DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed June 3, 2026. Applicant’s June, 3, 2026 amended claims 19, 22-24, 29-32, 34 and canceled claims 1-18, 21, 26-28, 33, 35. Claims 19, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June, 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 19, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection(s) of claims 19, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-17, filed June 3, 2026, with respect to Bonisch et al. and Hou et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) rejection of claims 19, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 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 integrate abstract idea into practical application (e.g. computing a plurality of optional schedules in parallel for at least 1000 mobile components, adjusting scheduling frequency at least once a minute, recites a specific computational structure; Remarks: Page 8; Paragraph 1, Page 10); claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. scheduling 1000 or more components in parallel at least once per minute is not a fundamental economic practice; Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 9); the claims recite a technical improvement (e.g. similar to Enfish & Dejardins et al., recites an improvement in computer or other technology via logical structures and processes - parallel computation for real-time re-scheduling of a large fleet, reduces inefficiency and instability of a complex system; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 9; Second to Last Paragraph, Page 10); the claims do not recite insignificant extra solution activity (e.g. monitoring, issuing steps; Last Paragraph, Page 11; Last Paragraph Page 12); the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea (Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 12); and the claims cannot be performed mentally (e.g. computing schedules in parallel for 1000 components at least once a minute Remarks: Page 13).
In response to applicant's argument that claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real-time re-scheduling of a large fleet; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 9; Re-computing schedules for a fleet of that scale within a time budget of that length - Paragraph 2, Page 10; keep a large physical fleet on an up-to-date schedule in real time, avoiding the uniform, monolithic update cycles that may be inefficient or unstable in complex fleets - Second to Last Paragraph, Page 10; allocating computational and communication resources, here, command-generation frequency; Paragraph 1, Page 11; sub-minute scheduling cadence, Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 12; Paragraph 1, Page 13) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Accordingly, those arguments have not been addressed as they are not relevant to the pending claims.
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 mentally, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims remain directed to scheduling, specifically the claims invention adjusts scheduling, comprising routing/re-routing, of a plurality of mobile components (forklift, battery driven vehicles) and infrastructure (paths, roads, wired/wireless communication, gates, handhelds, etc. – see dependent claim 25) based on received/monitored state information and issuing prioritized ‘action commands’ for controlling (intended use, action commands are never received or performed) mobile components and 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 monitored mobile components and infrastructure, adjusts a schedule of a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure, wherein schedule comprising routing/re-routing, and outputs (generates and issues) data to a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure in a prioritized fashion. The claims merely receive data, process data and provide/issue data utilizing a generic system having a controlling component (software per se) (only claims 19, 20, 22-25, 29, 30; as claims 31, 32 and 34 fail to recite any technological or computational elements/components of any kind). Nothing in the claims positively controls any of the plurality of mobile components and infrastructure as argued (wished for, intended use of the issued action commands).
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of scheduling comprising routing (Title: System and Method for Managing and Optimizing Order Scheduling; Representative Claim 1: adjust a scheduling of a plurality of mobile components and 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 and infrastructure may be performed in the human mind via observation of data. The step of adjusting a scheduling of a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure by computing a plurality of optional schedules and selecting one may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of adjusting the scheduling of at least 1000 mobile components with a frequency or at least once per minute may be performed in the human mind using judgement. The step of adjusting the scheduling comprising routing or re-routing of the mobile components maybe performed in the human mind via evaluation. The step of generating action commands to the mobile components and infrastructure can be performing practically by a human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of issuing action commands to the mobile components and 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 controlling component 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 steps of generating and issuing action commands are directed to insignificant post extra solution activity as well as 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. Even if Applicant were to amend the claims to positively recite that the mobile components and infrastructure received and executed/performed the schedule/route based on the issued action commands the executed/performed action commands would be directed to an insignificant application of the abstract idea. As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as well as in MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 31, 32, 34 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. Additionally, it is impossible to argue that claims 31, 32, 34 recite a technical improvement/improvement in a technology or an improvement in a computational structure when no such technology/computational structure is positively recited in the body of the claims.
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 and 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.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the newly recite scheduling 1000 or more components in parallel at least once per minute is not a fundamental economic practice and/or cannot be performed mentally the examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely utilizing a generic computer (computational structure, controlling component) merely as a tool to perform an existing process does not exclude the claims from the mental processing group nor does it amount to significantly more (i.e. merely automating a manual process using generic computers or other machinery does not negate the mental process nature of the claims). The recited controlling component functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting the solution (e.g. scheduling/routing) to be achieved more quickly (a well-known, ordinary use of a computer).
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, comprising routing/re-routing, of a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of scheduling/routing of a plurality of mobile components and 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/routing adjustment in the general field of scheduling mobile components and 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 computes a plurality of optional (candidate) schedules in parallel for at least 1000 mobile components and adjusts the scheduling at least once a minute, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither the number of mobile components and infrastructure nor the frequency at which a schedule is adjusted has any impact on the fundamental economic nature of abstract idea – the claims remain directed to the fundamental economic practice of scheduling. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea. Nor does the number of mobile components and infrastructure nor the frequency at which a schedule is adjusted has any impact on the mental nature of the claims. At best the use of a generic computer as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process simply because the computer can perform the method steps more quickly does not negate the mental nature of the claims. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): "It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).
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 and 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 and 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 a technical improvement, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially it is noted as claims 31, 32 and 34 fail to recite any technological elements or computational structures it is impossible for these claims to recite a technical improvement of any kind.
As for 19, 20, 22-25, 29 and 30, the claims merely recite a controlling component (Figure 2) and a generic computer (processor and memory) for performing the method steps. Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure even tangentially mentions that the claim invention improve any of the underlying technological elements – see discussion above.
Further it is noted that merely scheduling, including routing, of mobile components (forklifts, electric vehicles) and infrastructure (e.g. roads, paths, etc. – see dependent claim 25) each used for the ordinary purpose does not represent a technical improvement in either the mobile components or infrastructure.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are similar to the Enfish decision because the provide improvements in computer related technology, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
On May 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. held that the claimed database software designed as a "self-referential" table is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is not directed to an abstract idea.
The claims of the patents at issue in this case describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(t). The court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
The pending claims do not recite a database. Nor does Applicant’s disclosure teach or assert that the claimed method steps/invention in any way are directed to an improvement in a computer, computer memory, database or other computer related technological elements as argued. Claims 31, 32 and 34 fail to recite any technological elements or computing elements of any kind and therefore cannot possible be directed to or provide improvements in computer related technology as argued.
The instant application, specifically the newly recited limitations directed to scheduling 1000 or more components in parallel at least once per minute merely recites a generic computer (Claim 19: ‘controlling component’; Figure 2; Claim 34: processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions) performing generic computer functions. As discussed above and below, the claims are similar to ideas found to be abstract, wherein upon examination of the claims as a whole and in terms of each claim’s limitations reveals that the claims are not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims are directed to scheduling/routing mobile components and infrastructure in a plant and merely use a ‘controlling component’ (software per se, at best a generic computer/processor) and/or controlling component (software per se), processor, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions to improve the performance of the scheduling and not the performance of a ‘controlling component’.
Further nowhere in Applicant’s specification does Applicant discuss or imply that the thrust of the invention, much alone a side-effect, is directed to improving the performance of the ‘controlling component’ in sharp contrast to the recent court findings in the Enfish decision.
Accordingly, the claims are nothing like Enfish and 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 are similar to the recent Appeals Review Panel review of Ex parte Desjardins et al., the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the Desjardins decision cautions against overbroad application of 35 U.S.C. 101 to artificial intelligence inventions, such inventions not categorically excluded from patentability, the thrust of the decision made clear that improvements to an AI model itself can be sufficient for the purpose of patent eligibility, even when the claims recite, on their face, an ostensibly “abstract idea.” Specifically, the Appeals Review Panel found that the claims under review provided a technical improvement in the functioning of machine learning models by enabling continual learning, reducing storage requirements, and preserving performance across tasks. In particular, the decision emphasized that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem ("catastrophic forgetting") and improves the operation of AI systems, not just through generic computer implementation but by a specific training strategy. To support this determination, the Appeals Review Panel looked to the specification which, on its own, disclosed how the invention would improve functioning of an AI model--in particular, the specification explained how the proposed invention would use less “storage capacity” and lead to “reduced system complexity." These improvements, which the Appeals Review Panel found were incorporated into the claims as a whole, constituted an “improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates”.
Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure or the claimed invention is there any discussion of any kind of utilizing machine learning or artificial intelligence much alone improvements in improvement in machine learning itself. Accordingly, the claims are nothing like those in the Desjardins decision and are therefore 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 do not recite insignificant extra solution activity, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above the claimed steps directed to monitor and communicate with mobile components and infrastructure as well as generate and issue action commands a 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 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.
It is noted that the examiner never stated, in the previous office action, that amending the claims to positively recite execution/performance of the issued commands would overcome the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 12). Such an amendment would merely recite an insignificant application of the abstract idea as discussed above and in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
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, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 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, comprising routing or re-routing, of a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure based on received state information and generates/issues action commands to the mobile components and infrastructure wherein higher priority commands are issued more frequency, 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”, “adjusting”, “routing or “re-routing” 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, comprising routing or rerouting, of a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure as well as issued action commands for controlling (intended use, action commands are never received or performed) mobile components and 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 and 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, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited system, controlling component, mobile components and 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 and 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, 32, 34 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 and 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, 22-25, 29, 31, and 32, 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). Claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by ‘optimizing’ intralogistics and communicating with the mobile components and infrastructure (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 23 further limits the abstract idea by receive the state of mobile components and 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 and 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 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, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 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: Figures 1, 2; 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, 22-25, 29-32 and 34 are allowable over the prior art. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The closest prior art Bonisch et al., Hou et al. fail to teach or suggest either singularly or in combination a system/method/computer program product for controlling intralogistics comprising: a controlling component wherein the controlling component is configured to monitor and to communicate with mobile components and infrastructure, the monitoring comprising receiving states and events of the mobile components and the infrastructure; and to adjust a scheduling of a plurality of mobile components and infrastructure in case of detecting at least one pre-defined event by computing a plurality of optional schedules and selecting one, wherein the controlling component is configured to compute the plurality of optional schedules in parallel using a plurality of worker processes; wherein the plurality of mobile components comprises at least 1000 mobile components; the adjusting of the scheduling of the plurality of mobile components and infrastructure being carried out with a frequency of adjusting of at least one time a minute (1/min.); wherein the mobile components comprise at least one of fork lifts or battery driven vehicles; wherein the pre-defined event comprises a delay or early arrival of a mobile component at a node, a defect of loading station and/or battery, or an early or unexpected emptied reservoir; wherein adjusting the scheduling comprises routing or re-routing of the mobile components for realizing the selected schedule, wherein the controlling component is further configured to generate and issue action commands to the mobile components and/or the infrastructure based on the received state information; and wherein different priorities are provided for controlling the mobile components and/or the infrastructure, such that action commands associated with higher priorities are generated and issued more frequently than action commands associated with lower priorities as recited in independent Claims 19, 30, and 34.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights