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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14. Claims 6, 9, 10 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 15-23 are added. In response, the claim interpretation of claim 12 under 35 USC 112(f) and the rejection of claims 2 and 8 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 16, Applicant asserts a human mind cannot practically perform calculations across a fleet of vehicles, at multiple buildings, using specific numerical parameters, while maintaining accuracy and consistency. Examiner notes, a plurality of vehicles and plurality of buildings, as claimed, is met by performing calculations for two vehicles and two buildings. Examiner asserts that one could practically perform the calculations. With respect to comments regarding certain methods of organizing human activity, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Determining assignment of vehicles for loading and coordinating between warehouses and transportation services is commercial interactions and represents business relations for companies performing logistics operations. Examiner upholds the assertions that the claims are directed to abstract ideas.
Applicant argues the claim is directed to computerized data processing and asserts the claim improves system functionality. It is noted that any claimed computer implementation is claimed broadly amounting to adding the words “apply it” with the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Applicant also asserts the claims reflect an improvement to technology or technical field. Specifically, at the bottom of page 20 Applicant points to calculations and other evaluations which are abstract as identified in the rejection as evidence the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2, prong 2. The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Here, the only additional elements are an apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the assertion that the there is a specific technical process that achieves a concrete technical results and the argument that the specific parameters impose meaningful limits... (pg 21), is not persuasive. These arguments are based on the output of the abstract data analysis that is claimed. In addition, the specific calculations are not specific technical processes, as argued on pg 21-22. The calculations are abstract steps and merely performed by a computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to Applicants arguments regarding Step 2B, Examiner reiterates: [t]he second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Here, Applicant is pointing to the abstract calculating, determining, etc., steps which are abstract. The only additional element is the computer/hardware processor and, as claimed, it merely performs the claimed analysis. The claims do not offer any improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment necessitate the withdrawal of interpretation under 35 USC 112f and rejection under 35 USC 112b.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the independent claims recite:
calculate, for each of a plurality of vehicles, a loading/unloading time at a plurality of buildings each including one or more loading/unloading working areas, the loading/unloading time being calculated by dividing a quantity of an allocated stock by predetermined efficiency of loading/unloading work;
determine an order so as to smooth a degree of congestion of each of the plurality of buildings, the degree of congestion being calculated using the loading/unloading time for each of a plurality of vehicles, the order being an order of going around a plurality of buildings;
extract one or more candidates from the plurality of vehicles on a basis of the order;
calculate an evaluation value for assignment to one or more target periods for each of the one or more candidates on a basis of at least one of: a date and time at which the vehicle enters an area in which the plurality of the buildings are located, a date and time at which the vehicle exits the area in which the plurality of the buildings are located, or a difference between the date and time at which the vehicle exits the area in which the plurality of buildings are located, and a date and time at which the vehicle is scheduled to exit the area in which the plurality of buildings are located; and assign one or more vehicles to each of the one or more target periods, the one or more vehicles being selected from the one or more candidates on a basis of the evaluation value
The claimed steps are mental processes. These steps include observations and evaluations that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper to assign vehicles to a target period. Further, the steps are certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to commercial interactions. The nominal recitation of an apparatus in claim 1; computer execution in claim 13 and computer program instruction execution in claim 14 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors in claim 1; computer execution by an information processing apparatus in claim 13 and computer program instruction execution in claim 14 merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional abstract ideas and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In dependent claim 2, the allocate…, calculate…, determine…, extract…, calculate…, and assign… steps are mental processes. These steps include observations and evaluations that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the steps are certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claim 3, the calculate… step is mental processes. This calculating step is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the calculate step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claims 4, 5 and 7, the determine step is mental processes. This determine step is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the determine step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claim 8, the extract… step is mental processes. This extract step amounts to selecting a candidate based on conditions and is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the extract step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claim 11, the determine…, and assign… steps are mental processes. These steps are evaluations that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the steps are certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors in claim 11 and the information processing apparatus including an order determination unit and an assignment unit in claim 12 merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 15 and 16 recite steps of counting vehicles which is an observation/evaluation under mental processes. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 17-19 recite transmitting assignment information to a driver which can practically be performed by pen and paper and is therefore mental processes. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 20-23 recite transmitting assignment information to an apparatus. Transmission of data between computers is an additional element that amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept under Step 2B, and mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the cited prior art, taken alone or in combination fails to explicitly recite the specific calculation of loading/unloading time being calculated by dividing the quantity of an allocated stock by predetermined efficiency of loading/unloading work . As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miao et al, “Truck Dock Assignment Problem with Operational Time Constraint within Crossdocks” – Truck dock assignment problem feasibility is affected by three factors: the arrival and departure time window of each truck, the operational time for cargo shipment among the docks, and the total capacity available to the crossdock. The objective is to find an optimal assignment of trucks that minimizes the operational cost of the cargo shipments and the total number of unfulfilled shipments at the same time. We combine the above two objectives into one term: the total cost, a sum of the total dock operational cost and the penalty cost for all the unfulfilled shipments.
Morris et al, US 2020/0273133 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRIORITIZING TRAILERS AT RECEIVING FACILITY - assigning a trailer from the plurality of trailers to be received by an available loading dock in response to data received by the control unit regarding a determined event requiring the retail goods in the trailer; and a plurality of sensors that receive and process information regarding the event and output the information as the data to the control unit, wherein the control unit includes an allocation engine that identifies a match between the trailer and the available loading dock and prioritizes the trailer over other trailers of the plurality of trailers for receipt by the available loading dock according to the determined event
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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights