DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been added. Claims 5, 8-10,13 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6,7, 11,12, and 14 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
101
Regarding Applicant's assertions pertaining to the eligibility of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, and as stated in the previous rejection, the examiner submits that the Federal Circuit has found (see at least EPG v Alstom) that the collection, analysis, and display of certain results of collection and analysis to be a patent ineligible concept. The Court found that the process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, devoid of any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing said functions to be directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has found that the when the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools, that the claims fail to do more than merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information based category of abstract ideas. The pending claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods that would generate new data and further do not invoke any inventive programming. The Courts have found that merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information to provide a humanly comprehensible amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis. The two part analysis has to take into account how the desired result is achieved. The examiner submits that the processor that is implementing method steps as a plurality of units, as recited in the pending claims, does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The pending claims do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, requires anything other than off the shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. The pending claims further fail to include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything other than generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguable inventive concept in the realm of application of the information based abstract idea. For at least the reasoning provided above, the examiner submits that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
102
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner, and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 102 is hereby 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 1-4, 6,7, 11,12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-4, 6,7, 11,12, and 14 are directed to a system for controlling the movement of items, which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include 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).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a system for controlling the movement of items, in the following limitations:
at least three fulfilment centers, each fulfilment center being configured and arranged to schedule and fulfil orders to customers and/or stores; and
a control unit configured and arranged to control the at least three fulfilment centers, wherein each of the at least three fulfilment centers is controlled to share items with at least one other of the at least three fulfilment centers.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to provide enable the storage, shipment, and routing of items between a plurality of fulfillment centers. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A control unit;
a processor further comprising: a stock level storing unit, a delivery schedule storing unit, a supplier schedule storing unit, a scheduling unit, a long term forecast storing unit, a promised orders storing unit, a forecasting unit, a projecting unit, and a transhipping unit;
an ordering unit implemented within the processor;
a calculating unit, a planning unit, a promised orders storing unit, and tracking unit implemented within the processor.
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 6,7, 11,12, and 14 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A control unit;
a processor further comprising: a stock level storing unit, a delivery schedule storing unit, a supplier schedule storing unit, a scheduling unit, a long term forecast storing unit, a promised orders storing unit, a forecasting unit, a projecting unit, and a transhipping unit;
an ordering unit implemented within the processor;
a calculating unit, a planning unit, a promised orders storing unit, and tracking unit implemented within the processor.
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627