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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the communications filed on 03/26/2026.
Applicant has amended claim 1;
Claim 13 is a new claim;
Claims 1 – 2, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks
Response to Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s argues the claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, and is integrated into a practical application recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amended independent claim 1 recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites commercial interactions, business relations. For example, claim 1 presents a method for cleaning operations, defines constraints for operation and scheduling operation; cooperating in scheduling operation subject to the constraints; and operating in accordance with the scheduled operation; ranking constraints; and negotiating to agree on how to interleave respective constraints by ensuring high ranking constraints are met; However the claim is merely a business relation for planning and creating a schedule in a business environment. Accordingly, claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of an autonomous cleaning vehicle, a facility, one or more flexible resources, a resource scheduling system, the autonomous cleaning vehicle including at least one sensor, a cleaning scheduling system, use of a facility resource scheduling system and a cleaning scheduling system, and operating the flexible resources and the autonomous cleaning vehicle in accordance with the scheduled operation. Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application; and Applicant’s claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception, and the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant is merely planning and managing cleaning operations by creating a schedule for operations defining constraints and ranking constraints using rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II, where the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore Applicant’s Spec. ¶ 11, “Finally, it is not ruled out that some cleaning tasks need to be performed by personnel without the use of a cleaning vehicle. Such tasks may include wiping surfaces, cleaning toilets, etc. In this case, such tasks may also be scheduled by the cleaning scheduling system.” Thus the cleaning scheduling system has some human interaction; and even though Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “wherein the autonomous cleaning vehicle is controlled by the cleaning scheduling system without an operator manually operating or driving the autonomous cleaning vehicle, and wherein navigating the autonomous cleaning vehicle comprises controlling speed and trajectory adjustments based on obstacle proximity data”, the additional elements are merely apply it, as there are no details provided regarding “controlled” and “controlling”; also, there are no details on “cleaning scheduling system cooperating in scheduling operation” and “co-optimizing operation”, as these all are recited at a high level of generality and are not significantly more than the abstract idea, and merely show the defined constraints are used for controlling.
Defining constraints and using these defined constraints in planning cleaning operations is not an inventive concept. Applicant’s claim resolves a business problem, and there is no support in Applicant’s Spec. for an improvement to a computer or technological field; and Applicant merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome; and an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Here, the additional elements are merely generic computer components performing generic computer functions, as we have in Applicant’s Spec. ¶¶ 11 – 14. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea as well, and when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason identified above. Accordingly, all pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 – 2, 5, 7, and 10 – 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for planning cleaning operations;
defining constraints for operation and scheduling operation subject to the defined constraints;
defining constraints for operation and scheduling operation subject to the defined constraints;
cooperating in scheduling operation to the constraints for operation while co-optimizing operation;
cooperating in scheduling operation to the constraints for operation while co-optimizing operation;
and operating in accordance with the scheduled operation within a specified area;
ranking the constraints for operation;
and wherein, during the negotiation agree on how to interleave respective constraints by ensuring high ranking constraints are met;
wherein the step of ranking the constraints for operation comprises applying a cost weight to the constraints and ranking the constraints based on the applied cost weights;
wherein at least one cost weight is interdependent on another cost weight, wherein the at least one cost weight associated with one constraint depends on satisfaction of the other constraint;
wherein the constraints for operation are dynamically updated.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the steps a method for planning cleaning operations; defining constraints for operation and scheduling operation subject to the defined constraints; defining constraints for operation and scheduling operation subject to the defined constraints; cooperating in scheduling operation to the constraints for operation while co-optimizing operation; and operating in accordance with the scheduled operation within a specified area; ranking the constraints for operation; wherein the step cooperating in scheduling operation includes a negotiation; and wherein, during the negotiation agree on how to interleave respective constraints by ensuring high ranking constraints are met; wherein the step of ranking the constraints for operation comprises applying a cost weight to the constraints and ranking the constraints based on the applied cost weights; wherein at least one cost weight is interdependent on another cost weight, wherein the at least one cost weight associated with one constraint depends on satisfaction of the other constraint; wherein the constraints for operation are dynamically updated all fall within certain methods of organizing human activity and specifically a commercial operation as a business relation of planning for and creating a schedule in a business environment; and the claim is managing cleaning operations by creating a planning schedule using rules or instructions. Accordingly, claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea as well. For instance, claim 2 is directed towards observing cooperating in scheduling operation comprises defining constraints for cleaning scheduling defining constraints; claim 5 is directed towards observing and evaluating a hard constraint cooperating in scheduling operation comprises meeting the hard constraint without modification; claim 7 is directed towards observing resources; claim 10 is directed towards observing the step of defining time slots; claim 11 is directed towards the step of defining time slots; claim 12 is directed towards observing defines a constraint which prevents moving in a manner that interferes with a scheduled path assigned to a time-sensitive task; and claim 13 is directed towards the hard constraint selected from the group. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea found in the independent claim.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, recites additional elements such as an autonomous cleaning vehicle, a facility, one or more flexible resources, a resource scheduling system, the autonomous cleaning vehicle including at least one sensor, a cleaning scheduling system, use of a facility resource scheduling system and a cleaning scheduling system, operating the flexible resources and the autonomous cleaning vehicle in accordance with the scheduled operation, and the autonomous cleaning vehicle is controlled by the cleaning scheduling system without an operator manually operating or driving the autonomous cleaning vehicle, and wherein navigating the autonomous cleaning vehicle comprises controlling speed and trajectory adjustments based on obstacle proximity data. The additional elements of an autonomous cleaning vehicle, a facility, one or more flexible resources, a resource scheduling system, the autonomous cleaning vehicle including at least one sensor, a cleaning scheduling system, use of a facility resource scheduling system and a cleaning scheduling system, and operating the flexible resources the autonomous cleaning vehicle in accordance with the scheduled operation, the autonomous cleaning vehicle is controlled by the cleaning scheduling system without an operator manually operating or driving the autonomous cleaning vehicle, and wherein navigating the autonomous cleaning vehicle comprises controlling speed and trajectory adjustments based on obstacle proximity data are considered generic computer components (see at least Applicant Spec. ¶¶ 11 – 14,) to perform rules or instructions provided to the processor as shown below:
“[11] In the present context the term 'autonomous cleaning vehicle' should be interpreted to mean a vehicle which is capable of performing required cleaning operations, such as sweeping, washing, disinfecting, etc., and which is able to move and operate in an autonomous manner, i.e., without an operator manually operating or driving the vehicle, or being present at or near the vehicle during operation. [12] The cleaning vehicle may form part of a fleet of two or more cleaning vehicles, operating within the same facility. In this case, the cleaning scheduling system may plan the operation of all of the cleaning vehicles forming part of the fleet. Furthermore, it is not ruled out that one or more of the vehicles forming part of the fleet is manually operated, and that the tasks of these manually operated cleaning vehicles is also scheduled by the cleaning scheduling system. Finally, it is not ruled out that some cleaning tasks need to be performed by personnel without the use of a cleaning vehicle. Such tasks may include wiping surfaces, cleaning toilets, etc. In this case, such tasks may also be scheduled by the cleaning scheduling system. [13] The facility comprises one or more flexible resources. In the present context the term 'flexible resources' should be interpreted to mean entities or units which are able to perform certain operations which are required in order to appropriately operate or run the facility, and which are not fixedly arranged at a specified position within the facility. Accordingly, the flexible resources can move within the facility, either autonomously or by being operated manually. The flexible resources could, e.g., be in the form of forklifts or pallet jacks, which need to move between specified positions within the facility, e.g., in order to position and/or collect items, e.g., in/from storage racks. In the case that the facility is an office, an educational institution, or another kind of facility involving human activities, the flexible resources may include allocation of conference rooms, hallways, elevators, etc., for use by building occupants through meetings, foot traffic, etc. [14] In the method according to the invention, a facility resource scheduling system is provided. The facility resource scheduling system defines constraints for operation of the flexible resources of the facility. Such constraints could, e.g., include rules regarding where the flexible resources are allowed to move, and at which times, allowed paths within the facility, allowable speed and/or acceleration of the flexible resources at specified positions within the facility, urgency and/or importance of operations or tasks to be performed by the flexible resources, and/or any other suitable kind of constraint which may govern the operation of the flexible resources. Constraints could further include hours of operation of various building facilities, conference rooms, entryways, etc., or allocations of these resources for various activities, meetings, etc. Further constraints could be externally imposed, such maintenance schedules that depend on third-party organizations, anticipated traffic flows due to weather events, the impact of maintenance operations and weather-related traffic flows, etc.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors). When considering the claim as a whole, claim 1 does not include additional elements alone or in combination that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea, as claim 1 merely ranks defined constraints and performs planning cleaning operations based on the ranked defined constraints. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 – 13, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 2, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. 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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
05/02/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights