DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed February 23, 2026. Applicant’s February 23rd amendment amended claims 1, 5-11, 13, 16-20 and canceled claims 4 and 15. Currently Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are the independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15 and 16-20 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (e.g. recite specific operations performed by a computer system, requires a computer system, integrates specific physical devices, recite specific operations rooted in computer system/technology - update user interface in real-time; Remarks: Page 12) and the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks: Last Paragraph Page 12; Paragraph 1, Page 13).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – human task management – specifically presenting at a user interface associated with a picker (human) updated ‘content’ (data) generated in according with a corresponding intervention’ (e.g. display a warning message; Figures 3A, 3B, 4; warning the picker to head to a store to avoid a picking batch (task) being canceled due to inactivity – Figure 3A, Element 335). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of displaying/presenting ‘updated’ data to a user/picker via a user interface (mere data on a screen) and/or human task management they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application, provide a technical solution to a technical problem, recite an improvement in any of the underlying technology (i.e. processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network) or recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of human task management. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including a processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the recited accessed/applied machine-learning model trained to predict a time for completion of each task associated with an order, the examiner notes that the machine-learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained machine-learning model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained machine-learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine-learning model functions. The trained machine-learning model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic trained machine-learning model to apply the abstract idea. The trained machine-learning model is merely a conduit/tool for the abstract idea.
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood 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”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention recites specific operations performed by a computer system, requires a computer system, integrates specific physical devices, recite specific operations rooted in computer system/technology - update user interface in real-time, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the conventional use of generic computer elements (user interface, devices, etc.) recite significantly more that the abstract idea. For example, presenting update data (content) to a human user on a computing device associated with the user (e.g. warning messages to a human picker that an order maybe canceled due to inactivity) is a routine, conventional, and well-known use of user interfaces and devices. None of the functioning of the user interface or the device or network or processor or storage medium or computer system are improved by displaying the warning message (content) to a user at a specific time, data is merely presented and updated.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – human task management – as discussed above, and at best may present an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. may improve the management of pickers performing order tasks by presenting updated content) however the claims do not represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses 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 judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see 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 - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network. These generic computer hardware components merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and presenting data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s picker task management in the general field of business management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding the recited machine-learning model trained to predict a time for completion of each task associated with an order, the examiner notes that the machine-learning model is trained external/outside of the scope of the invention as claimed. Further the trained machine-learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained machine-learning model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained machine-learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine-learning model functions. The trained machine-learning model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic trained machine-learning model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Reevaluating the steps of receiving a first order placed, accessing a machine learning model, causing updated content...for presentation at a user interface and causing the device….to update…the user interface which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data over a network of display data via display device which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the recited machine-learning model trained to predict a time for completion of each task associated with an order, the examiner notes that the machine-learning model is trained external/outside of the scope of the invention as claimed. Further the trained machine-learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained machine-learning model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained machine-learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine-learning model functions. The trained machine-learning model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic trained machine-learning model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer and/or provides a technical problem by generating and updating a user interface at specific times based on specific operations, or utilizing a user interface to performs specific operation, the examiner respectfully disagrees. User interfaces providing data (e.g. warning messages to a human picker that an order maybe canceled due to inactivity) is a routine, conventional, and well-known use of user interfaces. The functioning of the user interface is not improved by displaying the warning message (content) to a user at a specific time, it merely displays data.
At best the argued ‘improvements’ are business improvements in the business problem of managing human pickers picking items/products for orders and in no way represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or computer network, do not represent an technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or another technical field.
As discussed in Specification Paragraph 1, the system is directed to assisting pickers complete stages of an order (e.g. start moving, get to store, start picking items, etc.) in a timely fashion (i.e. compared to thresholds) and when a picker’s progress in completing the order stage(s) do not show any progress, even after multiple warning messages to the picker, removing the picker from the order. This paragraph makes clear that the focus of the invention is to improve the conventional, routine and well-known business practice/process of human task management, specifically order picking by a picker. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. process, user interface, memory, etc.); does not disclose an improvement in another technical field; and does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggests Applicant review the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-15377/guidance-2024-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence ) and specifically review the three new examples 47-49 announced by the 2024 AI SME Update which provide exemplary SME analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims related to AI inventions (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
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 1-3, 5-15 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 13 and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of human task management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, human task management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to providing a predictive user interface to enable a person to select, configure, train and run a predictive trait model, wherein human task management is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of managing person behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.03. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “accessing”, “applying”, “comparing”, “determining”, “determining”, “generating”, and “causing” recite functions of the human task management are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of managing person behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The step of applying the machine-learning model to predict a plurality of times for completion is also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 appears to be to present updated content to a picker corresponding to an intervention (e.g. display a warning message; Figures 3A, 3B, 4; warning the picker to head to a store to avoid a picking batch (task) being canceled due to inactivity – Figure 3A, Element 335 – mere data on a screen).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of managing person behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The exceptions are the user (who is a person), the picker (who is a person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.04), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network. These generic computing components are merely used to receive, process or present data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's human task management in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the see MPEP § 2106.04. regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)¬ (h)), Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 16-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under see MPEP § 2106.04, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Reevaluating the steps of receiving a first order placed, accessing a machine learning model, causing updated content...for presentation at a user interface and causing the device….to update…the user interface which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data over a network of display data via display device which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the recited machine-learning model trained to predict a time for completion of each task associated with an order, the examiner notes that the machine-learning model is trained external/outside of the scope of the invention as claimed. Further the trained machine-learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained machine-learning model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained machine-learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine-learning model functions. The trained machine-learning model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic trained machine-learning model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of applying the machine-learning model to predict a plurality of times, comparing each state of a picker, determining that a picker…did not complete each task, and determining a corresponding intervention associated with the picker all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving a first order and accessing a machine learning model are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of causing updated content...for presentation at a user interface and causing the device….to update…the user interface are directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, accessing, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the recited machine-learning model trained (externally to the system/invention - i.e. an already trained machine-learning model is merely accessed/applied) to predict a time for completion of each task associated with an order is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained machine-learning model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained machine-learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine-learning model functions. The trained machine-learning model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic trained machine-learning model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a trained machine-learning model in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the trained machine-learning model is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14 and 16-19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of human task management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 1, 13 and 20.
Claims 2, 3 and 14 further limits the abstract idea by inputting into the machine-learning model at least ONE of picker OR first order to predict and inputting at least ONE of location of picker, one or more features of picker, warehouse location OR one or more features of the warehouse (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by determining a threshold time based on current location of picker (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limited to by determining the respective threshold time by applied a machine learning algorithm (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by determining the corresponding intervention is a warning and causing display of a warning message (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by determining to remove a picker and displaying a message to the removed picker (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 18 further limit the abstract idea of determining the corresponding intervention based on at least ONE of task progress, availability OR predicted amount of time for another picker (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by accessing a second machine-learning model trained to predict an effect of a candidate intervention and applying the second machine-learning model (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by inputting into the second model information associated with at least ONE of a picker or warehouse (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by inputting into the second model at least ONE of picker location, picker features, warehouse location OR warehouse features (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 16-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, network at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. computer readable medium, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, computer readable storage medium, computer system, device, user interface, networks merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mital, U.S. Patent No. 12536486 discloses a system and method for managing picking tasks including displaying picking task on a picker display device.
Hu, U.S. Patent No. 11954638 discloses a system and method for processing and assigning order picking tasks.
Zhu, U.S. Patent No. 12475434 discloses a system and method for allocating picking tasks to pickers in response to online orders including determining/estimating a picking time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625