DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of September 29, 2025, Applicant, on December 29, 2026, amended claims 1 & 3-15 and canceled claim 2. Claims 1 & 3-15 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are set forth below.
Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 11 for being directed to software per se set forth in the previous action. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 11 are withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections for being directed to an abstract idea set forth in the previous action. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejections for being directed to an abstract idea are maintained below.
Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 11 for being directed to software per se have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 11 for being directed to software per se are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections for being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea under prong 1 of Step 2A because following limitations in claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind:
creating a file, by one or more computers;
inserting and storing data to the file, by the one or more computers; e creating a planning model using the stored data, by the one or more computers;
controlling a display to display graphical representations of the planning model, by the one or more computers;
simulating an operation of a goods logistics facility in the planning model and automatically optimizing the planning model, by the one or more computers;
updating the data, by the one or more computers; and
controlling the display to display a graphical representation of the optimized planning model.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
That is, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, we determine whether any limitations, individually or in combination, fall into one of the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas, including the mental process grouping. The recitation of generic computer components such as the generic “by one or more computers” and “controlling a display to display” implementing the steps does not preclude the claims from reciting a mental process or any other abstract idea. But for these generic computer com implementing the steps referred to by Applicant, each of the steps referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea of designing the construction of a logistics facility by creating a logistics project file of the logistics facility, inserting data into the file describing components of the facility including design and geometric properties of elements of the facility, creating a planning model based on the data in the project file, outputting the resulting planning model, simulating and optimizing the planning model based on the simulation, validated the whether complete continuously navigable paths can be created and whether a prescribed distance is maintained for trucks, optimizing the planning model based on the validations, updating the file to record the result of the automatic optimization, and outputting the updated resulting planning model.
As noted in the previous action, the steps referred to by Applicant are part of the recited mental process because, but for the aforementioned generic computer components, each of the steps could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of information regarding the facility to create and insert data into a project file with a pen and paper, a human performing an evaluation of the information to create a model, simulate and optimize the planning model, validate the lane graph and distance, and optimize based on the validation, and a human outputting the results of manually and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims, including the steps referred to by Applicant, recite mental processes.. Accordingly, the claims, including the steps referred to by Applicant, recite a certain method of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts under Prong 1 of Step 2A.
The generic computer components of “by one or more computers” and “controlling a display to display” implementing the steps referred to by Applicant are “additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea,” which are considered in Prong 2 of Step 2A, and under Prong 2 of Step 2A, these are nothing more than generic computer components applying the recited abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise transform an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).
More particularly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 3-15, recites “constructing a goods logistics facility, the method comprising: creating a logistics facility project file associated with the goods logistics facility; inserting and storing data describing properties of the following components of the goods logistics facility in the logistics facility project file: design properties of a building of the goods logistics facility; geometric and/or functional properties of transport paths in the goods logistics facility; geometric and/or functional properties of logistics infrastructure elements of the goods logistics facility; and geometric and/or functional properties of intralogistics goods transport devices used in the goods logistics facility, the intralogistics goods transport devices including industrial trucks; creating a planning model of the goods logistics facility using the data stored in the logistics facility project file; and … display a graphical representation of the planning model of the goods logistics facility, based on data stored in the logistics facility project file; simulating an operation of the goods logistics facility in the planning model and … optimizing the planning model based on a result of the simulation by performing one more times: validating, based on the data describing the geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and the geometric and/or functional properties of the logistics infrastructure elements, whether a complete, continuously navigable lane graph can be created which: connects one or more of the logistics infrastructure elements of a first type; and intersects one or more of the logistics infrastructure elements of a second time; and validating, based on the data describing the geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and the geometric and/or functional properties of the intralogistics goods transport devices, whether a prescribed distance to a non-driving area is maintained for the industrial trucks; and … optimizing the planning model to attempt to create the complete, continuously navigable lane graph and to maintain the prescribed distance to the non-driving area for the industrial trucks; updating the data present in the logistics facility project file based on a result of the … optimization; and … display a graphical representation of the optimized planning model of the goods logistics facility, based on the updated data stored in the logistics facility project file.” Claims 1 & 3-15, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of designing the construction of a logistics facility by creating a logistics project file of the logistics facility, inserting data into the file describing components of the facility including design and geometric properties of elements of the facility, creating a planning model based on the data in the project file, outputting the resulting planning model, simulating and optimizing the planning model based on the simulation, validated the whether complete continuously navigable paths can be created and whether a prescribed distance is maintained for trucks, optimizing the planning model based on the validations, updating the file to record the result of the automatic optimization, and outputting the updated resulting planning model.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, including the steps referred to by Applicant, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited designing the construction of a logistics facility by creating a logistics project file of the logistics facility, inserting data into the file describing components of the facility including design and geometric properties of elements of the facility, creating a planning model based on the data in the project file, outputting the resulting planning model, simulating and optimizing the planning model based on the simulation, validated the whether complete continuously navigable paths can be created and whether a prescribed distance is maintained for trucks, optimizing the planning model based on the validations, updating the file to record the result of the automatic optimization, and outputting the updated resulting planning model could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of information regarding the facility to create and insert data into a project file with a pen and paper, a human performing an evaluation of the information to create a model, simulate and optimize the planning model, validate the lane graph and distance, and optimize based on the validation, and a human outputting the results of manually and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims, including the steps referred to by Applicant, recite mental processes. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes, including the steps referred to by Applicant, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Applicant argues, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, that the claims have been amended to provide an improvement to the technical field of creating a planning model of goods logistics facility that allows for rules-based validation and optimization and such improvements evidence an integration of any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because traditional planning models for a goods logistics facility prepared manually as drawings on paper are of limited use in simulating an operations of the goods logistics facility and optimizing the planning model and the method, performed by one or more computers, as recited in the claims provide an improved technique to simulate the operations of the goods logistics facility and to optimize the planning model, wherein specifically, the method as recited in claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 11:
firstly, controls a display to display a graphical representation of the planning model of the goods logistics facility;
simulates the operation of the goods logistics facility in specific steps including:
validating, based on the data describing geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and geometric and/or functional properties of logistics infrastructure elements, whether a complete navigable lane graph can be created which connects one or more of the logistics infrastructure elements of a first type (e.g., charging station), and intersects one or more logistics infrastructure element of a second type (e.g., rolling gates); and
validating, based on the data describing the geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and geometric and/or functional properties of intralogistics goods transport devices, whether a prescribed distance to a non-driving area is maintained for industrial trucks included in the intralogistics goods transport devices;
automatically optimizing the planning model to attempt to create the complete, continuously navigable lane graph and to maintain the prescribed distance to the non-driving area for the industrial trucks;
updating the data present in the logistics facility project file based on the result of the automatic optimization; and
control the display to display a graphical representation of the optimized planning model of the goods logistics facility, based on the updated data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. However, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, as detailed above under Prong 1 of Step 2A, aside from the generic computer components, such as the generic “by one or more computers,” “controlling a display to display,” and “automatically,” implementing the steps referred to by Applicant, each of the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but rather, each of the steps referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea of designing the construction of a logistics facility by creating a logistics project file of the logistics facility, inserting data into the file describing components of the facility including design and geometric properties of elements of the facility, creating a planning model based on the data in the project file, outputting the resulting planning model, simulating and optimizing the planning model based on the simulation, validated the whether complete continuously navigable paths can be created and whether a prescribed distance is maintained for trucks, optimizing the planning model based on the validations, updating the file to record the result of the automatic optimization, and outputting the updated resulting planning model, which is a mental process that can be performed by a human mentally and using a pen and paper.
The claims, including the features referred to by Applicant, are not necessarily rooted in computer or other technology. The problem of planning a logistics facility does not specifically arise in the realm of computer or other technology, but rather, this is problem is a business problem of a logistics business, which, as conceded by Applicant, traditionally can be solved by a human with a pen and paper.
The alleged improvement to technology is directed to improving an abstract idea and include the recitations of the recited abstract idea; however, the MPEP makes clear “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that “[m]ere automation of manual processes” is not an improvement in computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). As in the claims at issue in Electric Power Group, the present claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers or any other technology, but instead on certain independently abstract ideas that simply invokes computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Under Prong 2 of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea include the recitations of “[a] method, performed by a computer,” “controlling a display to,” and “automatically” in claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 11; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive; therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
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 & 3-15 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.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 10 & 11, recite the limitation "updating the data present in the logistics facility project file based on a result of the automatic optimization.” In this limitation, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the automatic optimization.” Further, the claim previously recited two different instances of “automatically optimizing the planning model,” and thus, it is unclear to which instance this limitation might refer.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 10 & 11, recite “validating, based on the data describing the geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and the geometric and/or functional properties of the logistics infrastructure elements, whether a complete, continuously navigable lane graph can be created which: …intersects one or more of the logistics infrastructure elements of a second time.” Applicant may have intended to recite “second type” instead of “second time.” Otherwise, it is not clear what it means for “the logistics infrastructure elements” to be of a “time.”
Claims 3-9 and 12-15 depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively, and fail to cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 & 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1, and similarly claims 3-15, recites “constructing a goods logistics facility, the method comprising: creating a logistics facility project file associated with the goods logistics facility; inserting and storing data describing properties of the following components of the goods logistics facility in the logistics facility project file: design properties of a building of the goods logistics facility; geometric and/or functional properties of transport paths in the goods logistics facility; geometric and/or functional properties of logistics infrastructure elements of the goods logistics facility; and geometric and/or functional properties of intralogistics goods transport devices used in the goods logistics facility, the intralogistics goods transport devices including industrial trucks; creating a planning model of the goods logistics facility using the data stored in the logistics facility project file; and … display a graphical representation of the planning model of the goods logistics facility, based on data stored in the logistics facility project file; simulating an operation of the goods logistics facility in the planning model and … optimizing the planning model based on a result of the simulation by performing one more times: validating, based on the data describing the geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and the geometric and/or functional properties of the logistics infrastructure elements, whether a complete, continuously navigable lane graph can be created which: connects one or more of the logistics infrastructure elements of a first type; and intersects one or more of the logistics infrastructure elements of a second time; and validating, based on the data describing the geometric and/or functional properties of the transport paths and the geometric and/or functional properties of the intralogistics goods transport devices, whether a prescribed distance to a non-driving area is maintained for the industrial trucks; and … optimizing the planning model to attempt to create the complete, continuously navigable lane graph and to maintain the prescribed distance to the non-driving area for the industrial trucks; updating the data present in the logistics facility project file based on a result of the … optimization; and … display a graphical representation of the optimized planning model of the goods logistics facility, based on the updated data stored in the logistics facility project file.” Claims 1 & 3-15, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of designing the construction of a logistics facility by creating a logistics project file of the logistics facility, inserting data into the file describing components of the facility including design and geometric properties of elements of the facility, creating a planning model based on the data in the project file, outputting the resulting planning model, simulating and optimizing the planning model based on the simulation, validated the whether complete continuously navigable paths can be created and whether a prescribed distance is maintained for trucks, optimizing the planning model based on the validations, updating the file to record the result of the automatic optimization, and outputting the updated resulting planning model.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited designing the construction of a logistics facility by creating a logistics project file of the logistics facility, inserting data into the file describing components of the facility including design and geometric properties of elements of the facility, creating a planning model based on the data in the project file, outputting the resulting planning model, simulating and optimizing the planning model based on the simulation, validated the whether complete continuously navigable paths can be created and whether a prescribed distance is maintained for trucks, optimizing the planning model based on the validations, updating the file to record the result of the automatic optimization, and outputting the updated resulting planning model could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of information regarding the facility to create and insert data into a project file with a pen and paper, a human performing an evaluation of the information to create a model, simulate and optimize the planning model, validate the lane graph and distance, and optimize based on the validation, and a human outputting the results of manually and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-10 & 12-15 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] method, performed by a computer,” “controlling a display to,” and “automatically” in claim 1, “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “the control computer,” “controlling a display to,” and “automatically” in claim 10, and “[a] system … comprising: one or more processors configured to,” “controlling a display to,” and “automatically” 11; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 3-10 & 12-15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 3-10 & 12-15 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623