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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/270, 578 filed on 06/30/2023.
• Claims 1, 3-6, 8-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 02/03/2026.
• Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/270, 578 filed on 06/30/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected because the amended claim limitations reciting “determining an average time interval between consecutive events which determine the performance of the step of applying a predictive model”. It is unclear what this claim limitation is referring to. Particularly, what is “which determine the performance of the step of applying a predictive model” referring to? And what determines the performance of the step of applying a predictive model, “the average time interval “or “the events”? What kind of event will trigger execute a predictive model? What metric is used to evaluate the performance of the predictive model? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any teaching regarding the time interval disclosed by the references.
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12-22 are rejected because their dependence on the claim 1.
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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 11 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 11 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, Claim 1 recites applying, every time a variation occurs in the second item of data as a result of the acquisition of one or more new handling operations to be performed, a predictive model to said first and second items of data, thereby generating a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations; determining an average time interval between consecutive events which determine the performance of the step of applying a predictive model;- setting a time horizon of the simulation to be less than said average time interval; determining, as a function of said simulation, a unique association between each trolley and a respective group of handling operations to be performed in a specific sequence to minimizing the time for the performance of the plurality of handling operations. This limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical relation. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed using mathematical relation. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art can apply a predictive numeric algorithm in a simulation to of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations and determining, as a function of said simulation, a unique association between each trolley and a respective group of handling operations to be performed in a specific sequence. The mere nominal recitation of a computer-implementable method for controlling the handling of products in a warehouse does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea in the form of mathematical relation. Further, the use of a numerical model and corresponding algorithm for performing calculations and simulation such as executing a predictive algorithm is directed to abstract mathematical calculations. Similar to claim 1, claim 11 also recites the limitation of applying a predictive model to said first and second items of data, thereby generating a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations. Thus, the claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in the form of mathematical relation.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims 1, and 11 recite additional element of “continuously acquiring a first item of data identifying a real operating condition of a plurality of trolleys configured to handle the products”. The acquiring step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering trolleys and operating condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Transmitting a control signal to each trolley is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting command), and amounts to mere post solution signal transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional 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 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3-6, 8-10, 12-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim 2-10 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, 12-22 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1 and 11.
Claims 3-5 merely further specify how to applying a predictive model to generate a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations. The use of a numerical model and corresponding algorithm for performing calculations and simulation such as executing a predictive algorithm is directed to abstract mathematical calculations.
Claim 6 merely further specifies how to collect a third item of data identifying an environmental condition of the warehouse. The acquiring step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of identifying an environmental condition of the warehouse for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 8-10 merely further specify how to acquire a floor plan of the warehouse; - defining in said floor plan a plurality of transitable areas; defining in said floor plan a plurality of paths that can be travelled by the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse to reach and/or pass through the plurality of transitable areas. The acquiring step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering trolleys and operating condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hompel et al: "Warehouse Management: Automation and Organisation of Warehouse and Order Picking Systems", 31 October 2006, Springer in view of Medina, "Simulation for Predictive Control of a distribution center," Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Austin, TX, USA, 2009, further in view of Colonna (US20170353831A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11:
Hompel teaches:
A computer-implementable method for controlling the handling of products in a warehouse, comprising the steps of: (Hompel, Forward: “advanced computer and control technologies have provided the necessary control and management systems (warehouse management systems”)
continuously acquiring a first item of data identifying a real operating condition of a plurality of trolleys configured to handle the products, (Hompel, page 51, “Data collection, processing”, and page 152, “Realtime6 data recording, processing and output”, page 153, “a realtime capable operating system is indispensable in process-oriented controls”, page 51-52, “a warehouse and distribution system includes a variety of different data…Operating means statistics – Runtimes – Idle times – Maintenance and repair costs per unit”)
said real operating condition comprising at least one real-time position of each trolley inside the warehouse; (Hompel, page 94 : “the exact position is recorded during the storage and retrieval process by GPS (global positioning system) or based on the AGV (automated guided vehicle) technology to ensure the tracking of the material flow”)
continuously acquiring a second item of data identifying a plurality of operations to be performed, each handling operation comprising at least one loading position and one unloading position for a respective product to be handled. (Hompel, page 51, “Data collection, processing”, page 56, “warehouse operations”, page 50, “relevant data (e.g., completion of article number or description, storage location (source), destination ., page 22, “arriving trucks have to be directed and assigned to the loading gates.”, page 327, “Arriving units are unloaded … in reserved pick-up zones.”)
setting a time horizon of the simulation to be less than said average time interval; (Hompel, page 65, “define a time horizon”, page 80, “The time needed to plan the batches mainly depends on the number of orders to be planned and thus on the working time to be represented (time intervals)”) Examiner note: Hompel teaches the concepts of setting a time horizon for optimization of operation warehouse and distribution system and calculating “time interval” associated with warehouse operation and control cycle. It would be an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to define a time horizon to be less than an average time interval.
determining, as a function of said simulation, a unique association between each trolley and a respective group of handling operations to be performed (1-9) in a specific sequence such as to minimise the time for the performance of the plurality of handling operations; (Hompel, page 239, “An association EM1 ← EM2 determines how many entities of EM2 may be assigned to an entity of EM1”, and page 66, “Resource assignment, scheduling and sequencing of picking and transport orders”, page 68, “determine the shortest route ...”, page 283, “time and money and have to be minimized as far as possible”)
transmitting to each trolley a control signal identifying the respective group of handling operations to be performed (1-9). (Hompel, page 124, “commands are transmitted… via radio or infrared transmission… the vehicle control (e.g., load transfer, distance control to preceding vehicles)”)
Hompel does not explicitly teach, but Medina teaches:
applying, every time a variation occurs in the second item of data as a result of the acquisition of one or more new handling operations to be performed, a predictive model to said first and second items of data, thereby generating a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations;( Medina, page 2431, “the simulation operates as a discrete-event simulation…The simulation may be re-run after making operational adjustments (e.g., number of resources, priority changes in the TRM algorithm”, page 2427, “The SimPC is developed to be readily integrated with the WMS in terms of accurately modeling the decision making logic in the WMS based on the current DC inventory and resource workload.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a warehouse and distribution system simulation model from Hompel to include these above teachings from Medina in order to include applying, every time a variation occurs in the second item of data as a result of the acquisition of one or more new handling operations to be performed, a predictive model to said first and second items of data, thereby generating a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improve decision making” (Medina, Description).
Hompel does not explicitly teach, but Colonna teaches:
determining an average time interval between consecutive events which determine the performance of the step of applying a predictive model;( Colonna, para[201], “an average intermediate arrival time iat between consecutive event”, and para[01], “ predicting variations”, and para[16], “Simulation”, and para[02], “achieving a more efficient of planning”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a warehouse and distribution system simulation model from Hompel to include these above teachings from Colonna in order to include determining an average time interval between consecutive events which determine the performance of the step of applying a predictive model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ achieving a more efficient of planning” (Colonna, Description).
Regarding Claim 3:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 1. Hompel further teaches
The method according to claim 1, comprising a step of comparing, in every instant, the ideal operating condition of each trolley with the respective real operating condition and wherein the step of applying a predictive model is performed every time the real operating condition differs from the ideal operating condition beyond a predefined threshold value. (Hompel, page 72, “Compared to the best solution”, and page 66, “a WMS could be represented in a simulation model and thus be optimized … monthly or weekly”, and page 78 “The purpose of routing (also trip optimization) in the warehouse is to determine the shortest way if there are several possibilities”)
Regarding Claims 4, 12:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 1. Hompel further teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the real operating condition further comprises an instantaneous and/or an average speed of movement of each trolley. (Hompel, page 121, “the vehicles are optimized with regard to acceleration and speed”)
Regarding Claims 5, 13-14:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 1. Hompel further teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the real operating condition comprises an operating status of each trolley. (Hompel, page 121, “the vehicles are optimized with regard to acceleration and speed”)
Regarding Claims 6, 15-17:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 1. Hompel further teaches
The method according to claim 1, comprising a step of continuously acquiring a third item of data identifying an environmental condition of the warehouse, said environmental condition comprising at least one travelability status of at least one area of the warehouse, (Hompel, page 55, “Accessibility of the shelves (freely accessible warehouse or closed area of an automatic warehouse)”
said step of applying a predictive model being performed every time a variation occurs in the third item of data. (Hompel, page 66, “a WMS could be represented in a simulation model… monthly or weekly, are based on the turnover of a warehouse system during this time and have to adapt the available resources to seasonal fluctuations”)
Regarding Claims 8, 18-21:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 1. Hompel further teaches
The method according to claim 1, comprising the steps of: acquiring a floor plan of the warehouse; (Hompel, page 333, “The topology of a warehouse which consists of storage bins, machines and their connections is set up in Java using the kernel methods”)
defining in said floor plan a plurality of transitable areas; (Hompel, page 55, “Accessibility of the shelves (freely accessible warehouse or closed area of an automatic warehouse)”
defining in said floor plan a plurality of paths that can be travelled by the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse to reach and/or pass through the plurality of transitable areas; (Hompel, page 335, “The route from a source, e.g., a shelf, to a sink, e.g., an order-picking station, is calculated by a plug-in which fulfills the RouteStrategyInterface”)
said simulation being representative of a movement of each trolley along a respective path. (Hompel, page 23, “ loading unit and its movements in the warehouse”)
Regarding Claim 9:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 8. Hompel further teaches:
The method according to claim 8, comprising a step of defining in said floor plan a plurality of non-transitable areas, said non-transitable areas comprising at least one among: product loading and/or unloading stations, fixed obstacles and pedestrian walkways. (Hompel, page 55, “Accessibility of the shelves … closed area of an automatic warehouse)”, and page 22, “terminal (e.g., loading gates or bays)”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 9. Hompel further teaches:
The method according to claim 9, comprising a step of identifying in said floor plan a plurality of product storage positions, comprising the sub-steps of:- acquiring a storage area and a reference identification code adapted to identify storage positions at the vertices of said storage area; (Hompel, page 219, “each code is assigned to a storage location”) Examiner note: Hompel does not teach displaying the code at the vertices of storage area. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a design choice.
dividing the storage area into a plurality of storage positions, associating each storage position with a respective identification code as a function of the reference identification codes. (Hompel, page 36, “the areas are divided into small sections”, and page 219,” On request each code is assigned to a storage location for the article data by means of object name services34 (ONS). A standardized semantics is ensured by the physical markup language (PML).”
Regarding Claim 22:
Hompel in view of Medina and Colonna, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of the claim 1. Hompel further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises instructing trolleys to minimize total movements to be performed, thereby allowing completion of the total movements in less time. (Hompel, page 66, “a WMS could be represented in a simulation model and thus be optimized … monthly or weekly”, and page 78 “The purpose of routing (also trip optimization) in the warehouse is to determine the shortest way if there are several possibilities”)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim objection. Applicant's amendments of claims overcome the claim objections.
101 rejection. The applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to patent eligible subject matter because it is integrated into a practical application that is patent eligible (using a sensor to acquire data from a warehouse and use those data to manage the movements of the trolleys). This provides for a significant improvement in the field (i.e., optimizing the handling procedure by reducing wasted time in moving products inside the warehouse).
102 rejection. The applicant argues that Hompel reference does not teach the amended features of claim 1 and 11.
In response of B). The examiner respectively disagrees. Claim 1 recites applying, every time a variation occurs in the second item of data as a result of the acquisition of one or more new handling operations to be performed, a predictive model to said first and second items of data, thereby generating a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations; determining an average time interval between consecutive events which determine the performance of the step of applying a predictive model;- setting a time horizon of the simulation to be less than said average time interval; determining, as a function of said simulation, a unique association between each trolley and a respective group of handling operations to be performed in a specific sequence to minimizing the time for the performance of the plurality of handling operations. This limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical relation. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed using mathematical relation. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art can apply a predictive numeric algorithm in a simulation to of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations and determining, as a function of said simulation, a unique association between each trolley and a respective group of handling operations to be performed in a specific sequence. The mere nominal recitation of a computer-implementable method for controlling the handling of products in a warehouse does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea in the form of mathematical relation. Further, the use of a numerical model and corresponding algorithm for performing calculations and simulation such as executing a predictive algorithm is directed to abstract mathematical calculations. Similar to claim 1, claim 11 also recites the limitation of applying a predictive model to said first and second items of data, thereby generating a simulation of an ideal operating condition of the plurality of trolleys inside the warehouse during the performance of respective handling operations. Thus, the claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in the form of mathematical relation. The claims 1, and 11 recite additional element of “continuously acquiring a first item of data identifying a real operating condition of a plurality of trolleys configured to handle the products”. The acquiring step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering trolleys and operating condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Transmitting a control signal to each trolley is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting command), and amounts to mere post solution signal transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional 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 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
In response of C). Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 (See applicant’s response, page 10, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 18270