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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 03/03/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been added. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been selected by Applicant Without Traverse. Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn from consideration. No claims have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
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 1-10 and 16-20 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 1-0 are directed to a method, and claims 16-20 are directed towards a computer storage medium for management of events and disruptions, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions process/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 method for management of events and disruptions, in the following limitations:
Connecting a gateway device with a data ingestion pipeline;
Retrieving a set of tasks to be completed in a predetermined period;
Identifying a set of triggering events;
Initiating an event resolution in response to a triggering event occurring;
Sending a notification to a worker computing device; and
Sending a notification to at least one device associated with at least one supervisor
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to manage triggering events and disruptions. 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 gateway device;
a worker computing devices;
a device associated with at least one supervisor
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 16 and dependent claims 2-10, and 17-20 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 gateway device;
a worker computing devices;
a device associated with at least one supervisor
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al (US 2022/0141899) in view of Nafus et al (US 2019/0130337).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a computer implemented method of operating a connected warehouse (see at least paragraph [0029] to Raj et al)by performing, by at least one processor, operations comprising: connecting a gateway device with a data ingestion pipeline (see at least paragraph [0031] to Raj et al), the data ingestion pipeline being in communication with a plurality of worker computing devices and a plurality of sensor devices (see at least paragraph [0032] to Raj et al), the worker computing devices each relating to one or more workers of a plurality of workers (see at least paragraph [0032] to Raj et al); retrieving a set of tasks to be completed in a predetermined period, identifying a set of triggering events that may disrupt each task of the set of set of tasks when a triggering event of the set of triggering events occurs (see at least paragraph [0034] to Raj et al), initiating an event resolution, wherein the event resolution comprises one or more of: sending a notification of the triggering event to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices relating to at least one worker affected by the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0035] to Raj et al); and sending the notification of the triggering event to at least one device associated with at least one supervisor affected by the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0032] to Raj et al).
Raf et al does not appear to explicitly disclose a triggering event, wherein said triggering event may disrupt the task.
However, Nafus et al discloses a system and method of disturbance event detection in a shared environment, wherein said triggering event may disrupt the task (see at least paragraph [0028] to Nafus et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for enabling workers to use a personal mobile device with a wearable electronic device, as disclosed by Raj et al and the system and method of disturbance event detection in a shared environment as taught by Nafus et al, in order to identify disturbance events within a shared work environment(see at least paragraph [0005] to Nafus et al) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising tagging each task with the set of triggering events that may disrupt each task to generate a task-event correlation matrix (see at least paragraph [0029] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising generating an event resolution matrix that correlates each triggering event of the set of events with a respective event resolution, wherein the step of initiating an event resolution comprises referring to the event resolution matrix to determine the event resolution for the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0068] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the step of tagging each task with the set of triggering events is performed based on historical data stored in the event resolution matrix (see at least paragraph [0126] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising generating event-resolution logs based on historical data stored in the event resolution matrix, and building a predictive model that identifies a probability of an occurrence of a triggering event (see at least paragraph [0068] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising displaying the event-resolution logs and predictive model on a user interface of at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices and/or the at least one device associated with the at least one supervisor (see at least paragraph [0029] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event is one of a service request and an alarm (see at least paragraph [0025] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the notification includes a message restricting access to a zone affected by the triggering even and pausing each task affected by the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0076] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a first task of a shift on a user interface (see at least paragraph [0033] to Raj et al); in response to a first change in conditions of the first task, presenting a first unexpected subtask related to the first task (see at least paragraph [0034] to Raj et al); in response to progress or completing the first unexpected subtask, updating status of the first unexpected subtask and assigning a second task of the shift on a user interface (see at least paragraph [0034] to Raj et al); in response to a second change in conditions of the second task, presenting a second unexpected subtask related to the second task (see at least paragraph [0037] to Raj et al); and in response to progress or completing the second unexpected subtask, updating status of the second unexpected subtask (see at least paragraph [0049] to Raj et al).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining a real-time status of all task operations, based on status of the first and second tasks; and calculating task performance metrics based on the real-time status (see at least paragraph [0058] to Raj et al).
Claims 16-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
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.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights