DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
This is a non-final office action on the merits in application number 18/671,632. Claim 1 was amended and Claims 5 and 6 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 103:
After a diligent search, Examiner is unable to find a single prior art reference or combination of references that teaches the specific combination of elements now taught by Applicant’s amended claims without improper hindsight reasoning. The 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts on page 7-8 of their Remarks dated 4/8/26 that their claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer because they “prune the solution space” by “mathematically excluding obstacle grid units” which “reduces the number of computational search cycles required by the processor to find a path”.
MPEP 2106.05(a) defines the requirements for an improvement to the functioning of a computer and recites: “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself"… This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem… It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) also recites examples of fact patterns that are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality: “(ii) Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer; (iii) Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase… (vii). Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," (viii) Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly”.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) also recites examples that are not sufficient to show an improvement in any other technology: “(i) A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer…(iii) Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result”). Applicant’s asserted “improvement” comes solely from the capabilities of (an unclaimed) general-purpose computer, merely automates a manual process, and uses conventional techniques to gather, analyze and display information (on unclaimed display hardware)”.
As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection, infra, Applicant’s amended claims are directed to collecting path information of a human traversing a warehouse, noting fixed physical obstacles relevant to the path of the human on a 2D map, using the 2D map to model and store the path information including the fixed physical obstacles, and iteratively running the model to output a path for a new human request while excluding the known fixed physical obstacles from potential new paths. Applicant recites the additional elements of warehouse management system (WMS) and a path search algorithm which are both described in Applicant’s disclosure with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Applicant appears to be simply automating a manual/mental process of a human mentally determining a path to physically walk from point A to point B while not running into fixed physical obstacles and remembering where the fixed physical obstacles are and planning the next trip to avoiding the fixed physical obstacles. Applicant does not provide specific technical detail of an improvement to a computer. Applicant broadly assert a “reduction” in “computational search cycles” but does not provide technical detail showing how this is achieved, nor provide technical detail of how many “search cycles” are used before and after their “improvement” nor do they teach any tool capable of measuring a “reduction” in “search cycles”. Applicant appears to be claiming the idea of a solution or outcome - an “effect” that is an inherent result of using general purpose hardware and software constructs. Applicant does not appear to teach nor imply any improvement to the functioning of a computer nor a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant may improve the data by reducing duplicate storage of the unchanging information when the information is updated but this effect does not come from any technical improvement, only from collecting less data.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Appropriate correction is required.
Step 1:
Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-4 and 7-10 recite a method (process) thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Claim 1:
(Currently Amended) A method for optimizing a picking movement path in a warehouse management system (WMS), the method comprising: collecting reference information on a product and a worker who performs a picking task; by processing the reference information, forming, on a grid unit graph, an obstacle area, which is an area where the product and the worker cannot physically access, and a path area that is an area where the product and the worker can move; searching for a picking movement path of the product and the worker for the picking task based on the processed reference information, wherein the searching includes using a path search algorithm; selecting, based on an input of the worker, the picking movement path; storing the reference information and the picking movement path for the picking task in the WMS; and generating the grid unit graph as a binary occupancy data structure, wherein the grid unit graph is composed of a plurality of grid units assigned with binary values of Os and is representing the path area and the obstacle area respectively, and wherein the path search algorithm is configured to perform an iterative traversal using the binary values as a search constraint to prune a solution space by mathematically excluding grid units assigned with the binary values of is, thereby reducing computational search cycles compared to processing unstructured spatial data.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
In Applicant’s amended claims, Applicant claims collecting path information of a human traversing a warehouse, noting fixed physical obstacles relevant to the path of the human on a 2D map, using the 2D map to model and store the path information including the fixed physical obstacles, and iteratively running the model to output a path for a new human request while excluding the known fixed physical obstacles from potential paths. Examiner holds that Applicant now claims an abstract idea in the category of Mental Processes because a human, in their mind and/or using pen and paper, can physically look inside room A in a warehouse and see a path to walk between an entrance and shelf #1, for example. The human can also see a roof support column in the middle of the straight line path between the entrance and shelf #1 in room A and then mentally determine that it would be a shorter walk to go around the column on the right side, versus the left side, for example. More importantly to Applicant’s amended claims, a human, in their mind and/or using pen and paper, can remember that there is a column in room A between the between the entrance and shelf #1 and never consider taking a potential straight line path from the entrance to shelf #1 on a future walk. Examiner notes that excluding data from the data set to be processed by a person or a computer inherently results in reduced search time and effort required. Examiner also notes that a “grid unit graph as a binary occupancy data structure” is easily understood in a human mind (i.e. “tic-tac-toe” or checkers games) and is intuitive while walking on a two dimensional floor space with square floor tiles.
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-4 and 7-10 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Accordingly Claims 1-4 and 7-10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, Claim 1 also recites the following additional elements:
warehouse management system (WMS) – while Applicant does not recite a computer or processor in the claims or specification, Applicant recites in their specification ([page 7, lines 2-30] “a warehouse management system (WMS)”) which is a well-known type of software construct that runs on a general purpose computer. Applicant does not claim any specific WMS nor WMS technology. Applicant discloses general purpose WMS in name only with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Further, Applicant does not claim a computer but presumably this WMS runs on a general purpose computer. The additional element of WMS is broadly claimed and used in its ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, the additional element of WMS does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
path search algorithm - Applicant also recites the additional element of path search algorithm but does not claim any specific algorithm or technology. Applicant recites in their specification ([page 8, line 24 to page 9, line 3] “Dijkstra algorithm”, “traveling salesman problem algorithm” and “ACO algorithm”) which are software constructs running on a general purpose computer, in the broad category of shortest/optimal path in a graph algorithm that are well known in the software development art. Applicant does not claim a specific algorithm or technology and does not provide a detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. For the same reasons as above, the software construct of path search algorithm is broadly claimed and used in its ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, the additional element of path search algorithm does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner notes that the claimed “reference information” is data and “grid unit graph” is a data structure and are part of the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) recites “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(3) recites “Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process… Mortgage Grader…claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer" and Berkheimer… claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes”.
Applicant’s claims are directed to a process of efficiently finding the quickest path between two locations that can practically be performed in the human mind. The additional elements of warehouse management system (WMS) and path search algorithm and the recited data and data structures used by a general purpose computer to replicate how a human mind selects the best path are part of the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of collecting path information of a human traversing a warehouse, noting fixed physical obstacles relevant to the path of the human on a 2D map, using the 2D map to model and store the path information including the fixed physical obstacles, and iteratively running the model to output a path for a new human request while excluding the known fixed physical obstacles from possible paths As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of WMS and path search algorithm. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed WMS and path search algorithm are software constructs recited at a high level of generality that amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus WMS and path search algorithm are not significantly more.
The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 2, 3 and 4 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1 and further limit the content of reference information. Dependent Claims 7-9 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1 and further limit processing the reference information. Dependent Claim 10 contains the same abstract idea by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1 and further limit storing the reference information.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
After a diligent search, Examiner is unable to find a single prior art reference or combination of references that teaches the specific combination of elements now taught by Applicant’s amended claims without improper hindsight reasoning.
The closest prior art is:
U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0149443 (Fox) teaches a system of using models to optimize picking paths in a warehouse. Fox does not specifically teach obstacles in the potential path and optimizing the movement path to avoid them. Fox does not specifically teach creating a grid unit graph data structure that shows the obstacles. Fox does not specifically teach selecting a new movement path based on the input of a worker. Fox does not specifically teach including obstacles in a picking path in a model. Fox does not specifically teach iteratively running an optimization algorithm that traverses a grid unit graph that includes obstacles and excluding the obstacles with the effect of reducing search space.
U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0218311 (Kumar) teaches optimizing a movement path to avoid obstacles and creating a grid unit graph data structure that shows the obstacles and also teaches teach including obstacles in a picking path in a model. Kumar does not specifically teach selecting a new movement path based on the input of a worker. Kumar does not specifically teach iteratively running an optimization algorithm that traverses a grid unit graph that includes obstacles and excluding the obstacles with the effect of reducing search space.
U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0330258 (Harris) teaches selecting a movement path based on the input of a worker. Harris does not specifically teach iteratively running an optimization algorithm that traverses a grid unit graph that includes obstacles and excluding the obstacles with the effect of reducing search space.
Examiner is unable to find another reference or combination of references that teach using an optimization algorithm that uses a grid unit graph that includes obstacles or iteratively running an optimization algorithm that traverses a grid unit graph that includes obstacles and mathematically excluding the obstacles with the effect of reducing search space that, in combination with all or some of the art of record, would not result in improper hindsight reasoning.
The 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights