at least one shipment container;
racks arranged above the first framework; and
a first plurality of robotic load handlers configured to move on the tracks and to deposit or retrieve selected stackable storage containers to or from the first framework;
a second storage-and-retrieval system at a second geographic location separate from the first geographic location, the second storage-and-retrieval system comprising:
a second framework defining a plurality of adjacent stacks, each stack configured for receiving a plurality of stackable storage containers;
tracks arranged above the second framework; and
a second plurality of robotic load handlers configured to move on the tracks and to deposit or retrieve selected stackable storage containers to or from the second framework; and at least one processor configured to:
receive or access destination address information for a plurality of shipment containers entering the first storage-and-retrieval system;
However, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the claims do not provide any particular way that the destination address information for a plurality of shipment containers is received. As such, the broadly recited collection of data and display of reports amounts to insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity.
Further, the recited frameworks and robotic load handlers amount to a general ink to a particular technologic environment. In other words the abstract idea of managing shipment containers in a shipping network recited in the claims is linked to the known technological environment of robotic handlers and frameworks.
Viewing the generic data gathering and general link to a robotic handler environment in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, the generic processor does not provide and inventive concept.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the retrieving of data is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."” Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) also states that creating output data has been identified as conventional (see Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017)).
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Viewing the generic data gathering and general link to a robotic handler environment in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do provide and inventive concept.
Further, Claims 23-34 further limit the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity already rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 23-34 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 23 otherwise styled as a computer program product, or method for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 35-44 are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights