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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 05/13/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 16/865,206 (filed 05/01/2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,983,656). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 03/16/2026. Amending claims 1, 9, 11, and 19. Cancelling claims 8 and 18.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below. Also, See applicant remarks pages 8-9 03/16/2026.
The previously pending rejection under double patenting, will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 03/16/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 5-7 of the remarks): abstract idea
Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 as a whole is integrated into a practical application as the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. When the specification sets forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, it is considered an improvement to a computer or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a). January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37.
…
Similar to Diamond v. Diehr, the alleged "abstract idea of determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility," Office Action at 17. Is incorporated into a practical application by, among other things, automatically updating data associated with the one o more item processing machines stored in a data store with the modified data," as recited in amended Claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent Claims 1 and 11 and their dependent claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully request that this rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, examiner point out that the instant claims are not similar to the examples provided by applicant above. Example 37 claim 2 recite “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of user” based on the determining step (see applicant remark above). The instant claims limitations recite the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility. In example aspects, based on different collected data" (Spec. [0002]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a logistics system, a mobile computing device, a location sensor network configured, and one or more processors are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, and 11 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, and 11 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a logistics system, a mobile computing device, a location sensor network configured, and one or more processors.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Application No. 16/865,206 (filed , now U.S. Patent No. 11,983,656). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in each application recite substantially similar limitations directed to a process for scheduling a patient appointment.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in the referenced patent and claim 1 recited substantially similar limitation. however, claim 1 in the referenced patent is more narrow. The breadth of claim 1 of the instant application would read on the more narrow claim 1 of the referenced patent. Thus claim 1 in the instant application is an obvious variant of claim 1 in the reference application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP §2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are in
Claim 1:
A location sensor network configured to
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 etseq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-7, and 9-10 are directed toward a system (machine). Claims 11-17, and 19-20 are directed to method (process). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 11 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A logistics system comprising:
a mobile computing device;
a location sensor network configured to identify the location of the mobile computing device within a distribution facility; and
one or more processors configured to:
determine, via the location sensor network, that the mobile computing device has entered a first area of the distribution facility;
receive information about one or more item processing machines located in the first area;
provide, to the mobile computing device, the received information about the one or more item processing machines in the first area;
compare the received information for the one or more item processing machines with stored historical operating parameters for the one or more item processing machines from a prior one week period;
determine that an abnormal mail processing event in the one or more item processing machines exists based on the comparing the received information for the one or more item processing machines with the stored historical operating parameters for the prior one week period;
determine a corrective action to address the abnormal mail processing event;
modify data associated with the one or more item processing machines according to the determined corrective action; and
automatically update data associated with the one or more item processing machines stored in a data store with the modified data;
in response to the automatic update, transmit the modified data in real time to the one or more item processing machine to cause the one of the one or more item processing machines to perform the corrective action in response to receiving the modified data.
The Applicant's Specification titled " INFORMED MOBILITY PLATFORM FOR AN ITEM PROCESSING SUPERVISOR OR USER WITHIN A DISTRIBUTION FACILITY " emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility. In example aspects, based on different collected data" (Spec. [0002]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 11 recites the abstract idea of determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility and display the information to a user. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility and display the information to a user. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, and 11 recites the abstract idea of determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility and display the information to a user. which pertain to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction" expressly categorized under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards mental processes because the limitations recite providing the corrective action the user based on information received about one or more item processing machines located in an area. Which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10 and 12-17, and 19-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (similarly claim 12) display, on the mobile computing device, the corrective action.
claim 3 (similarly claim 13) wherein the one or more item processing machines comprise item sorting equipment.
claim 4 (similarly claim 14) wherein the one or more item processing machines comprise an item transportation vehicle.
claim 5 (similarly claim 15) wherein the one or more processors are further configured to interrogate computer readable codes on a plurality of items within the first area.
claim 6 (similarly claim 16) identify an item condition for the one of the or more items within the first area.
claim 7 (similarly claim 17) determine the corrective action based on the identified item condition for the one of the one or more items in the first area.
claim 8 (similarly claim 18) Cancelled
claim 9 (similarly claim 19) determine a corrective action to address the identified abnormal mail processing event based on the comparing the received information for the one or more item processing machines with the stored historical operating parameters.
Claim 10 (similarly claim 20) wherein the one or more processors are configured to modify the data associated with the one or more item processing machines by modifying a routing location of one or more items away from the one of the one or more item processing machines with the abnormal mail processing event.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 11.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 (similarly claim 11) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A logistics system comprising:
a mobile computing device;
a location sensor network configured to
one or more processors configured to:
Claim 11.
a mobile computing device;
a location sensor network configured to
one or more processors configured to:
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 (similarly claim 11) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a logistics system, a mobile computing device, a location sensor network configured, and one or more processors. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Paragraph [0162] of the specification disclose The system 30 includes a server 310, a supervisor terminal 320, a carrier terminal 330 and an operator terminal 340. The server 310 may be a stationary computer generally located within one or more of the facilities 104a- l 08b. However, the server 310 may be located outside the facilities 104a-108b, as long as the server 310 can wirelessly communicate data with the terminals 320-340. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 11 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility and display the information to a user and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determining a corrective action to address an operational issue within a facility and display the information to a user. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-10, and 12-17, and 19-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 11 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: claims 5 and 15 interrogate computer readable codes. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 11, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 11, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, and 11. a logistics system, a mobile computing device, a location sensor network configured, and one or more processors. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives, determining a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are allowable over the prior art, however, these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Closest prior art to the invention include Schmirler et al. US 2018/0130260 disclose virtual reality and augmented reality for industrial automation, Thomas et al US 2017/0064497 disclose System and method for providing situation awareness via a mobile device, Jamula US 2008/0015884: Operation awareness system . None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in the independent claims, “compare the received information for the one or more item processing machines with stored historical operating parameters for the one or more item processing machines from a prior one week period; determine that an abnormal mail processing event in the one or more item processing machines exists based on the comparing the received information for the one or more item processing machines with the stored historical operating parameters for the prior one week period; … automatically update data associated with the one or more item processing machines stored in a data store with the modified data; and in response to the automatic update,” The reason for withdrawn the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Millhouse et al. US 20180050784: systems and methods for dynamic metrics mapping.
Amirjalayer et al. US 20180293527: methods and system for warehouse dock logistics.
Swift US 2018/0060831: observation based event tracking.
Patel-Zellinger et al. US 2016/0328781: delayed order delivery fulfillment.
Winklet US 2010/0262278: system and method for order picking.
Russell et al. US 2015/0379459: Tracking transactions by confluences and sequences of RFID signals. See [0016]
Cattuto, Ciro, et al. "Dynamics of person-to-person interactions from distributed RFID sensor networks." PloS one 5.7 (2010): e11596.
Eckert et al. US 7,323,991: System and method for locating and communicating with personnel and equipment in a facility.
Ramakrishnaraja et al. US 2021/0248525: Method and system for managing a technical installation.
Hu Xin CN111624967: Supervisory engine for process control.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624