Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, 14, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-18, and 20 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims regarding the objection to claims 1, 9, and 17 are persuasive. Therefore, the previous objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “ With this express quantitative limitation, the claim reflects the immense volume of data and computation complexity that the Action asserted was missing. Processing successor lists across more than one thousand bins with dynamic, iterative updates to multiple task-dependent successor lists is plainly not feasible as a mental process with pen and paper, and cannot reasonably be dismissed as an abstract idea”. However, the Examiner disagrees because the claims remain directed to mathematical calculations and certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. task sequencing) implemented on a generic computer. The recited “first data buffer” with pre-calculated inter-node distances and the quantitative limitation B > 1000 reflect only data organization and scale, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or improve computer functionality (see SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC; Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network). Under Step 2B, storing/retrieving data, iteratively comparing distances, ranking, and selecting a successor task are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer operations and thus do not amount to “significantly more.”
Applicant’s arguments that the claimed buffer management is ‘intelligent’ or achieves a balance between calculation efficiency and memory usage are conclusory and lack claim-specific or specification-specific disclosure that these steps effect an improvement in the functioning of the computer as distinct from an abstract optimization. The claims do not recite a concrete, non-conventional data-structure or machine-level features (or otherwise identifies specific disclosure demonstrating an improvement in computer functioning).
The Applicant’s “impractical for the human mind” argument does not overcome a § 101 rejection. The claims recite a sequence of abstract mental steps: receiving task information, calculating connecting distances (mathematical operations), comparing and ranking candidate tasks, updating successor lists, and selecting a successor. These steps are essentially information-processing and decision-making functions that can, in principle, be performed by a human using pen and paper or mental calculation, and thus fall within the “mental processes” subgroup of judicial exceptions. Moreover, if the claims cannot practically be performed mentally (and thus are not a “mental process”), they can still be directed to an abstract idea (mathematical algorithms or methods of organizing human activity) and still fail Alice step 2 unless the claims recite an unconventional technical solution that improves computer functioning.
Applicant further argues, “Contrary to the action’s characterization, claim 1 is detailed and prescriptive about how the computer implements the solution, i.e., a specific, structured way of constructing and dynamically maintaining data buffers for successor-task selection in a graph molded space…The Action’s cursory and conclusive characterization of the claim as high-level of generality” completely ignores the expressly required data structures ad iterative processes set forth in the claim.” Although claim 1 recites successor lists and iterative updating, these elements are recited at a functional level and describe conventional data-processing techniques implemented on a generic computer. Applicant has not identified claim limitations or specification disclosure that show a specific non-conventional data structure, memory organization, or hardware/software arrangement that materially alters computer operation. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea and fails to recite ‘significantly more’ under Alice.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish and DDR Holdings is noted but unpersuasive. The claims do not recite a specific, non-conventional data structure or memory architecture that changes how the computer operates. Instead, they recite generic storage and retrieval of precomputed distances and candidate lists, along with functional steps for updating and selecting tasks. These are conventional algorithmic techniques implemented on generic computer components. Reducing computational complexity through precomputation is a mathematical optimization and does not, without more, amount to “significantly more” under Alice step 2.
The Applicant asserts that the specification confirms the practical, technical improvement. The asserted benefits (faster selection, less idle time, parallel resources, lower travel emissions) are desirable operational outcomes of applying an algorithm. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent show that obtaining improved speed, accuracy, scale, or business/operational benefits by running an abstract process on a computer does not by itself supply a patentable “inventive concept.” See Alice, Mayo, Parker v. Flook, and Electric Power Group. Efficiency or environmental benefits are downstream effects rather than evidence that the claims recite a non-conventional machine or change the computer’s internal operation.
Applicant’s reliance on the ARP rehearing and Enfish/DDR is noted but unpersuasive. The claims remain directed to the abstract idea of computing, ranking, and sequencing tasks (mathematical concepts and methods of organizing human activity). The recited ‘inter-node buffer’ of precomputed distances, per-task successor lists, iterative updates, and instantaneous selection are functionally described and amount to conventional algorithmic/data-structure techniques implemented on generic computer components. Performance metrics (e.g., 100 ms, B>1000) and domain constraints (graph-modeled space) are results and field-of-use limitations, not specific improvements to computer technology.
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 1,4-5,7-9,12-13,15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more based on the guidance provided in the Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 PEG”) (See Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019).
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the pending claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility test, independent claim 1 for example recites an abstract idea of planning paths for tasks. The limitations that describe an abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
A computer-implemented method for improving operating efficiency of a managed space where a plurality of bins is spatially distributed, the method comprising:
receiving a new task which specifies traveling from a first source bin to a first target bin;
automatically updating a plurality of successor lists stored on a successor lists data buffer, wherein the plurality of successor lists is respectively associated with a plurality of existing tasks specifying traveling from respective source bins to respective target bins, wherein the successor list associated with an existing task includes a list of candidate tasks and their connecting distances, wherein each connecting distance is measured from the target bin of the existing task to the source bin a candidate task, wherein the list of candidate tasks included in the successor list are selected from the plurality of existing tasks that have not been executed based on ranking of their connecting distances, wherein the updating comprises:
selecting, from the plurality of existing tasks, a task which specifies traveling from a second source bin to a second target bin;
calculating a connecting distance to the new task, wherein the connecting distance to the new task is measured from the second target bin to the first source bin;
comparing the connecting distance to the new task with connecting distances for the list of candidate tasks included in the successor list associated with the selected task; and
responsive to determining that the connecting distance to the new task is smaller than the connecting distance corresponding to one of the candidate tasks included in the successor list associated with the selected task, removing one of the candidate tasks that has the largest connecting distance from the successor list associated with the selected task and adding the new task to the successor list associated with the selected task; and
responsive to completion of the selected task, instantaneously selecting a successor task from the successor list associated with the selected task to execute, wherein the successor task has the shortest connecting distance among the list of candidate tasks included in the successor list associated with the selected task.
A computer-implemented method for improving operating efficiency of a managed space, the method comprising:
receiving a new task which specifies traveling from a new source bin to a new target bin in a managed space modeled as a network including a plurality of nodes defining intersections of pathways of the network, wherein the plurality of bins is spatially distributed and associated with respective pathways;
automatically updating a plurality of successor lists stored on a successor lists data buffer, wherein the plurality of successor lists is respectively associated with a plurality of existing tasks specifying traveling from respective source bins to respective target bins, wherein
calculating a connecting distance to the new task, wherein the connecting distance to the new task is measured from the target bin of the existing task to the
comparing the connecting distance to the new task with the connecting distances for the list of candidate tasks included in the successor list associated with the
responsive to determining that the connecting distance to the new task is smaller than a connecting distance corresponding to one of the candidate tasks included in the successor list associated with the existing task, removing one of the candidate tasks that has the largest connecting distance from the successor list associated with the
creating a new successor list for the new task in the successor lists data buffer, wherein the new successor list for the new task comprises candidate tasks selected from the plurality of existing tasks that have not been executed, based on ranking of their connecting distances to the new task; and
responsive to completion of each existing task, instantaneously selecting a successor task from the successor list associated with the completed task for execution, wherein the successor task has the shortest connecting distance among the list of candidate tasks included in the successor list,
wherein calculating the connecting distance to the new task comprises:
determining a first pathway in the managed space where the new source bin is located;
determining a second pathway in the managed space where the target bin of the existing task is located; and
responsive to a determination that the first pathway is different from the second pathway,
obtaining one or two first distances from the target bin of the existing task to one or two exit nodes of the second pathway;
obtaining one or two second distances from one or two entry nodes of the first pathway to the new source bin;
obtaining one, two, or four third distances from one of the exit nodes of the second pathway to one of the entry nodes of the first pathway;
calculating one, two, or four route distances from the target bin of the existing task to the new source bin by respectively summing one of first distances, one of the second distances, and one of the third distances; and
selecting the shortest route distance as the connecting distance to the new task,
wherein the third distances are retrieved from a first data buffer, wherein the first data buffer stores pre-calculated distances from exit nodes to entry nodes of the plurality of pathways, and wherein a number of nodes (N) in the network is at least one order of magnitude smaller than a number of bins (B) in the managed space, such that a size of the first data buffer has an order of N2, which is substantially smaller than B2, wherein B>1000.
The limitations fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind (or with aid of pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes category. The claimed steps of receiving, updating, calculating (including sub-steps), comparing, determining, removing, adding, creating and selecting encompass steps that can be practically performed in the mind through observation, evaluation and judgment and aid of pen and paper. In addition, the limitations describing calculations (e.g., calculating…distances…by respectively summing) also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mathematical concepts. The claim being computer-implemented does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. For example, with the telephone unit and server in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a computer and data buffers to implement the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool including how relying on the speed and efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not improve computer capabilities or existing technology such as in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Similarly, invoking and relying on the additional element of a data buffers for their known functionality to store information/retrieve information from, amounts to the claims invoking data buffers merely as a tool in their ordinary capacity to execute the abstract idea, similar to the findings in the TLI Communications decision in which the storing of digital images in an organized manner by a server invoked in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process of storing did not add a meaningful limitation to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer and data buffers do not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., execution on a computer. Similarly, the limitation of applying the abstract idea to a managed space with a plurality of bins spatially distributed and the managed space modeled as a network with nodes and wherein a number of nodes (N) in the network is at least one order of magnitude smaller than a number of bins (B) in the managed space, such that a size of the first data buffer has an order of N2, which is substantially smaller than B2, wherein b> 1000 amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, use of the computer and data buffers (e.g., successor lists data buffer and first data buffer) at such a high level of generality does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Rather, the claim recites use of data buffers for their known functionality to store information/retrieve information from. As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Thus, the generic computer and data buffers do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In addition, the step of receiving can be considered mere data gathering and insignificant pre-solution activity based on the 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding limitations about data gathering. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not reflect integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, generally linking to a field of use or particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s originally filed specification (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0128) supports this conclusion with description of a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea. For the receiving step considered insignificant pre-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, this has been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Symantec, OIP Techs., and buySAFE (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) which convey that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Similarly, adding and removing data to/from a list stored on a data buffer and obtaining values (e.g., distances) from a data buffer amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional record keeping and storing/retrieving of information in memory when claimed in a generic manner as it is here (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) regarding electronic record keeping and storing/retrieving of information in memory). When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims include the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claim and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to a more narrow abstract idea by including additional steps that fall under mental processes (performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) such as, setting the connecting distance to the new task to be the direct distance (claim 5), identifying predecessor tasks and removing the selected task (claim 7), sending a message to follow a travel path for the selected successor task and deleting the successor list (claim 8). Such narrowing creates a more narrow abstract idea but does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Additional elements recited in the dependent claims include generic computer processing components/functionality recited at a high-level of generality. For example, these include retrieving information from data buffers (claims 4-5) and storing and deleting successor lists from the successor lists data buffer (claim 8)) which do not impose any meaningful limits to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide for an inventive concept. Such storing and retrieving from a data buffer are also considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and well-understood, routine and conventional because steps of storing and retrieving information from memory by computer or processor are well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. and OIP Techs (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Also, such deleting of information from a data buffer amounts to using a computer to perform an abstract idea and existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as amounting to electronic record keeping which is considered well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a generic manner as it is here (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) regarding electronic record keeping).
Claims 9, 12, 13, 15-16 (directed to a system) and claims 17, 18, 20 (directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media) recite limitations similar to those recited in the method claims addressed above and therefore the same analysis above with respect to the method claims also applies.
Applicant’s claims are not patent-eligible.
Discussion of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Boris et al WO 2012/052495 A1 Route Planning Method and Apparatus
Abstract: The invention relates to a method for planning routes which each run along a plurality of locations and for each of which a sequence of locations is determined according to distances between the locations. The distances between first locations on a first route are stored in a memory in conjunction with the determination of the first route, and a subsequent, second tour is determined according to distances between locations on the second route which are stored in the memory and according to further distances between locations on the second route, wherein the further distances are supplemented in the memory.
Liu CN 108268039 A Route Planning Method and System of Mobile Robot
Abstract: The embodiment of the invention claims a route planning method and system of mobile robot, belonging to the robot field. the path planning method of mobile robot comprises a first planned path from the mobile robot receives, wherein the first planned path is within a predetermined area of autonomous planning by the mobile robot, planning the second planning path for mobile robot; comparing the first path cost value and the second path cost value, based on the static path cost standard path segment and the corresponding pre-stored standard path segment, determining a first planned path and the second planned path corresponding to the first path cost value and the second path cost value; and based on a result of the comparison, sends the corresponding control instruction to the mobile robot, wherein the mobile robot can identify control instruction and the first planning path or the second planning path….See as part of S203 “pre-calculating the distance between each node, for example, A1 to the path cost value of A2 is 1, A1 is 2 to A5, A1 to A6 is 3 and so on. As an example, if the server has been static memory A1 to A2 cost value of F (A1, A2) and a cost value F A2 to A3 (A2, A3), then the price via a path of A1-A2-A3 is equal to F (A1, A2) + F (A2, A3). Thus, the calculation amount is greatly reduced, and the processing resource consumption of the server and improves the response performance.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628