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 Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed2/3/2026. Claims 1, 9 and 16-17 were amended. Claim 18 is Cancelled. Claims 19-21 are new. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to claims 1-17 and 19-21 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “provide technical improvement in computer science - as indicated at paragraphs [0026] - [0027] - and for this reason alone the 35 USC 101 rejection should be withdraw. [0026] There may be provided a computer based method for executing a task of conveying a group of items (GOI) to a set of targets. The computer based method is a distributed method that involves performing multiple bidding iterations between multiple computerized systems, until converging. When converged-an allocation of items of the GOI between at least some of the multiple computerized system is obtained. During the multiple bidding iterations one of the computerized systems acts as a task agent and other computerized systems may act as resource- skill agents (RSAs). The task agent may be required to perform more computations that a RSA, but in any case the computations are relatively simple and do not require extensive computational resources-which may enable even a computerized system with relatively limited computational and memory resources to act as a task agent. RSAs may allocate even fewer computational and memory resources to the multiple bidding iterations-and may be even easier to implement. The multiple bidding iterations also involve an exchange of messages (such as bidding messages or task agent messages with requested contributions of the RSAs)-and these messages may be very compact (for example-have a size that does not exceed 150, 200, 250 bytes)-which also dramatically reduces the memory resources used for storing such messages, reduces communication resources required to convey such messages, can reduces the cost associated with re-transmission of missed messages, and allows the perform the bidding iteration under severe bandwidth constraints. The task agent message informing the GOI-related task skills is also compact. [0027]The simplicity of the multiple bidding iterations enables to execute the bidding process in real time-for example execute each bidding iteration in less than a second, less than 5 seconds, less than 10 seconds, less than a minute, and the like. [0028]The bidding process does not evaluate all possible allocations of computerized systems to conveying any of the items-and may utilize a local optimization process-which dramatically shortens the bidding process and provides significant savings in computational and memory resources. Furthermore - the independent claims include a CONDITIONAL step of conveying, by the computerized system, at least one item towards at least one target of the set of target when the computerized system is allocated, during the multiple bidding iterations, to convey the at least one item towards the at least one target. The inclusion of such a selective step should withdraw the 35 USC101 rejection of the independent claims - according to example 40 of the Subject matter Eligibility examples: Abstract idea - Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data. See also example 37 of the Subject matter Eligibility examples: Abstract idea - Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface2 Furthermore - the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity as alleged by the Examiner. The claims specifically recite technical elements involving computerized systems with specific computational architectures. As described in the specification, "a computerized system is a system that includes computational resources and memory resources and is configured to execute instructions" where "computational resources may include one or more processing circuits" that "may be implemented as a central processing unit (CPU), and/or one or more other integrated circuits such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0023]. The claims address the technical problem of efficiently allocating computational tasks among heterogeneous computing systems with different resource capabilities. The specification supports (and the independent claims were amended to include) the computerized system is selected out of multiple computerized systems based on an availability of resources of the computerized system, wherein the computerized system allocates more resources to execute the method than any RSA allocates for participating in the iterative bidding; wherein the resources are at least one of memory resources or computational resources This establishes a technical architecture where resource-constrained distributed systems coordinate through iterative bidding protocols rather than organizing human activity. Furthermore - each one of the independent claims also provides a physical act of conveying, by the computerized system, at least one item towards at least one target of the set of target when the computerized system is allocated, during the multiple bidding iterations, to convey the at least one item towards the at least one target -which also indicates that the subject matter of the independent claims are not an abstract idea.”, (see remarks , pg. 7-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for executing tasks for delivery of group of items, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as the additional elements presented collect/associate/transmit data to communicate bidding iterations which can be performed by human interaction in form of an individual collecting data, and with respect to the conditional statement mentioned in the response, an individual can determine when a certain threshold is satisfied they can decide to perform the action required in the limitations. The computing elements such as “computer, memory resources, computational resources and computerized system of claim 1; vehicle, memory resources, computational resources, computerized system of claim 16; computer readable medium, computerized system, memory resources, computational resources of claim 17” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "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). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to claims 1-17 and 19-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In this instant case,
In regards to Claim 20, the claim recites the limitation "the computerized agent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for executing tasks for delivery of group of items.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 16-17 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “method for executing a task of conveying a group of items (GOI) to a set of targets, the method comprises: receiving, (i) a request to execute the task, (ii) GOI-related task skills required for conveying the group of items, and (iii) one or more parameters of a task utility function; wherein based on availability of resources, wherein system allocates more resources to execute the method than any RSA allocates for participating in the iterative bidding; wherein the resources; associating, by a task agent hosted by the resource- skill agents (RSAs) to each GOI-related task skill; wherein the RSAs are heterogenous; informing the RSAs about the GOI-related task skills; participating, by the task agent, in multiple bidding iterations until reaching a convergence condition; wherein the bidding iterations explore only a fraction of all possible task allocations; and conveying, at least one item towards at least one target of the set of target allocated, during the multiple bidding iterations, to convey the at least one item towards the at least one target; wherein a participating in a bidding iteration of the multiple bidding iteration comprises: (a) receiving bidding messages from the RSAs, wherein the bidding messages provide information about (i) suggested contributions of the RSAs to an execution of the task, and (ii) interruption penalties for the RSAs to stop other tasks currently executed by the RSAs; (b) determining, by the task agent, based on the bidding messages and the one or more parameters of the task utility function, requested contributions of the RSAs to the execution of the task; wherein at least some of the suggested contributions are calculated by the RSAs in response to previously requested contributions of the RSAs to the execution of the task; and (c) sending, to the RSAs, the requested contributions of the RSAs to the execution of the task” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (computer, memory resources, computational resources and computerized system of claim 1; vehicle, memory resources, computational resources, computerized system of claim 16; computer readable medium, computerized system, memory resources, computational resources of claim 17) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-17 and 19-21 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (computer, memory resources, computational resources and computerized system of claim 1; vehicle, memory resources, computational resources, computerized system of claim 16; computer readable medium, computerized system, memory resources, computational resources of claim 17). The computer, memory resources, computational resources and computerized system of claim 1; vehicle, memory resources, computational resources, computerized system of claim 16; computer readable medium, computerized system, memory resources, computational resources of claim 17, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 19-21 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the computerized system of claim 10-12, 14, 19 and 21; computerized agent in claim 20; optimization process in claims 5; bytes in claim 8; Fisher market clearing process in claim 9; vehicle in claim 10, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628