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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-30, 32-35, 37-44, 46, 47, and 49-51 are pending per applicant’s February 19, 2026 amendment. Claims 1-20, 31, 36, 45, and 48 were previously canceled. Claims 21-30 and 32-34 are withdrawn. Claims are 35, 41, and 44 amended. No claims are newly withdrawn, canceled, or added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2026 were filed were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are NOT sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 101 of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action were addressed in previous Office action. The re-arguing of previous positions is not found persuasive. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 12 of Fig 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 35, 37-44, 46, 47, and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. organizing human activity) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 35, 37-43 and 51 are to a method (process) and claims 44, 46, 47, and 49-50 are to a system (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of organizing human activity. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Claim 35 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
35. A method for controlling scheduled departure time of delivery vehicles in a warehouse, comprising:
transmitting, by at least one server configured to execute a tasking software to perform task assignment in form of task data, to a voice-directed mobile terminal to assign a plurality of work assignments to a worker of a plurality of workers, wherein the plurality of work assignments is associated with a plurality of delivery vehicles having a plurality of scheduled departure times from multiple warehouse regions of the warehouse;
providing, by the voice-directed mobile terminal, speech-based instructions associated with the task data to the plurality of workers by converting the task data to at least one audio transmission;
providing, by the voice-directed mobile terminal, visual data that is based on the task data and is configured to supplement the speech-based instructions, wherein the task data comprises a plurality of picking tasks in one of multiple warehouse regions;
assigning, by the at least one server, one or more workers of the plurality of workers to a first warehouse region of the multiple warehouse regions based on at least one of the task data and a current location of the one or more workers of the plurality of workers;
recording, by the voice-directed mobile terminal, voice communications between the one or more workers and the voice-directed mobile terminal with corresponding timestamps based at least in part on the voice communications received from the voice-directed mobile terminal over a communication link and one or more confirmations by the one or more workers indicating at least one of a location visited and a number of picked items;
determining, by the at least one server, worker activity information based on the recorded voice communications received from the voice-directed mobile terminal and a time that elapsed since the at least one server transmitted the task data;
classifying, by the at least one server, the voice communications as relating to the task data to generate a classified activity;
analyzing worker activity information and the classified activity to
(i) identify worker productivity patterns,
(ii) determine a work rate for at least one worker of the plurality of workers based on a number of tasks each of the multiple warehouse regions that have been completed during each of a plurality of predefined time intervals, and,
(iii) generate a region work rate for each of the multiple warehouse regions based on the work rate of each of the plurality of workers assigned to each of the multiple warehouse regions;
determining, by the at least one server, a number of scheduled departing delivery vehicles associated with each of the plurality of predefined time intervals based on the plurality of scheduled departure times;
generating, by the at least one server, predicted workforce data based on the region work rate for each of the multiple warehouse regions;
generating, by the at least one server, an operator requirement table data object based on the number of scheduled departing delivery vehicles and a plurality of region work rates associated with the multiple warehouse regions, wherein the operator requirement table data object comprises tows corresponding to the multiple warehouse regions, columns corresponding to the plurality of predefined time intervals, and cells that each indicates predicted workforce associated with a warehouse region during a predefined time interval based on the predicted workforce data;
determining, by the at least one server, that the first warehouse region is associated with surplus workers as compared to a second warehouse region of the multiple warehouse regions during one of the plurality of predefined time intervals based on the operator requirement table data object;
in response to a determination of the surplus workers in the first warehouse region by the at least one server, determining, by the at least one server, a prioritization of departure time associated with each of one or more delivery vehicles associated with other warehouse regions than the first warehouse region;
controlling, by the at least one server, delivery schedule of the one or more delivery vehicles scheduled to depart from the other warehouse regions of the multiple warehouse regions in real time by re-allocating the surplus workers from the first warehouse region to the second warehouse region of the other warehouse regions based on the determined prioritization of departure time; and
generating, by the at least one server, a real-time alert on a display of the at least one server indicating a number of additional workers needed in the second warehouse region to meet the delivery schedule of a second delivery vehicle associated with the second warehouse region, and the surplus workers present in the first warehouse region.
Applicant’s claims are directed toward the worker management. Worker management which is managing personal behavior of the workforce to ensure proper staffing within the warehouse regions. The assigning of work based on the worker’s abilities or characteristics (i.e. productivity patterns and work rate) and the need of the organization (i.e. to meet the delivery schedule) as well as other constraints such as number of scheduled departing delivery vehicles and an operator requirement is a form of managing personal behavior of the worker.
The specification provides “the voice-directed mobile terminal 10 receives instructions (e.g., task data) from the tasking module 25 and converts those instructions into an audio transmission (e.g., audio file) to be heard by a worker” (see Spec. [56]). The Office finds that it is human worker that listens to the voice commands, interprets them, and carries out the instructions. As claimed, it is the human that verbally gives feedback via a device, such as a smartphone (see Spec. [45]). Where the system simply supplies the results of the activities of the monitored worker based on communications, feedback, and confirmation received/recorded from the worker to determine the statistic displayed.
Further the specification provides “system 100 can analyze worker 11 activities/tasks in order to predict when workers 11 will finish picking tasks in a warehouse for items relating to a given delivery route such that the .route then can depart for delivery. The worker's loading activities and time may be taken into account for more accurate predictions relating to delivery vehicle loading completion and subsequent delivery vehicle departure.” (see Spec. [73]) Finally, the specification provides, “reports/alerts may be provided to a supervisor indicating that "X" number of additional workers are needed. in a region, that "X" number of workers are surplus in a region, that delivery departure in a region would be delayed by "X" minutes/hours beyond current scheduled departure time, that delivery departure time for a region would be ready "X" minutes/hours before the current scheduled departure time, and/or that the work assigned in a given region would be complete after "X" hour”. (Spec. [80])
The Office finds this to be the managing personal behavior, which includes following instructions.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The additional “transmitting”, “recoding”, and “generating a real-time alert” elements are determined to be insignificant extra solution activity. For example, recording is a type of data-gathering; while transmitting data is to the work is another form of data-gathering. Where the alert is a form of outputting.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. As stated above the additional elements of the claim are found to be insignificant extra-solution activity as such they do not amount to significantly more.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; 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 a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for substantially the same reasoning given above.
Claim 44 (Briefly), where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
44. (Currently Amended) A system for controlling scheduled departure time of delivery vehicles in a warehouse, the system comprising:
a voice-directed mobile terminal having a display, the voice-directed mobile terminal is operable to:
facilitate a voice communication between a worker and the voice-directed mobile terminal and to display visual data, wherein the worker is assigned a task in one of multiple warehouse regions; and
record the voice communication between the worker and the voice-directed mobile terminal with a corresponding timestamp based at least in part on the voice communication received from the voice-directed mobile terminal over a communication link and a confirmation by the worker indicating at least one of a location visited and a number of picked items; and
at least one server in communication with the voice-directed mobile terminal, the at least one server having at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the at least one server to at least:
execute a tasking software to perform task assignment in form of task data from the at least one server to the voice-directed mobile terminal in communication with the at least one server to assign a work assignment of a plurality of work assignments to the worker of a plurality of workers, wherein the plurality of work assignments is associated with a plurality of delivery vehicles having a plurality of scheduled departure times from multiple warehouse regions of the warehouse, wherein the voice-directed mobile terminal is configured to provide speech-based instructions associated with the task data to the worker by converting the task data to at least one audio transmission and provide the visual data that is generated based on the task data, wherein the visual data is configured to supplement the speech-based instructions, wherein the task data comprises a plurality of picking tasks in one of the multiple warehouse regions;
assign one or more workers of the plurality of workers to a first warehouse region of the multiple warehouse regions based on at least one of the task data and a current location of the one or more workers;
record worker activity information based on the recorded voice communication received from the voice-directed mobile terminal and a time that elapsed since the at least one server transmitted the task data;
classify the voice communication as relating to the task data to generate a classified activity;
analyze the worker activity information and the classified activity to:
(i) identify worker productivity patterns,
(ii) determine a work rate for at least one worker of the plurality of workers based on a number of tasks in the one of the multiple warehouse regions that have been completed during each of a plurality of predefined time intervals, and
(iii) generate a region work rate for each of the multiple warehouse regions based on the work rate of each of the plurality of workers assigned to each of the multiple warehouse regions;
determine a number of scheduled departing delivery vehicles associated with each of the plurality of predefined time intervals based on the plurality of scheduled departure times;
generate predicted workforce data based on the region work rate for each of the multiple warehouse regions;
generate an operator requirement table data object based on the number of scheduled departing delivery vehicles and a plurality of region work rates associated with the multiple warehouse regions, wherein the operator requirement table data object comprises rows corresponding to the multiple warehouse regions columns corresponding to the plurality of predefined time intervals, and cells that each indicates predicted workforce associated with a warehouse region during a predefined time interval based on the predicted workforce data;
determine that the first warehouse region is associated with surplus workers as compared to a second warehouse region of the multiple warehouse regions during one of the plurality of predefined time intervals based on the operator requirement table data object;
in response to a determination of the surplus workers in the first warehouse region by the at least one server, determining a prioritization of departure time associated with each of one or more delivery vehicles associated with other warehouse regions other than the first warehouse region;
controlling, by the at least one server, delivery schedule of the one or more delivery vehicles scheduled to depart from the other warehouse regions of the multiple warehouse regions in real time by re-allocating the surplus workers from the first warehouse region to the second warehouse region of the other warehouse regions based on the determined prioritization of departure time; and
generate a real-time alert on the display of the at least one server indicating a number of additional workers needed in the second warehouse region to meet the delivery schedule of a second delivery vehicle associated with the second warehouse region, and the surplus workers present in the first warehouse region.
Step 2A, prong 1: The claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of organizing human activity when the claimed limitations are considered individually and in the order combination. Like claim 35, this independent claim is found to be directed to worker management which is managing personal behavior of the workforce to ensure proper staffing within the warehouse regions.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. As stated above the additional elements of the claim are found to be insignificant extra-solution activity as such they do not amount to significantly more.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The hardware elements of the claim are found to be general purpose rather than specific when read in light of the instant specification, see [44-45]
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim 37 adds to the abstract idea by basing the decision on the workers action (how long the worker will take for a break). The limitation does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 38 adds to the abstract idea by basing the decision on the workers’ attributes, e.g. number of workers and work rates of the workers. The limitation does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 39 further defines information about the worker activity – information/data regardless of its content is abstract therefore the limitation does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 40 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the providing an alert is found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 41 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the providing a report is found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 42 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the providing contextual information found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention. It is noted that the overlay feature of the claim is made to a high level of generality.
Claim 43 adds receiving and sending information which is a standard feature of computing devices as such the limitation does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 46 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the providing an alert is found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 47 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the simply displaying information is found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 49 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the providing an alert is found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 50 adds an outputting step to the claimed invention, the providing a report is found to be insignificant extra solution activity as such it does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Claim 51 adds to the abstract idea of classifying work activity. The limitation does not add significantly more or practical application to the abstract idea when consider alone and as part of the whole claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Higgins et al (US 2007/0067373 A1) teaches Jog Log Method" which can provide turn-by-turn directions through a headset for over 15,000 pre-set jogging paths in North America, including historic and "points of interest" voice-over. Optionally, cardio performance can also be monitored and recorded.
Singel et al (US 9,443,222 B2) teaches the picker may wear a headset that is connected to a portable computer device. By adding audio instructions to the picking process, the picker has one less thing to visually observe. In addition, the headset may include a microphone that allows the picker to provide feedback to confirm that the correct item was picked. For example, the picker may read back some of the information printed on the product sheets 112, such as a number of check-digits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623