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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been added. Claims 2, 9, and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-18 have been amended. The rejection of claims 1,3-8,10-14, and 16-19 is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
101
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the consideration of amendments from October 18, 2025, the examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments, but does not find them to be persuasive. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Examples that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality:
i. A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07;
ii. Inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. A method of rendering a halftone digital image, Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868-69, 97 USPQ2d 1274, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
iv. A distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records, Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance, Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
vi. Technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding the claims ineligible because they fail to provide requisite technical details necessary to carry out the function);
vii. Particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (finding the use of a generic server insufficient to add inventive concepts to an abstract idea);
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
viii. A particular way of programming or designing software to create menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ix. A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
xi. Specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009, 128 USPQ2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and
xii. A specific method of restricting software operation within a license, Ancora Tech., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 128 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As currently recited, the pending claims recite determining a target workstation number, wherein said determination is based on order information, which can be performed mentally, in conjunction with a generic computing device and common computer elements. The examiner suggests amending the language to omit reliance upon humans for any methods steps to be performed by the claimed invention. For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final.
102
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented below.
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 1,3-8,10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-13 are directed to an electronic device, and claims 14-20 are directed towards a computer program product for generation workstation enabling/disabling instructions, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a method for recommending to disable or enable a workstation in a warehouse, in the following limitations:
acquiring to-be-processed order information, wherein the to-be-processed order information is used for representing to-be-processed orders in a system and a deadline corresponding to each of the to-be-processed orders, and each of the to-be-processed orders corresponds to at least one warehousing box; determining a target workstation number according to the to-be-processed order information, wherein the target workstation number is used for representing a number of workstations required for completing the corresponding to-be-processed orders before the deadline; and
generating information of enabling/disabling a workstation according to the target workstation number, and transmitting the information of enabling/disabling the workstation to a terminal device;
determining a necessary warehousing box number according to the to-be-processed order information, wherein the necessary warehousing box number is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes that need to be processed within a preset duration; and
determining the target workstation number according to the necessary warehousing box number and workstation processing capacity information, wherein the workstation processing capacity information is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes processed by a single workstation in a unit time.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to recommend routing instructions to various workstations within a warehouse to streamline order fulfillment. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
a terminal device;
a workstation
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 2-7, 10-13, and 16-19 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a terminal device;
a workstation
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,3-8,10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2020/0302391) in view of Li et al (US 2022/0092537).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a method for recommending to enable/disable a workstation, the method comprising: acquiring to-be-processed order information, wherein the to-be-processed order information is used for representing to-be-processed orders in a system and a deadline corresponding to each of the to-be-processed orders (see at least paragraph [0096] to Li et al), and each of the to-be-processed orders corresponds to at least one warehousing box (see at least paragraph [0136] to Li et al); determining a target workstation number according to the to-be-processed order information, wherein the target workstation number is used for representing a number of workstations required for completing the corresponding to-be-processed orders before the deadline (see at least paragraphs [0159]-[0161] to Li et al); and generating information of enabling/disabling a workstation according to the target workstation number, and transmitting the information of enabling/disabling the workstation to a terminal device (see at least paragraph [0140] to Li et al).
Li et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determining a target workstation number according to the to-be-processed order information comprises: determining a necessary warehousing box number according to the to-be-processed order information, wherein the necessary warehousing box number is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes that need to be processed within a preset duration; and determining the target workstation number according to the necessary warehousing box number and workstation processing capacity information, wherein the workstation processing capacity information is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes processed by a single workstation in a unit time .
However, Li et al discloses a material distribution system and method based on workstation group division, wherein the determining a target workstation number according to the to-be-processed order information comprises: determining a necessary warehousing box number according to the to-be-processed order information, wherein the necessary warehousing box number is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes that need to be processed within a preset duration; and determining the target workstation number according to the necessary warehousing box number and workstation processing capacity information, wherein the workstation processing capacity information is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes processed by a single workstation in a unit time (see at least paragraphs [0043]-[0045] to Li et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the material distribution system and method as taught by Li et al, in order to optimize and create a solution for material distribution scheduling (see at least paragraph [0006] to Li et al) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: acquiring identification information of the workstation; acquiring a historical work record of the workstation according to the identification information of the workstation; and determining the workstation processing capacity information according to the historical work record (see at least paragraph [0061] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the to-be-processed order information comprises at least two to-be-processed orders and deadlines corresponding to the to-be-processed orders, each of the to-be-processed orders comprises at least one warehousing box identifier, the necessary warehousing box number comprises a first necessary number and a second necessary number, the first necessary number is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes that need to be processed within a first preset duration, and the second necessary number is used for representing a number of warehousing boxes that need to be processed within a second preset duration (see at least paragraph [181] to Li et al); and the determining a necessary warehousing box number according to the to-be-processed order information comprises: determining a first target order and a second target order according to the deadline of each of the to-be-processed orders, wherein the first target order represents a to-be-processed order where a duration from a deadline of the to-be-processed order to a current time is less than or equal to the first preset duration (see at least paragraph [0102] to Li et al), the second target order represents a to-be-processed order where a duration from a deadline of the to-be-processed order to the current time is less than or equal to the second preset duration, and the second preset duration is greater than the first preset duration (see at least paragraph [0159] to Li et al); and determining the first necessary number according to a number of warehousing box identifiers in the first target order, and determining the second necessary number according to a number of warehousing box identifiers in the second target order (see at least paragraph [0270] to Li et al); and the determining the target workstation number according to the necessary warehousing box number and workstation processing capacity information comprises: determining a first workstation number according to the first necessary number and the workstation processing capacity information; determining a second workstation number according to the second necessary number and the workstation processing capacity information (see at least paragraph [0115] to Li et al); and determining the first workstation number as the target workstation number if the first workstation number is greater than or equal to the second workstation number, and determining the second workstation number as the target workstation number if the first workstation number is less than the second workstation number (see at least paragraph [0115] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the to-be-processed order information comprises at least one to-be-processed order and a deadline corresponding to the to-be-processed order, each to-be-processed order comprises at least one warehousing box identifier, and the determining a necessary warehousing box number according to the to-be-processed order information comprises: determining a latest deadline according to the deadline of each to-be-processed order, wherein the latest deadline represents a deadline closest to the current time, and a duration between the latest deadline and the current time is the preset duration (see at least paragraph [0068] to Li et al); determining a target order according to the latest deadline, wherein the target order represents a to-be-processed order corresponding to the latest deadline; and determining the necessary warehousing box number according to a number of warehousing box identifiers in the target order (see at least paragraph [0205] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the workstation processing capacity information comprises workstation category information, the workstation category information is used for representing a category of a warehousing box processed by the workstation, and the method further comprises: determining warehousing box category information according to the to-be-processed order information, wherein the warehousing box category information is used for representing a category of a warehousing box corresponding to each to-be-processed order (see at least paragraphs [0208]-[0213] to Li et al); the determining the target workstation number according to the necessary warehousing box number and workstation processing capacity information comprises: allocating warehousing boxes of the necessary warehousing box number according to the warehousing box category information and the workstation category information, and determining a number of warehousing boxes to be processed by each workstation (see at least paragraphs [0208]-[0213] to Li et al); and determining a target workstation number of a type of workstations corresponding to the workstation category information according to the number of warehousing boxes to be processed by each workstation and the workstation processing capacity information corresponding to each workstation; and the generating information of enabling/disabling a workstation according to the target workstation number comprises: generating the information of enabling/disabling the workstation according to the target workstation number of a type of workstations corresponding to the workstation category information, wherein the information of enabling/disabling the workstation indicates that a user enables or disables the workstations corresponding to the workstation category information (see at least paragraph [0075] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the terminal device is a workstation, the information of enabling/disabling the workstation comprises information of enabling a workstation or information of disabling a workstation, and the generating the information of enabling/disabling the workstation according to the target workstation number comprises: generating the information of enabling the workstation if the target workstation number is greater than a current workstation number, wherein the information of enabling the workstation indicates that the user enables the workstations (see at least paragraphs [0055] and [0072] to Li et al); and generating the information of disabling the workstation if the target workstation number is less than the current workstation number, wherein the information of disabling the workstation indicates that the user disables the workstations; and the transmitting the information of enabling/disabling a workstation to a terminal device comprises: transmitting the information of enabling the workstation or the information of disabling the workstation to the workstations for display (see at least paragraphs [0055] and [0072] to Li et al).
Claims 8, 10-14,and 16-19 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627