DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to claims on 05/21/2026. Claims 1-3, and 5-7 are pending. The effective filing date is 02/07/2024.
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 .
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 1-3 are directed to a system, a statutory category. Claims 5-7 are directed to a method, a statutory category. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The independent claims 1 and 5 recite:
A digital transport system disposed on a server and applied to a warehouse environment, the warehouse environment having a plurality of storage areas, each storage area providing a plurality of senders and a plurality of recipients to store goods; the server being configured to execute the following operations (preamble/technical environment):
connecting a warehouse management system of each of the senders and each of the recipients through an application interface (connecting a sender and recipient to communicate information is a method of collecting information, which can be grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
allowing each sender and recipient to set up a direct transport according to a transport request of goods, wherein the direct transport indicates that the sender or recipient is able to directly accept the goods without the need to inspect the goods before receiving or returning them (setting information is being used to direct transportation based on the requests received, which is a method of organizing a business, which is grouped under commercial interactions by managing sales activities, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
receiving a request task from the warehouse management system of the sender through the application interface, wherein the request task comprises a task information and one corresponding recipient (receiving is used to receive information, and specific tasks that need to be accomplished by the warehouse, this can be considered both a mental process, as it collects information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) and a commercial interaction that helps manage the sending and receiving of items to a warehouse, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B));
determining whether the transport request corresponding to the request task is set as the direct transport (making a determination is an analysis of information, and is grouped as a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
generating a simplified signal when it is determined that the transport request corresponding to the request task is the direct transport (making a determination is an analysis of information, and is grouped as a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
transmitting, according to the simplified signal, the task information of the request task and an integrated report command to the warehouse management system of the recipient through the application interface, to cause the warehouse management system of the recipient automatically completing a goods transport report of the request task in the warehouse management system according to the integrated report command, without relying on manpower participation, wherein the integrated report command is used to conduct the goods transport report which includes two and/or a combination of operations selected from vehicle scheduling, goods picking, packaging, loading, dispatching, checking on delivery, and shelving (reporting of information by transmitting information is a way to display the information that has been made in the determination step, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); This is the communication of administrative/reporting information to another business system).
Therefore, Claim 1, and similarly claim 5, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2- The additional elements include a digital transport system, a
server, a warehouse environment, storage areas, and application interface.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea. Under MPEP
2106.05(f)(2) when the claim invoked computer, such as the digital transport system,
server and application interface, when they are used to perform the business action and
mental process of making decision about shipments and sending and receiving
information. The fact the system is within a warehouse environment and storage means
showcases the environment that the system and method are implemented in, but under
MPEP 2106.05(h), there must be more than just linking the abstract idea to a specific
environment, which in this case is using the sending and receiving within a warehouse environment, and does not provide more than just a background information about the
type of environment to use the claim within. Therefore, claim 1, and similarly claim 5, do
not pass Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B- The independent claim 1, and similarly claim 5, does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the elements that are included do not include specificity beyond
naming an environment, and general-purpose computer named as a server and
interface. Therefore, claim 1, and similarly claim 5, fails Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-3, and 6-7- add additional determination steps, and reporting
steps which continue to be collecting and analyzing data as a mental process, and fails
to provide additional elements beyond modules that have no physical aspect, and
therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide
significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101- The claims do not recite any technical structure, format, protocol, data schema, encoding, or unconventional processing associated with the simplified signal. Rather, the simplified signal is recited only functionally as being generated when a transport request is determined to be direct transport. Thus, the signal merely represents the result of applying a business/logistics rule and does not constitute an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
The simplified signal in the claim recites that the warehouse management system automatically completes a goods transport report according to the integrated report command. The claim language does not require controlling warehouse machinery or physically performing picking, packaging, loading, dispatching, checking on delivery, or shelving. Those operations are recited as operations included in the goods transport report, not as physical acts controlled or performed by the claimed system.
Accordingly, the additional computer elements, including the server, application interface, warehouse management system, simplified signal, and integrated report command, merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer functionality. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Applicant’s claim amendments does not overcome the § 101 rejection because:
The “simplified signal” is claimed only as a functional data/result indicator, not as a specific technological improvement.
The claims do not recite a new signal structure or unconventional computer operation.
The claims recite automatic completion of a report, not automatic control of physical warehouse operations.
The alleged physical acts are not commensurate with the claim scope.
The claim remains directed to organizing and automating a warehouse transport/reporting workflow using generic computer components.
Claims Limitations not found in Prior Art
The claim limitations when found in combination with each other are not found in the prior art:
“the direct transport indicates that the sender or recipient is able to directly accept the goods without the need to inspect the goods before receiving or returning them”
“generating a simplified signal when it is determined that the transport request corresponding to the request task”
“transmitting…the task information…without relying on manpower participation..”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0308098 A1 Lert et al. teaches management of storage (Abstract).
US 2018/0311822 A1 Kaminka et al. teaches robot retrieval from warehouse (Abstract).
US 2006/0206423 A1 Sternard et al. teaches management of warehouse (Abstract).
US 2005/0159968 A1 Cozzolino teaches management of warehouse (Abstract).
US 2014/0136255 A1 Grabovski et al. teaches assignment of tasks to people (Abstract), but fails to each the element of “without relying on manpower participation”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights