DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 23, 2025. Applicant’s December 23rd amendment canceled claims 1-18; 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 34; and added new claim 35. Claims 19-35 are pending. Claims 19, 31 and 34 are the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 34 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendment to claim 34.
The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection of claim 26 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendment to claim 26.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 19-34 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 19, 22-31 and 34 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 20, 23, 32 and 33 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to Bonisch et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 19, 22-31 and 34 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10 and 11, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to Bonisch et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 20, 23, 32 and 33has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. monitors physical mobile components and infrastructure asss and generates/issues action commands based Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 7); the claims integrate abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. requires controlling components that actively interacts with mobile components and infrastructure; higher-priority control commands are update more frequently than lower priority control commands; Remarks: Paragraph 3, Page 8); the claimed invention improves the functioning of an intralogistcs control system (e.g. priority aware control loops/signals; Last Paragraph, Page 8); the claims cannot be performed by a human (Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 9); and the claims recite significantly more than abstract idea (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 9).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea/cannot be performed by a human, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims remain directed to scheduling, specifically the claims invention adjusts scheduling of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure based on received state information wherein different priorities are provided (data output; issued and generated ‘action commands’ - data) for controlling (intended use, action commands are never received or performed) mobile components OR infrastructure wherein action commands with higher priorities are issued more frequently than commands with lower priorities (data output, insignificant post solution activity). More succinctly, the claimed invention merely receives data from a plurality of monitoring mobile components OR infrastructure, adjusts a schedule of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure and provides (generates and issues) data to a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure. The claims merely receive data, process data and provide/issue data utilizing a generic system having a controlling component (software per se). Nothing in the claims positively controlling any of the plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure as argued.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of scheduling (Title: System and Method for Managing and Optimizing Order Scheduling; Representative Claim 1: adjust a scheduling of a plurality of mobile components or infrastructure), the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (e.g. mobile components, infrastructure, controlling component, etc.); or improve another technological field.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: monitor and communicate with mobile components OR infrastructure may be performed in the human mind via observation of data. The step of adjusting a scheduling of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure may be performed in the human mind using judgement. The step of generating action commands to the mobile components OR infrastructure can be performing practically by a human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of issuing action commands to the mobile components OR infrastructure is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output). The step of providing (for controlling, intended use of the provided priorities/data – neither mobile components nor infrastructure actually receive or subsequently perform/execute the provided action commands) action commands with higher priorities more frequently than action commands associated with lower priorities can be practically performed by a human and at best may represent automation of a well-known manual control methods. The recitation of a controlling component, mobile components, infrastructure, each used recited at a very high level of generality and each used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the one or more control devices as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The controlling component, mobile components, infrastructure are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic controlling component, mobile components, infrastructure. Further the issuing and providing steps are results based as the limitation merely recites a wished-for result without limiting how the step is performed/executed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claims 31-33 fail to recite who or what entity performs the method steps, accordingly the claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation which includes a human performing the claimed method steps.
Other than the recitation of a system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructure nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a system having a controlling component (software per se), mobile components and infrastructure are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic system and/or generic controller component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic system, controlling component, mobile components, infrastructure (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of scheduling adjustment. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology, are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of monitor and communicate with mobile components OR infrastructure and issue action commands and provided different priorities which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than sending/receiving data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – scheduling – in this case ‘adjusting scheduling of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of scheduling of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic system, system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructure. These generic hardware/software merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s scheduling adjustment in the general field of scheduling mobile components OR infrastructure and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a system, or merely use a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., c system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructure) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructure” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the claimed invention requires controlling components that actively interacts with mobile components and infrastructure, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail above the claims do not control anything. The claims merely generate and issue action commands to mobile components OR infrastructure which may or may not actually receive the action commands much alone perform/executed (i.e. be controlled) by the provided/issued action commands (merely data output). Should Applicant amend the claims to positively recite that the mobile components OR infrastructure actually receive and subsequently perform/execute the generated action commands such method steps would be no more then a necessary application of the abstract idea (apply it), wherein it is the purpose of a schedule to actually be implemented.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the issuance of higher-priority control commands are more frequently than lower priority control commands integrates the abstract idea into a practical application the examiner respectfully disagrees. That one or more commands are issued more or less frequently does not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or a computer network, does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks, does not improve another technology or technological field. At best the step is directed to data output, wherein the frequency of the output varies based on a priority associated with an action command (data ) – i.e. an improvement in the abstract idea itself. Only Speciation Paragraph 36 tangentially mentions, in a single sentence, that “There can be also arranged different priorities for controlling components or infrastructure. Battery status can thus be of less priority and thus frequency than the position of a mobile component.” This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose or discuss at any level of detail how issuing commands with different priorities at different frequencies is a technical problem much alone a technical solution to a technical problem. Nor does Applicant’s disclosure discuss at any level of detail that varying frequency based on different priorities improves any of the underlying technology (e.g. system, controlling component, mobile components or infrastructure). This brief mention of varying frequencies based on different priorities is clearly not a thrust or important aspect of the invention, evident by the single sentence which off handedly mentions the newly claimed limitation.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above the claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of scheduling. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (system, controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real-time control for cyber physical systems, Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 8; priority-aware control loops, allocating computational and communication resources based on control relevance, and avoiding uniform, monolithic update cycles that may be inefficient or unstable in complex fleets - Last Paragraph, Page 8) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 19-35 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.
Regarding independent Claims 19, 31 and 34, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of scheduling. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, scheduling (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to adjusting the schedule of a plurality of mobile ‘components’ OR infrastructure based on received state information and generates/issues action commands for higher priority action commands more frequently, wherein scheduling is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “monitor and communicate”, “adjust”, and “generate and issue” recite functions of the scheduling are also directed to an abstract idea. The intended purpose of independent claims 19, 31 and 34 appears to be adjusts scheduling of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure based on received state information wherein different priorities are provided (data output; issued and generated ‘action commands’ - data) for controlling (intended use, action commands are never received or performed) mobile components OR infrastructure wherein action commands with higher priorities are issued more frequently than commands with lower priorities (data output, insignificant post solution activity).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the system, controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic system, controlling component, mobile components or infrastructure. These generic components are merely used to collect (e.g. monitor), process (adjust scheduling) and output (provide, issue) data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1; Paragraphs 160-165). Generic elements/components performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's scheduling in the general field of scheduling and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a system, or merely use a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 19-35 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited system, controlling component, mobile components or infrastructure," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed adjust a scheduling of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure and generate action commands all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a system, controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Claims 31-33 fail to recite who or what entity performs the method steps. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps monitoring mobile components OR infrastructure is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructure are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 20-30, 32 and 33, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of scheduling and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 19, 31 and 34.
Claims 20 and 32 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the monitoring to once a minute (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 21 and 33 further limit the abstract idea by adjusting the scheduling at least once a minute (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by ‘optimizing’ intralogistics and communicating with the mobile components or infrastructure (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 23 further limits the abstract idea by receive the state of mobile components or infrastructure (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 24 further limits the abstract idea by communication the state of the mobile components or infrastructure (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 25 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the infrastructure to at least ONE of paths, ways, roads, wired and/or wireless communication systems, handhelds for operators or users, gates, traffic lights, barriers, doors, nodes, induction loops, production material supply, loading stations, unloading stations, battery chargers, OR batteries (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 26 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the mobile components OR infrastructure to at least 10 mobile components, preferably at least 20 mobile components, more preferably at least 30 mobile components, more preferably at least 100 mobile components and most preferably at least 1000 mobile components (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 27 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the mobile components to vehicles (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 28 further limits the abstract idea by generating ONE or more action commands to nodes, vehicles, mobile robots, manually guided vehicles, humans or better their handheld devices, drones, ships, infrastructure assets, such as routing units, doors, OR signals (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 29 further limit the abstract idea further comprising controlling vehicles or infrastructure in a plant (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 29 further limit the abstract idea further comprising controlling vehicles or infrastructure in a manufacturing plant (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 19-34, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructure at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1; Paragraphs 160-165). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. system, controller component (software per se)). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system having a controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, mobile components, infrastructures merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1; Paragraphs 160-165). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bönisch et al., U.S. Patent No. 20250131825 in view of Hou et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220279466.
Regarding Claims 19, 31 and 34, Bönisch et al. discloses a system (Paragraphs 43-45) comprising a controlling component:
Wherein the controlling component is configured to monitor and communicate with mobile components OR infrastructure (Paragraph 50; sensors – Paragraphs 12, 14, 15; geolocation – Paragraphs 16, 29, 51);
Adjust a schedule of a plurality of mobile components OR infrastructure (at the same time, Claims 31, 34) in case of detecting at least one pre-defined event (e.g. orders; Paragraphs 8, 32, 53, 54; Claim 22);
Wherein the controlling component is further configured to generate and issue action commands to the mobile components OR infrastructure based on received state information (Abstract; Paragraphs 4, 5, 18, 19; Claim 1)
While utilizing priorities for controlling mobile robots OR infrastructure is old and well-known Bönisch et al. does not disclose priorities as claimed.
Hou et al., from the same field of endeavor of monitoring/controlling mobile components, discloses a system and method comprising different priorities for controlling mobile components OR infrastructure, such that action commands associated with higher priorities are generated and issued more frequently than action commands associated with lower priorities (Claims 1-3; Paragraphs 29, 37, 43-47, 49, 54, 55).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system as disclosed by Bönisch et al. would have benefited from the well-known utilization of command prioritization (e.g. task prioritization) in view of the disclosure of Hou et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 20 and 32 while it is old and well-known to monitoring mobile components OR infrastructure periodically/at regular intervals or continuously/in real-time (see at least Napoli, U.S. Patent No. US 12314877: Column 30, Lines 60-68; Column 31, Lines 1-11; Franey et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220397404: Paragraphs 15, 37, 91, 98; Kumar et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20030060931: Paragraph 167), Bönisch et al. fails to disclose monitoring one a minute as claimed.
Officially Notice is taken that monitoring mobile components or infrastructure periodically including but not strictly limited to once a minute.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to carry out the monitoring at least one a minute in view of official notice further it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to carry out monitoring at least once a minute and to incorporate it into the system of Bönisch et al. since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., monitoring in real-time, continuously, periodically, etc.) to the recognized need (monitor state/status of mobile components/infrastructure) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 21 and 33 while it is old and well-known to adjust schedules periodically/at regular intervals or continuously/in real-time (see at least U.S. Patent No. 11348061: Column 1, Lines 40-54; Column 15, Lines 8-16; Figure 2, Element 220), Bönisch et al. fails to disclose monitoring one a minute as claimed.
Officially Notice is taken that adjust the schedule of a plurality of mobile components or infrastructure periodically including but not strictly limited to once a minute.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the schedule of a plurality of mobile components or infrastructure at least one a minute in view of official notice further it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to adjust the schedule of a plurality of mobile components or infrastructure and to incorporate it into the system of Bönisch et al. since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., adjusting schedules in real-time, continuously, periodically, etc.) to the recognized need (up-to-date schedules) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 22 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method further comprising ‘optimizing’ intralogistics (Paragraphs 5, 11-13, 16, 24, 25, 32) and communicating with the mobile components or infrastructure (Paragraph 50; sensors – Paragraphs 12, 14, 15; geolocation – Paragraphs 16, 29, 51).
Regarding Claim 23 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method further comprising receive the state information of mobile components or infrastructure (Paragraph 50; sensors – Paragraphs 12, 14, 15; geolocation – Paragraphs 16, 29, 51).
Regarding Claim 24 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method further comprising communicating the state information of the mobile components or infrastructure (Paragraph 50; sensors – Paragraphs 12, 14, 15; geolocation – Paragraphs 16, 29, 51).
Regarding Claim 25 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method wherein the infrastructure comprises at least ONE of paths, OR ways, OR roads, wired and/or wireless communication systems, OR handhelds for operators or users, OR gates, OR traffic lights, OR barriers, OR doors, OR nodes, OR induction loops, OR production material supply, OR loading stations, OR unloading stations, OR battery chargers, OR batteries (Paragraphs 6, 7, 14, 22, 17).
Regarding Claim 26 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method wherein the mobile components OR infrastructure comprise at least ONE of 10 or 20 or 30 or 100 or 1000 mobile components (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 13).
Regarding Claim 27, Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method wherein the mobile components are vehicles (Figure 1, Elements 10, 12; Figure 2, Elements 10, 12; Figure 3; Paragraphs 6, 7).
Regarding Claim 28 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method further comprising generate ONE or more action commands to nodes, vehicles, mobile robots, manually guided vehicles, humans or better their handheld devices, drones, ships, infrastructure assets, such as routing units, doors, OR signals (Abstract; Paragraphs 4, 5, 18, 19; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 29 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method further comprising controlling vehicles or infrastructure in a plant (Figure 1, Element 42; Figure 2, Element 42; Paragraphs 7, 46).
That the vehicles or infrastructure are in a plant merely recites non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited nor do they alter the recited structural elements. The recited method steps would be performed the same regardless of the specific intended use/location of the vehicles or infrastructure. Further, the structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.
Regarding Claim 30 Bönisch et al. discloses a system and method further comprising controlling vehicles or infrastructure in a manufacturing plant (Figure 1, Element 42; Figure 2, Element 42; Paragraphs 7, 46).
That the vehicles or infrastructure are in a manufacturing plant merely recites non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited nor do they alter the recited structural elements. The recited method steps would be performed the same regardless of the specific intended use/location of the vehicles or infrastructure. Further, the structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.
Regarding Claim 35, Bönisch et al. discloses a system wherein the pre-defined event comprises ANY of a delay or early arrival of a mobile component, a blockage in a route, a defect, a defect of loading station and/or battery, an early or unexpected emptied reservoir of any kind, a maintenance need of a mobile component such as a failure of operation, a battery charge, a handling problem with material to be moved, wrong material loaded, OR improper operation (Paragraphs 13, 58).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki, U.S. Patent No. 7103646 distributed control system for automated robots including prioritizing higher priority messages (commands, DETX 14, 316, 461)
Noda, U.S. Patent No. 7363108 system and method for controlling robots including generating and issuing prioritized/ranked control commands (DETX 201)
Gum Bernat et al., U.S. Patent No. 12348424 system and method for controlling autonomous robots including command/message prioritization resulting in issuing/sending higher priority messages before lower priority messages (DETX 86))
Nitschke et al., U.S. Patent No. 6449545 control system and method wherein higher priority command signals are transmitted at a higher speed and level than lower priority command signals (DETX 26)
Cantrell, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190385463 priority-based scheduling of autonomous robots/drones
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 SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625