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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are currently pending. Claims 1, 13, and 15 were amended, in the reply filed May 20, 2025.
Priority
Application 18/318,102 was filed on May 16, 2023 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/364,847 filed on May 17, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Objections
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claims 15, 17, 18, 20-22, and 24 and it is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C § 112(b)
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made to claims 15, 17, 18, 20-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) and it is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C § 101
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A)
Applicant first argues that the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea because: i) the claims integrate the purported judicial exception into practical application, ii) the claims satisfy the requirements of McRO, and iii) the claims are similar to the claims in Thales Visionix (Remarks. p. 17-18). Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to argument i), Applicant lists a number of claim elements (e.g. “one or more first neural network having multiple layers and trained end-to-end”, “segmenting and classifying second sensor data”, “sending instructions to a device”, and “updating a three-dimensional asset map … the three dimensional asset map presentable on a display of a user device”) and argues that the elements “are directed to specific operations integrated into a practical application to solve problems and improve technologies arising in the realm of visualizing and tracking containers at a warehouse or yard” (Remarks p. 19-21). However, the claim elements listed by Applicant do not provide any improvements to technology. The claim elements do not provide an improvement to computer functionality as they do not improve computer capabilities, nor do they improve any other technology or technical field. Instead, they invoke computers merely as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)) and merely add generic computer components to perform the method (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Examiner notes that the claim elements are described at a very high-level of detail and appear to be generic computer devices. For example, paragraphs [0026-0028] list a wide variety of neural networks, described at a high-level of detail, that can be used to perform the invention. Similarly, paragraphs [0023-0025] list a wide variety of sensors, described at a high-level of detail, that capture data which is segmented and parsed by generic computing devices, and paragraph [0059] contains a high-level description of a three-dimensional “asset map” which is displayed on a generic mobile device. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, they do not improve technology. Rather they improve the abstract idea of tracking and instructing delivery vehicles at a facility and fulfilling an order. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Examiner particularly notes that, the three-dimensional map is described a such a high-level of detail that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human with pen and paper could draw a similar map showing stacked or shelved assets within the facility.
Applicant argues that the Office ignores claim limitations and features “applied to achieve a more efficient and effective system of providing on demand content” (Remarks p. 21). It is unclear how the claims provide “on demand content” or what “on demand content” is intended to include. Examiner notes that claims are interpreted under the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (see MPEP 2111). Examiner further notes that it is common practice to identify the underlying abstract idea in Step 2A- Prong 1, then analyze the additional elements in Step 2A- Prong 2. Although the abstract idea is identified separately initially, the claims as a whole (i.e., the elements both alone and in combination) are considered in the complete analysis.
With respect McRO (argument ii), “The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Unlike McRO, Applicant’s claims do not improve an existing technological process. In McRO, the claimed improvement was to how the physical display operated to produce better quality image. Applicant’s claims include no such technological improvement. Applicant’s claims do not improve the physical display or any other aspect of computer technology. Examiner particularly notes that the three-dimensional map is not an improvement to the functioning of display itself nor does it appear to be an improvement over existing three-dimensional mappings (as evidenced by the high-level descriptions in Applicant’s specification). As such, McRO does not provide a basis for eligibility.
With respect to Thales Visionix (argument iii), it is unclear how Applicant’s claims are similar. Applicant’s claims do not appear to claim an “unconventional configuration of sensors”. Rather, Applicant’s claims appear to cover a wide variety of generic sensors in various configurations, described at a high level of detail. As such, Thales Visionix does not provide a basis for eligibility.
The claims do not amount to “significantly more” than the alleged judicial exception (Step 2B)
Applicant first argues that the claims “recite a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements “and that “the claims, when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole, recite enough specific limitations to avoid preempting the abstract idea” (Remarks p. 23). Applicant particularly argues that i) the Office has not satisfied its burden under Burkheimer, ii) the claims are similar to the patent eligible claims in Bascom, and iii) the claims are sufficiently specific to avoid preempting the alleged abstract idea (Remarks p. 23). Applicant also argues that the claims recite elements that preclude the steps from being practically performed in the human mind (Remarks. p. 23). Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed below.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s Remarks contain an argument regarding “the claims recite elements that preclude the steps from being practically performed in the human mind as a mental process” (Remarks p. 23-25). These arguments are not addressed as they appear to contain subject matter outside the scope of Applicant’s claims (e.g. “determining whether to allow a request to access content using a local copy that specifies access rights) and because the Office does not allege that the claims are ineligible for reciting a mental process. However, Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Applicant’s claims do contain elements that include mental processes. For example, estimating vehicle location, determining if an unloading area is occupied, sending instructions to delivery personnel, updating a map, and selecting items to fill order. Examiner notes that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. “If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
With respect to Burkheimer, Applicant argues that “the Office has not shown, by any of the four categories of the Berkheimer Memo, that the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional” (Remarks p. 28-29). Examiner respectfully disagrees and clarifies that the 101 rejection states that the claims do not recite “significantly” more because they are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the analysis of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not needed. However, Examiner notes that the high-level of detail in Applicant’s specification regarding the neural network, computing devices, and sensors demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the elements.
With respect to Bascom, Applicant argues that the claims “especially when viewed as an ordered combination, are not directed to an abstract idea because the ordered combination of elements improves one or more computer-related technological fields, e.g. intelligent, proactive service scheduling and merchant offerings” (Remarks p. 30). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improved scheduling and merchant offerings are an improvement to the abstract idea, not to technology. Additionally, it is unclear how “tracking assets at a yard via a three-dimensional map” is connected to accessing content when a network is unavailable or a local copy of the blockchain exists because neither Applicants claims nor Applicant’s specification reference an unavailable network or blockchain. As such, Bascom does not provide a basis for eligibility.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims improve a computer-related technology and are sufficiently specific to avoid preempting the alleged abstract idea. Particularly that “there are numerous ways in which others can determine patterns, as well as present merchant offerings” (Remarks p. 31-32). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, the claims do not recite an improvement to technology. Determining patterns and presenting merchant offerings are part of the abstract idea and also do not provide an improvement to technology. As such, the claims do not amount to significantly more, regardless of whether or not the claims attempt to preempt or tie up the entire judicial exception. Examiner notes that applicant also references the abstract idea of “determining whether to allow a request to access content using a local copy that specifies access rights” (Remarks p. 32), which appears unrelated to the present application.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 13 recite, “estimating, by inputting the first location data into one or more first neural network … , the one or more first neural network trained …” (emphasis added). These limitations contain a typographical/grammatical error where “network” should be plural. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean, “estimating, by inputting the first location data into one or more first neural networks … , the one or more first neural networks trained …” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites, “selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the first asset, a second location of a second asset” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical error where “second asset” is intended to refer to the “second asset” previously recited in the claim (see page 2, line 9). For the purposes of examination, claim 15 is interpreted to mean, “selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the first asset, a second location of the second asset” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20-25 are objected to by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 13, and 15.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 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, 13, and 15 recite, “segmenting and classifying second sensor data associated with a yard of the facility to determine segmented and classified sensor data” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what is being determined by the segmenting and classifying of second sensor data. The segmenting and classifying appears to be processing performed on the data, but it is also recited as part of the determination result. Essentially the claim reads similar to “process the data in order to determine processed data”, which makes it unclear if data is just being processed or if there is an additional determination involving the data. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with paragraph [0024] of Applicant’s specification, the claims are interpreted to mean that the second sensor data is segmented and classified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 further recite, “determining, based at least in part on the segmenting and classifying second sensor data a location within the yard” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the determining is based on the process of segmenting and classifying second sensor data or the data itself. Examiner notes that referring to “the” segmenting and classifying indicates that it is the process recited in the previous line (i.e., segmenting and classifying second sensor data associated with a yard of the facility to determine segmented and classified sensor data). However, missing the word “of” (i.e., the segmenting and classifying of second sensor data) implies that it is the data being referred to. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with paragraph [0031] of Applicant’s specification, the claims are interpreted to mean that the determining is based on data that has been segmented and classified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 13, and 15.
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, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, receiving first location data associated with a first vehicle delivering a first asset within a first container to a facility;
estimating, by inputting the first location data into one or more first models, a time of arrival of the first vehicle, the one or more first models trained on historical delivery data, data associated with the facility, location data associated with vehicles, historical schedule data associated with the facility, and estimated arrival data;
determining, based at least in part on the time of arrival, data associated with other deliveries, and first data, that an unloading area of the facility is occupied at the time of arrival;
segmenting and classifying second data associated with a yard of the facility to determine segmented and classified data;
determining, based at least in part on the segmenting and classifying second data, a location within the yard;
responsive to determining that the unloading area of the facility is occupied, sending instructions to a delivery personnel associated with the first vehicle to deliver the container to the location;
determining, based at least in part on third data associated with the yard of the facility, the delivery of the container to the location;
responsive to determining the delivery of the container to the location, updating a three-dimensional asset map of the facility to indicate a storage location of the first asset as the container at the location, a receipt of the first asset at the facility, and an acceptance of the first asset by the facility, the three-dimensional asset map presentable [to] a user;
receiving an order, the order including the first asset, the first asset associated with the container;
selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the first asset, a second location of a second asset, staffing level and equipment data of the facility, the first asset and the second asset having a same type;
sending the location of the first container with the first asset to a facility personnel;
and determining, based at least in part on fourth data associated with the yard of the facility, that the first container has been moved to the unloading area.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the limitations recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including sales activities or behaviors: or business relation) by tracking and instructing delivery vehicles at a facility and fulfilling an order.
Independent claim 13 recites, receiving first location data associated with a first vehicle delivering a first asset within a first container to a facility;
Estimating a time of arrival of the first vehicle, [based] on historical delivery data, data associated with the facility, location data associated with vehicles, historical schedule data associated with the facility, and estimated arrival data;
determining, based at least in part on the time of arrival, data associated with other deliveries, and first data, that an unloading area of the facility is occupied at the time of arrival;
segmenting and classifying second data associated with a yard of the facility to determine segmented and classified data;
determining, based at least in part on the segmenting and classifying second sensor data, a location within the yard;
sending instructions to a delivery personnel associated with the first vehicle to deliver the container to the location;
determining, based at least in part on third data associated with the yard of the facility, the delivery of the container to the location;
updating a three-dimensional asset map of the facility to indicate a storage location of the first asset as the container at the location, the three-dimensional asset map presentable [to] a user;
receiving an order from a third-party, the order including the first asset;
selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the first asset and staffing level and equipment data of the facility;
responsive to receiving the order from the third-party and selecting the first asset for the order, sending the location of the first container with the first asset to a facility personnel;
and determining, based at least in part on fourth data associated with the yard of the facility, that the first container has been moved to the unloading area.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the limitations recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including sales activities or behaviors: or business relation) by tracking and instructing delivery vehicles at a facility and fulfilling an order.
Independent claim 15 recites, receiving first location data associated with a first vehicle delivering a first asset within a first container to a facility;
estimating, by inputting the first location data and weather data associated with a route of the first vehicle into one or more first models, a time of arrival of the first vehicle, the one or more first models trained on historical delivery data, data associated with the facility, location data associated with vehicles, historical schedule data associated with the facility, and estimated arrival data;
determining, based at least in part on the time of arrival, data associated with other deliveries, and first data, that an unloading area of the facility is occupied by a second vehicle at the time of arrival, the second vehicle delivering a second asset within a second container to the facility;
segmenting and classifying second data associated with a yard of the facility to determine segmented and classified data;
determining, based at least in part on the segmented and classified data, a location within the yard;
sending instructions to a delivery personnel associated with the second vehicle to deliver the second container to the location;
sending instructions to a delivery personnel associated with the first vehicle to deliver the first container to the unloading area; determining, based at least in part on third data associated with the yard of the facility, the delivery of the second container to the location;
updating a three-dimensional asset map of the facility to indicate a storage location of the second asset as the container at the location;
the three-dimensional asset map presentable [to] a user;
receiving an order from a third-party, the order including the first asset, the second asset associated with the second container;
selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the first asset, a second location of a second asset, staffing level and equipment data of the facility, the first asset and the second asset having a same type;
sending the location of the second container with the first asset to a facility personnel.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the limitations recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including sales activities or behaviors: or business relation) by tracking and instructing delivery vehicles at a facility and fulfilling an order.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 13, and 15 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: one or more neural network having multiple layers and trained end-to-end (claims 1, 13 and 15), sensors (claims 1, 13, and 15), one or more devices (claims 1, 13, and 15), one or more processors (claims 13 and 15), one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (claims 13 and 15), a third-party system (claims 1, 13, and 15) and a display of a user device (claims 1, 13, and 15). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Claims 1, 13, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20-25, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20-25 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding novelty/non-obviousness, all of the claims include the following limitations:
selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the first asset, a second location of a second asset, staffing level and equipment data of the facility, the first asset and the second asset having a same type (claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17-18, 20-22 and 24-25)
selecting the first asset for the order based at least in part on the location of the of the first asset and staffing level and equipment data of the facility; (claims 13 and 14)
responsive to receiving the order from the third-party system and selecting the first asset for the order, sending the location of the first container with the first asset to a device associated with a facility personnel (claims 13 and 14)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0277043 to Kowalski et al. (Kowalski) teaches selecting an item to fill an order based on item location. However, Kowalski does not teach filling an order based on staffing level and equipment data of the facility.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0216922 to Deshapande et al. (Deshapande) teaches selecting a location to return location for an item based on the number of staff and equipment for processing returns as well as a “fulfillment solver” that selects items to fill a customer order based on various rules. However, Deshapande does not teach selecting a first asset based on a second item location, staffing level and equipment data of the facility.
NPL “Warehouse Order Picking Methods: Everything You Need to Know” by Logiwa Marketing, (Logiwa) teaches various methods for picking items from a warehouse to fill orders. However, Logiwa does not teach selecting a first asset based on a second item location, staffing level and equipment data of the facility.
As shown, none of the prior arts teach each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are allowable over prior arts of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later that the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628