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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 04/15/2026 filing with the USPTO.
Claims 1-20 are amended.
No claims are canceled, withdrawn, or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has made considerable amendments to the claim. The arguments are addressed in the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims have been amended to recite “validating, based on extracting the input information from the one or more data frames and before transmitting, via a network, information regarding movement of vehicles from one or more starting points of the vehicles to one or more destination points of the vehicles by verifying that the one or more starting points have enough resources to perform during one or more periods of time associated with the information regarding the movement of the vehicles, wherein the information regarding the movement of the vehicles is based on first constraint information associated with the one or more starting points and second constraint information associated with the one or more destination points” (Claims 1 and 11).
The specification provides “validating the delivery schedule to determine a target delivery schedule for the one or more containers from the distribution center to the store during the one or more periods of time; and transmitting the target delivery schedule to the distribution center to enable the distribution center to allocate resources to perform the target delivery schedule.” (Spec. [21-22]) It also provides “target optimizer performs a validation analysis by validating that the target delivery for each day satisfies the min-max case range for the store and the distribution center capacity constraints. In some embodiments, the validation analysis includes validating the target delivery for each day based on the capping information and the pull-forward information” (Spec. [59]). Finally, the specification provides “ validating the delivery schedule to determine the target delivery schedule for the one or more containers from the distribution center to the store during the one or more periods of time further comprises comparing the delivery schedule with capping information and pull-forward information for the distribution center to ensure the distribution center has enough resources to perform the delivery schedule.” (spec. [62]).
The specification does not provide support for claimed elements of “validating . . . information regarding movement of vehicles from one or more starting points of the vehicles to one or more destination points of the vehicles by verifying that the one or more starting points have enough resources to perform during one or more periods of time associated with the information regarding the movement of the vehicles, wherein the information regarding the movement of the vehicles is based on first constraint information associated with the one or more starting points and second constraint information associated with the one or more destination points” as claimed in independent claims 1 and 11. Further the specification only provides for delivery between a distribution center and store – using starting and destination point appears to impermissibly broadens the claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) 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 1-10 are to a system (machine) and claims 11-20 are to a method (process).
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 mental processes. Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
extracting input information from one or more data frames;
validating, based on extracting the input information from the one or more data frames and before transmitting, via a network, information regarding movement of vehicles from one or more starting points of the vehicles to one or more destination points of the vehicles by verifying that the one or more starting points have enough resources to perform during one or more periods of time associated with the information regarding the movement of the vehicles, wherein the information regarding the movement of the vehicles is based on first constraint information associated with the one or more starting points and second constraint information associated with the one or more destination points; and
transmitting, via the network after validating information regarding the movement of the vehicles and to one or more computing devices associated with the one or more starting points, the information regarding the movement of the vehicles as a target for the vehicles to enable the resources to be allocated to satisfy the target for the vehicles.
The claims are directed towards creating and validating resource availability at a scheduled in a specific location. Where the instant specification discloses, “the distribution center capacity measurement includes determining labor capacity for each of the one or more periods of time. For example, the one or more periods of time correspond to a 24 hour period and the labor capacity is determined for each 24 hour period . . . the inventory constraints corresponds to how much of product is available for delivery during the one or more periods of time.” (Spec. [54]) Given the known information data frames a user using the power of his mind could validate the claimed information within the computing environment. While Applicant has amended the claim to remove word “schedule”; nonetheless the claims are still to a delivery schedule and the management of resources – “enough resources to perform during one or more periods of time associated with the information regarding the movement of the vehicles” see claim 1. The schedule itself is abstract in that it is a plan to later do something, rather than actually doing the thing planned. Here the plan is to directed to a delivery system and the manage inventory within the constraints of the environment.
In other words, the system as claimed is tool to assist the user in the validation and transmission of the resource management as it relates to a delivery schedule (vehicle movement within a timeframe). That is to say a user given the known information (extracted data frames) could validate information regarding the movement of vehicles and resources needs to satisfy the movement within a time period (scheduling) using the abilities of the human mind to evaluate the known information (extracted data frames and constraint information) to make judgment (validation). – Thus the within the abstract idea category of a mental process.
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 extracting elements is determined to be a step of data gathering and the transmitting a step of outputting – both insignificant extra solution activity.
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. The instant specification, provides a general and generic computer system, see at least Spec [23-25].
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 the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al (US 2022/0036302 A1) teaches information technology methods and systems for management of value chain network entities, including supply chain and demand management entities.
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
Prosecution Insights