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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 12/15/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1, 3-10 has overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112 paragraph (necessitated by amendment).
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1, 3-10 has NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-10 are amended.
Claim(s) 2 is cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1 and 10 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
Claims 1 and 10 limitations:
Claim 1 “A logistics warehouse , Claim 10 “logistics warehouse control method comprising:”;
manage a plurality of orders given to a logistics system; and
determine, for a plurality of subsystems respectively each in charge of a plurality of logistics operation processes in the logistics system, a parameters related to an operation of each subsystem based on the plurality of orders, the plurality of subsystems respectively corresponding to different physical distribution work processes and which deliver an article from an upstream subsystem to a downstream subsystem,
evaluate productivity of the entire logistics system for a combination of parameters of the plurality of subsystems,
wherein the determined parameters are input to the respective to the subsystem, and the plurality of orders are processed in a state where the parameters are applied
wherein the combination of parameters includes the simultaneous processing range parameter, which is a value indicating a number of orders of articles to be shipped ahead of a predetermined time are to be processed simultaneously, and a delivery-from-warehouse condition parameter, which is a value that indicates a percentage of articles to be shipped to a certain shipping destination must be in the order before shipping starts.
The limitations of claims 1 and 10 recite concepts of data recommendation, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that managesdata (A), determines data (B, E), evaluats data (C), inputs / transmits data (D) and thus are considered commercial practice known in the logistic system business.
Thus, claims 1, 3-10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Besides the abstract idea, claims 1, 10 recite the additional element:
Claim 1: “control system”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being managed, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitations B, E are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered data determination without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; the additional elements that perform limitation C is claimed at a high level of generality and are considered data used to evaluate productivity without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; additional elements that perform limitation D is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being inputted /transmitted, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1 and 10 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3-10 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions
to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical.
Further, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
Further, the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g). The processing data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 3-9, the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claim 1, and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-10 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10 are allowed over the prior art.
Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments related to 35 USC 103, see Remarks pages 12-15.
Puite et al. (US 20220106121 A1, hereinafter Puite) is the closest prior art of the record.
Although Puite discloses a system that determines if items need is available for the selected pending order, and direct the order to an optimal pick station 18 for time and resource efficiency, see para. 60-61 and determine an optimal destination for vendor cases 28 to be delivered to the required pick station 18, see para. 47; further see para. 41 for all the optimizations and synchronizing of orders configuration and distribution at an automated warehouse facility; Puite fail to disclose “evaluate productivity of the entire logistics system for a combination of parameters of the plurality of subsystems.. wherein the combination of parameters includes the simultaneous processing range parameter, which is a value indicating a number of orders of articles to be shipped ahead of a predetermined time are to be processed simultaneously, and a delivery-from-warehouse condition parameter, which is a value that indicates a percentage of articles to be shipped to a certain shipping destination must be in the order before shipping starts”.
Therefore, the italic limitations in combination with all the other limitations clearly claimed in the independent claim(s) 1 and 10 are novel and unobvious.
According claim(s) 1, 3-10 are allowable over the prior art, however, a rejection under the 35 USC 101 should be overcome in order to have the current application allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/15/2025 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
USC 35 112(f) and 112(b) Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejections set forth under 35 USC 112(f) and 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) are withdrawn.
USC 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is being withdrawn.
USC 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention improves the technology of automated warehouse logistics by simulating parameters for different subsystems, see Remarks pages 8-11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Evaluating productivity of a logistic system using a combination of parameters for different subsystems such as a value (range) that indicates a number of orders of articles to be shipped ahead simultaneously on a predetermined time and a value (percentage expressing condition) of articles to be shipped to a certain shipping destination must be in order before shipping starts, because it is just evaluating logistic performance using parameters, and is inputting / transmitting evaluated parameters to a subsystem such a shipping system, merely evaluating inputting data into a subsystem is not considered technology improvement. Regarding the arguments related to “Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 11 0 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014), where the computer is merely used as a tool to perform an existing process”, see Remarks page 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claimed invention performing generic processes of evaluating parameter that are output and applied, and thus are just using a computer as a tool.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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) Zeender can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627