DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10, 17-25, and 27 were previously pending. Claims 1, 4-8, 17, 20-23, and 27 were amended, and claims 2-3 and 18-19 were canceled in the reply filed November 14, 2025. Claims 1, 4-10, 17, 20-25, and 27 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the invention sets forth "improved warehouse technology involving recognition of efficiency." Remarks, 11. The Remarks do not explain why this is a technology rather than a certain method of organizing human activities as set forth in the rejection. Even under Applicant's own characterization this describes monitoring the behaviors of people working for a warehouse enterprise. Although Applicant argues that "it is not clear how the claim features in the application are within the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)'s meaning of 'certain'" (Remarks, 13), this was set forth in the rejection and again below. Applicant does not set forth any reasons why the instant claims are more similar to those in Example 2 rather than the ineligible inventions identified.
"And yet, here, since the specification does not indicate that those claim features should be interpreted to mean something being done in the human mind or with pen and paper, the rejection's assertions that those features are 'directed to' the USPTO's abstract idea subgrouping of 'mental processes' is respectfully traversed as exceeding the BRI of the claims." Remarks, 14. There is no requirement that the Specification explicitly state that steps are performable mentally in order to reach a conclusion that a claim recites mental steps. For example, in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) the Federal Circuit determined that obtaining and comparing intangible data (detecting fraud in a credit card transaction between a consumer and a merchant) could be performed by a human even though the disclosure described it being performed over the Internet by an integrated verification system.
Applicant also argues that the rejection was inadequate at Step 2B (Remarks, 15), but does not specify what the inadequacy is other than mentioning that the claims should be considered as an ordered combination, which was performed. "And so, respectfully, the Step 2B of the pending rejection should be similarly withdrawn as at least the pending claims seem to be, pending the Examiner's further search and consideration, allowable, at least by the criteria of 35 USC 102 and 103, which, although perhaps irrelevant to the Step 2A Prong 1 inquiry of whether a claim feature is directed to an abstract idea, seems at least informative, if not dispositive, to the Step 2B inquiry in this application and these claims." Remarks, 16. "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981) (emphasis added). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). See also MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose certain features (Remarks, 17), but no explanation or comparison to the prior art is provided. Accordingly, this only amounts to a general allegation of patentability.
Applicant's approved Terminal Disclaimer overcomes the double patenting rejection, and it is withdrawn.
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 1, 4-10, 17, 20-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 4-10, 17, 20-25, and 27, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including: inputting work data for an area and articles to be managed, the work data being data in which, for work for conveying the articles in the area, a work content and a work time for each of a plurality of workers, including a worker, are recorded; detecting a position of an arbitrary person and time at the position in the area at least during a period during which the work data is recorded, and generating movement data based on a result of the detecting the position of the arbitrary person; matching, based on the work data and the movement data, the arbitrary person indicated by the movement data with the worker by using the time as a key, and thereby identifying the arbitrary person; associating the movement data with the work data with respect to the worker; calculating, based on the movement data and the work data with respect to the worker, an index indicating efficiency for each of the plurality of workers, and wherein generating the movement data includes generating, based on a position of the arbitrary person and time at the position, moving route data indicating a moving route of the arbitrary person including time as the movement data, and calculating the index includes calculating, based on the movement data and the work data associated with the worker, a stay time during which the worker has stayed in an arbitrary position, and calculating the index based on a predetermined number of articles, a conveyance time required for conveying the articles in the area, and the stay time.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for monitoring and identifying workers in a warehouse (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Additionally, it covers purely mental processes (e.g., a warehouse manager observing workers, positions, and times; evaluating them; and arriving at a judgment on a matching identified worker). Finally, it also recites mathematical calculations (calculating an efficiency index based on time and a number of articles).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—analyzing records of human activity to detect suspicious behavior, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as analyzing records of human activity to detect and identify workers; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of an arbitrary worker's movements, then matching the results to an identified worker).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (work management system, warehouse management system, detectors, memory storing instructions, processor configured to execute the instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, computer—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). In addition to being recited generically, the detectors can also be viewed as performing extra-solution activity (i.e., pre-solution data gathering step of detecting a position of a person at a certain time). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (work management system, warehouse management system, detectors, memory storing instructions, processor configured to execute the instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, computer—see published Specification ¶¶ 0027, 32-33, 96, 107-108 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. Claims 6 and 22 add cameras and claims 7 and 23 add 3D sensors, however these amount to mere data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) for the same reasons as the generic "detectors" in the base claims. Claims 8 and 24 add a generic portable terminal, but this merely further limits the general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (cameras, 3D sensors, portable terminals), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see published Specification ¶¶ 0031, 55, 96 describing these at a high level of generality and without appreciable technical detail). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 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 1, 5-6, 8-10, 17, 21-22, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0213400 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250808) in view of Lee, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,846,812 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250808).
As per claim 1, Harada teaches a work management system comprising:
detectors (¶ 0030);
at least one memory storing instructions (¶ 0027); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do work management process (¶ 0027), wherein the work management process includes:
inputting work data for an area and articles to be managed by a warehouse management system, the work data being data in which, for work for conveying the articles in the area, a work content and a work time for each of a plurality of workers, including a worker, are recorded (¶ 0028);
making the detectors to detect a position of an arbitrary person and time at the position in the area at least during a period during which the work data is recorded, and generating movement data based on a result of the detecting the position of the arbitrary person (¶ 0029);
matching, based on the work data and the movement data, the arbitrary person indicated by the movement data with the worker by using the time as a key, and thereby identifying the arbitrary person (¶¶ 0036-37);
associating the movement data with the work data with respect to the identified worker (¶¶ 0024, 39-40);
generating the movement data includes generating, based on a position of the arbitrary person and time at the position, moving route data indicating a moving route of the arbitrary person including time as the movement data (¶¶ 0030, 36-37).
Harada does not explicitly teach the following, which is taught by Lee: calculating, based on the movement data and the work data with respect to the worker, an index indicating efficiency for each of the plurality of workers (col. 15, lines 3-15, 27-25, 43-56; col. 16, lines 17-24; col. 17, lines 2-6), and calculating the index includes calculating, based on the movement data and the work data associated with the worker, a stay time during which the worker has stayed in an arbitrary position, and calculating the index based on a predetermined number of articles, a conveyance time required for conveying the articles in the area, and the stay time (col. 15, lines 3-15, 27-25, 43-56; col. 16, lines 17-24, , 40-58; col. 17, lines 2-6; see also Fig. 5G). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Lee-namely, to track metrics on employee performance to identify underperformers. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of warehouse operations. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 5, Harada in view of Lee teaches claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches the work data includes, as the work content, data indicating the number of articles to be conveyed, and the calculating the index includes calculating the index according to the number of articles (col. 15, lines 3-15, 27-25, 43-56; col. 16, lines 17-24, 40-58); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 6, Harada teaches claim 1 as above. Harada further teaches the detectors includes one or a plurality of cameras configured to capture image of the area from above the area in such a manner that the area is included in an image capture range (¶ 0030), and thereby acquire image data including time, and the work management process further includes recognizing a position of the arbitrary person and time at the position from the image data, and generating the movement data based on a result of recognizing the position of the arbitrary person (¶¶ 0033, 36-37).
As per claim 8, Harada teaches claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches the work data is data entered by the worker at a conveyance start time and a conveyance end time of an article, of the articles, in a portable terminal carried by the worker (col. 9, lines 7-9; col. 14, lines 18-29; col. 16, lines 48-53) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 9, Harada teaches claim 1 as above. Harada further teaches the work for conveying the articles includes work for taking out the articles from a predetermined position in the area, conveying them, and storing them in, among shelves installed in the area, a shelf designated by the warehouse management system (¶¶ 0004, 24, 73).
As per claim 10, Harada teaches claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches the work for conveying the articles includes work for taking out the articles from, among shelves installed in the area, a shelf designated by the warehouse management system, collecting them, and then conveying them to a predetermined position in the area (col. 10, lines 62-65; col. 11, lines 10-28; col. 14, lines 22-26col. 16, lines 48-53) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claims 17, 21-22, and 24-25, Harada teaches a work management method comprising: steps implementing the functions of analogous claims 1, 6, and 9 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
As per claim 27, Harada teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a work management process including: steps implementing the functions of analogous claim 1 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada, et al. in view of Lee, et al., as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, further in view of Aggarwal, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 11,126,944 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250808).
As per claims 4 and 20, Harada in view of Lee teaches claims 1 and 17 as above. The references do not explicitly teach the detectors detects a presence of an obstacle present in the area, the generating the movement data is generating the movement data including the presence of the obstacle, and the calculating the index includes calculating the index based on the presence of the obstacle; which is taught by Aggarwal (col. 5, lines 1-8; col. 6, lines 24-50; col. 9, lines 36-39; col. 13, lines 4-10). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Aggarwal—namely, to plan more efficient paths for workers when an original path is infeasible. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of warehouse operations. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada, et al. in view of Lee, et al., as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, further in view of Akella, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0138676 (Reference D of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250808).
As per claims 8 and 24, Harada in view of Lee teaches claims 1 and 17 as above. Harada further teaches the detectors includes one or a plurality of 3D sensors configured to measure a dimension of an object from above the area in such a manner that the area is included in a measurement range (¶¶ 0064-66), and thereby acquire dimension data including time, and the work management process further includes recognizing a position of the arbitrary person and time at the position from the dimension data, and generating the movement data based on a result of recognizing the position of the arbitrary person (¶¶ 0030, 36-37, 64-66). Harada does not explicitly teach the dimension data is depth data; which is taught by Akella (¶ 0052). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely the substitution of one type of dimensional data for another (i.e., depth in Akella for height in Harada). Both are shown in the art of warehouse operations as dimensions with which to monitor activities within the warehouse. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that such a substitution could have been implemented through routine engineering yielding only predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628