DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed February 9, 2026. Claims 1, 4–5, 11, 14–15, and 19–20 are amended, and claims 2–3, 12–13, and 17–18 are canceled. Currently, claims 1, 4–5, 11, 14–16, and 19–20 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1–3, 11–13, and 16–18 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 1–3, 11–13, and 16–18 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–5 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–5 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily asserts that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims recite an improved work management system. Examiner disagrees.
Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2106.04(a), which sets forth the process for identifying an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, and MPEP 2106.04(d), which sets forth the process of evaluating a claim under Step 2A Prong Two. In view of MPEP 2106.04(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d), Examiner notes that the Step 2A Prong One process requires identifying when a claim recites an abstract idea, whereas the Step 2A Prong Two process identifies when a claim includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by, for example, embodying improvements in the functioning of the computer or improvements to other technology or technical field. Here, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because an argument that the claims embody an improvement in a work management system does not address the recitation of an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Even if Applicant’s remarks were considered with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, Examiner submits that improvements in a work management system embody business improvements rather than an improvement in the functioning of the computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Further, a business improvement is an improvement to an abstract, business process rather than an improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, and as noted in MPEP 2106.04(I), “even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.” As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been fully considered but are directed to amendment subject matter, which is addressed for the first time herein. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant primarily asserts that the references of record do not disclose calculating a stay time. Examiner disagrees. As previously asserted, paragraphs 30–31 of Kovach disclose analyzing productivity and efficiency of workers according to timing information associated with performing tasks. Paragraphs 21 and 26–27 further disclose that workers are evaluated using image analysis techniques to determine when workers are actively working or not actively working by monitoring the worker movements and identifying “an activity in which the worker is engaged … and/or the like.” Finally, clarifying paragraph 108 discloses worker productivity determinations based on identifying when workers are stationary or non-stationary, such that workers are monitored according to stay times. In view of the above, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 recite “a portable terminal” in the final line of each claim. However, claims 1, 11, and 16, from which claims 5, 15, and 20 depend, previously recite “a portable terminal” in the element for “transmitting a notification”. As a result, the scope of claims 5, 15, and 20 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of claims 5, 15, and 20 to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a second, different “portable terminal”.
For purposes of examination, claims 5, 15, and 20 are interpreted as reciting “[[a]] the portable terminal carried by the worker.”
In view of the above, claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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, 4–5, 11, 14–16, and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1, 4–5, 11, 14–16, and 19–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “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 taking out the articles from, among shelves installed in the area, a shelf designated by the warehouse management system, collecting the articles, and then conveying the articles to a predetermined position in the area, a work content and a work time for each worker are recorded”; “measure a depth of an object so as to include the area in a measurement range at least during a period during which the work data is recorded, and thereby acquiring depth data including time”; “recognizing a position of an arbitrary person and the time at the position from the depth data and generating movement data based on a result of recognizing the position of the arbitrary person and the time at the position”; “matching, based on the work data and the movement data, the arbitrary person indicated by the movement data with a 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 or quantity of the work for each worker, wherein the generating the movement data includes generating, based on the position of the arbitrary person and the time at the position, moving route data indicating a moving route of the arbitrary person including the time as the movement data, and wherein the 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 conveyance of the articles, and the stay time”; and “managing collection of second articles and conveying of the second articles using the index indicating efficiency or the quantity of the work for each worker”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for monitoring worker movements during performance of warehouse tasks. The elements further recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Finally, the element for “calculating” recites a mathematical concept because the element recites a mathematical calculation. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 further describe the process for monitoring worker movements during performance of warehouse tasks and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include one or a plurality of 3D sensors, at least one memory, at least one processor, a portable terminal, and a step for transmitting to a portable terminal. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for “transmitting” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 16 further includes a computer readable medium, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 16 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 depend. As a result, claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include one or a plurality of 3D sensors, at least one memory, at least one processor, a portable terminal, and a step for transmitting to a portable terminal. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for “transmitting” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies “transmitting” as a conventional computer function. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 16 further includes a computer readable medium, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 16 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 depend. As a result, claims 4–5, 14–15, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 4–5, 11, 14–16, and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4–5, 11, 14–16, and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOVACH et al. (U.S. 2019/0080274) in view of Janert et al. (U.S. 2005/0278062).
Claims 1, 11, and 16: Kovach discloses a work management system comprising:
one or a plurality of 3D sensors (See paragraph 16, wherein the image capture system includes a plurality of cameras);
at least one memory storing instructions (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 48–49); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do work management process (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 48–49), 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 a work content and a work time for each worker are recorded (See paragraphs 19 and 26, wherein workers, objects, and activities are tracked with respect to time);
making the one or a plurality of 3D sensors to measure a depth of an object so as to include the area in a measurement range at least during a period during which the work data is recorded, and thereby acquiring depth data including time (See paragraphs 26–27, wherein cameras capture images with respect to a coordinate system, and wherein images are associated with timestamps; see also paragraph 66);
recognizing a position of an arbitrary person and the time at the position from the depth data and generating movement data based on a result of recognizing the position of the arbitrary person and the time at the position (See paragraphs 25–26, in view of paragraph 27, wherein worker movements are monitored with respect to time by analyzing images, and wherein workers and object locations are determined; see also paragraph 66);
matching, based on the work data and the movement data, the arbitrary person indicated by the movement data with a worker by using the time as a key, and thereby identifying the arbitrary person (See paragraph 26, wherein workers are identified by cross-referencing timestamps of images, locations, and work schedules);
associating the movement data with the work data with respect to the worker (See paragraphs 26–27, wherein workers, objects, and activities are mapped to a view of operations based on identifying the workers, objects, and activities and the movements associated with the workers, objects, and activities);
calculating, based on the movement data and the work data with respect to the worker, an index indicating efficiency or quantity of the work for each worker (See paragraph 30, wherein workers are scored with respect to efficiency or productivity based on monitoring worker movements);
wherein the generating the movement data includes generating, based on the position of the arbitrary person and the time at the position, moving data indicating moving of the arbitrary person including the time as the movement data (See paragraphs 30–31, in view of paragraphs 26–27, wherein movement data is generated for the worker with respect to time, and wherein movement data includes identifying an amount of time the worker is actively worker; see also paragraph 21); and
wherein the 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 time required for the task and the stay time (See paragraphs 30–31, in view of paragraphs 21 and 26–27, wherein productivity and efficiency metrics are determined based on a time spent working, and wherein the system identifies when the worker is working or not actively working; see also paragraph 108, wherein worker inactivity is monitored with respect to stationary and non-stationary time). Although Kovach implicitly discloses monitoring route movements (See paragraphs 91–92, wherein route deviations are disclosed with respect to monitored objects), Kovach does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Janert discloses 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 taking out the articles from, among shelves installed in the area, a shelf designated by the warehouse management system, collecting the articles, and then conveying the articles to a predetermined position in the area, a work content and a work time for each worker are recorded (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 26–27, wherein the system monitors and stores the worker location and timing as the worker performs picking tasks in a warehouse);
wherein generating the movement data includes generating, based on the position of the person and the time at the position, moving route data indicating a moving route of the person including the time as the movement data (See paragraph 60 in view of paragraphs 26–27, wherein routes are detected based on monitoring movement times and locations);
calculating the index based on a predetermined number of articles and a conveyance time required for the conveyance of the articles (See paragraph 19, wherein a performance rating is determined based on task time and task quantities); and
managing collection of second articles and conveying of the second articles using the index indicating efficiency or the quantity of the work for each worker by transmitting a notification about each of the second articles to a portable terminal of the worker (See paragraphs 30 and 38, in view of paragraphs 18–20, wherein picking tasks are assigned to a worker via a mobile device carried by the worker, and wherein movement time maps and worker productivity determinations are used in distributing and scheduling picking tasks).
Kovach discloses a system directed to tracking worker movement and performance in a facility. Janert discloses a system directed to monitoring worker movements in a warehouse. Each reference discloses monitoring and evaluating worker movements. The technique of monitoring warehousing objects and managing collection tasks is applicable to the system of Kovach as they both share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to monitoring and evaluating worker movements.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Janert would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Janert to the teachings of Kovach would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate worker movement monitoring into similar systems. Further, applying warehouse object monitoring and collection task management to Kovach would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 16, Kovach further discloses a computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a work management process (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 53–54).
Claims 4, 14, and 19: Although Kovach discloses calculating the index (See citations above), Kovach does not disclose the remaining elements of claim 4.
Janert discloses wherein the generating the movement data includes recognizing an obstacle present in the area and generating the movement data including a presence of the obstacle (See paragraphs 60 and 65–66, wherein movement monitoring includes identifying obstacles, warehouse topography, congested areas, traffic jams, and worker impediments), and
the calculating the index includes calculating the index based on the presence of the obstacle (See paragraphs 60 and 65–66, in view of paragraph 19, wherein worker productivity scores are generated in the context of identifying obstacles warehouse topography, congested areas, traffic jams, and worker impediments).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Janert would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5, 15, and 20: Kovach does not disclose the elements of claim 5.
Janert discloses wherein the work data is data that is input by the worker at a conveyance start time and a conveyance end time of an article in a portable terminal carried by the worker (See paragraph 27, wherein the worker uses a mobile device to input retrieval and drop off times, and wherein RFID proximity monitoring is further disclosed; see also paragraph 67).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Janert would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623