DETAILED ACTION
This is a 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 101:
Applicant asserts on page 8, bottom, through page 9, top, that their claims do not recite a mental process because: “The human mind does not intuitively calculate mathematical accumulation and volatilization rates of simulated pheromones across a matrix of numerical 0s and 1s” and “While a human warehouse worker might rely on basic visual intuition to avoid a column, the claimed method utilizes metaheuristic swarm-intelligence mathematics applied to a binary-constrained grid. Because the claimed method fundamentally relies on computational structures and rapid iterative mathematical volatilization that humans cannot mentally process, it does not recite a mental process and is not an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1”.
In response Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(III) defines mental processes as “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work… courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via a pen and paper or in a person’s mind”).
Examiner also notes that, while Applicant claims a “warehouse management system”, Applicant does not claim a computer. Examiner further notes that “warehouse management systems” were commonly kept on paper or stone tablets for millennia long before computers.
Regarding Claim 1:
collecting reference information on a product and a worker who performs a picking task; a human can observe a person who performs a picking task, can observe a product being picked and can observe their physical paths in a picking operation.
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; a human can observe a physical area and draw a map on a piece of paper representing paths and obstacles.
searching for a picking movement path of the product and the worker for the picking task based on the processed reference information, a human can mentally identify patterns on the written map and find a clear picking path that avoids obstacles.
wherein the searching includes using a path search algorithm that is an ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm; A fundamental ACO algorithm is based on finding the “most popular” path and assuming that path is the best one. Applicant has not claimed a computer nor claimed a minimum complexity nor quantity of calculations. The fundamental ACO algorithm can be performed mathematically on a computer and also can be performed in a person’s head (or can even be performed by ants). A human can “track” wild game or find a natural source of water in a wilderness, for example, by looking for well-worn trails of animal footprints or broken branches, for example. Similarly, a human picker in a warehouse may determine the most popular path by simple observation of patterns of travel of multiple other pickers or by simply by asking and learning from other pickers.
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 0s and 1s representing the path area and the obstacle area respectively; A human can remember a particular path and record it on a map and observe or talk to other workers and draw their paths on a map. A human can draw a map in the form of a unit grid graph with 1s and 0s on a piece of paper representing paths and obstacles. A well-known example of a “unit grid graph with 1s and 0s” is the game of tic-tac-toe where creating a continuous “path” of three squares and avoiding obstacles of the other players marks on a grid wins the game.
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 1s, thereby reducing computational search cycles compared to processing unstructured spatial data, wherein the ACO algorithm is configured to extract accumulated information about a prior picking movement path of a skilled worker, and compute the picking movement path for an unskilled worker by repeatedly calculating mathematical accumulation and volatilization of the accumulated information as simulated pheromones numerically mapped over the path area of the grid unit graph. A human can use the same written map more than once and multiple humans can use the same map and repeatedly draw a path on the same paper and eventually darker (more popular) paths will be clear. Further, over time, the person or people can cross off or erase paths that are not popular or are disliked (so others don’t have to waste time on them). Further, the “skilled workers” can tell stories or write down information about the paths they have traversed and teach their knowledge to “unskilled workers”. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed method clearly can be done in the human mind or using simple tools and does not “rely on computational structures and rapid iterative mathematical volatilization that humans cannot mentally process”.
Applicant’s claim 1 (and other claims) contain and are directed to a mental process.
Applicant asserts on page 8, bottom, to page 9, top, that McRO teaches “claims are patent-eligible when they set out a specific set of rules that automate a process previously performed by humans in a fundamentally different, mathematical way”. Applicant appears to be mischaracterizing McRO and, even if this characterization was correct, Examiner holds that Applicant’s claims do not teach a “process previous performed by a human in a fundamentally different, mathematical way” but, in fact, teach a process that could be performed by a human (see #1, above). MPEP 2106.05(A) describes McRO as “(holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process)”. McRO concerns an animation process previously performed by humans but does not state that the claims are eligible because it contains a set of rules that automates this process in a “fundamentally different, mathematical way”, it states that it is eligible because it is “directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques”1 Applicant’s claims are materially different from those of McRO. As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection, infra, Applicant does not teach a technical improvement but merely applies an abstract idea using general purpose technologies used for the purpose for which they are intended.
Applicant asserts on page 9, center, that their claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they “solve the technical problem of intense computational overhead in shortest-path calculations” and “the processor requires fundamentally fewer cycles to arrive at an optimized result”. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) 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”). Examiner holds that 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)”. 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 avoid the fixed physical obstacles based on determining the most popular path by observing the paths other pickers have chosen. Applicant does not provide specific technical detail of an improvement to a computer. Applicant broadly asserts 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 now asserts that the improvement occurs because they “mathematically excluding grid units assigned with the binary values of 1s”. Applicant is merely collecting less data by reducing duplicate storage of the unchanging information when the information is updated, which has the effect of requiring less computation but this is merely an improvement to the data and NOT a technical improvement. Applicant’s claims are not directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of a computational system, nor do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and the use of a general purpose graph traversal algorithm.
Applicant asserts on page 9, bottom, through page 10 top, that “the claimed invention addresses a highly specific industrial application: the loss of experiential knowledge due to the aging of skilled warehouse workers” and “is a clear, tangible, and practical application that transcends a mere abstract idea”. Examiner holds that “loss of experiential knowledge” is not a technical problem, it is a business problem and, as discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection, infra, it is part of an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity that is now necessitated by amendment, therefore it is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant asserts on page 10 that Examiner’s withdrawal of a 35 USC 103 rejection is evidence of “inventive concept”. MPEP2106.05(I) teaches “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination… As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter… a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”. Therefore the withdrawal of a 35 USC 103 rejection is not evidence of “inventive concept”.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found to be 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 that is an ant colony optimization (ACO) 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 0s and 1s 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, wherein the ACO algorithm is configured to extract accumulated information about a prior picking movement path of a skilled worker, and compute the picking movement path for an unskilled worker by repeatedly calculating mathematical accumulation and volatilization of the accumulated information as simulated pheromones numerically mapped over the path area of the grid unit graph.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
In Applicant’s amended claims, Applicant claims collecting path information of a plurality of human pickers traversing a warehouse, noting free path spaces and fixed physical obstacles relevant to the paths of the humans on a grid unit 2D map, using the map to store the cumulative path information, iteratively updating the map for each new traversal and iteratively looking at the cumulative path information to find patterns of paths, removing from consideration or crossing off “unpopular” paths on the map so others don’t waste time taking them, finding the “most popular” paths, recording them on the map and sharing them with others.
Examiner holds that Applicant claims an abstract idea in the category of Mental Processes because a human, in their mind and/or using pen and paper, can collect path information by simple observation, can make a grid unit 2D map using pencil and paper, can store and iteratively update the paths on the map using pencil and paper, can mentally look for patterns that show the popular and unpopular paths and can use the pencil and paper to record these and can cross off unpopular paths and highlight and share the most popular paths using pencil and paper.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner also finds that Applicant claims an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of commercial or legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a warehouse to document and optimize picker picking path selection. Examiner further finds that Applicant claims an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of managing personal behavior because Applicant claims consolidating and documenting human knowledge for the purpose of teaching other humans and this is one of the most fundamental bases for civilization.
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 can include paper based systems or, in modern times, can include 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 it is possible that the 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/ACO algorithm - Applicant also recites the additional element of path search algorithm and now claims ACO algorithm. Applicant recites in their specification ([page 8, line 24 to page 9, line 3] “ACO algorithm”) which is a software construct running on a (unclaimed) general purpose computer, in the broad category of shortest/optimal path in a graphing traversal algorithm that are well known in the software development art. Applicant now claims the ACO algorithm but, while Applicant generally describes the functioning parts of this algorithm, Applicant does not provide a detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept other than the inherent function of selecting the most popular path. For the same reasons as above, the software constructs of path search algorithm and ACO algorithm are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, the additional elements of path search algorithm and ACO algorithm do 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/ACO 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 plurality of human pickers traversing a warehouse, noting free path spaces and fixed physical obstacles relevant to the paths of the humans on a grid unit 2D map, using the map to store the cumulative path information, iteratively updating the map for each new traversal and iteratively looking at the cumulative path information to find patterns of paths, removing from consideration or crossing off “unpopular” paths on the map so others don’t waste time taking them, finding the “most popular” paths, recording them on the map and sharing them with others. As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of WMS and path search algorithm/ACO algorithm. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed WMS and path search algorithm/ACO 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/ACO 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
Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s IDS dated 7/28/2026 and notes that reference CN112785215 (Beijing Jingbangda Trading Co (BJT)) teaches using an Ant Colony Algorithm (see at least [0106]) as part of a warehouse picking path optimization process but appears to use this algorithm iteratively on each roadway opening point to find the shortest path and does not appear to teach using the algorithm on prior picker’s paths and does not appear to teach using the algorithm to find the most popular path and eliminating unpopular paths from consideration. While BJT appears to teach “storage bits”, it is unclear from the translation if these are equivalent to boxes on a grid unit graph. BJT does not appear to specifically teach developing a map of picking paths and using it to teach a path or paths to other pickers. Examiner holds that BJT, while teaching some elements claimed by Applicant, does not alone or in combination with other prior art, preclude patentability of Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 102/103.
After an updated search, Examiner has also found:
CN 113935452A (Tianjin University of Science and Technology (TUST)) – this reference teaching using ACO algorithm to generate a distribution center picking path but uses the algorithm in combination with a genetic algorithm and uses it to obtain the coordinates of goods to be picked, the shortest path and the shortest pick time, which Examiner holds is materially different from Applicant’s use. TUST further teaches documenting obstacles on a path but does not appear to teach storing the paths or obstacles in a grid graph, nor teach using the algorithm to determine the most popular path, nor specifically teach developing a map of picking paths and using it to teach a path or paths to other pickers. Examiner holds that TUST, while teaching some elements claimed by Applicant, does not alone or in combination with other prior art, preclude patentability of Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 102/103.
After a diligent search, Examiner was 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.
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 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
1 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Available at s15-1080.opinion.9-9-2016.2.pdf
Prosecution Insights