DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims on 07/12/2024. Claims 1-8 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Connection module in Para. 2 of Claim 1.
Setting module in Para. 2 of Claim 1.
Receiving module in Para. 3 of Claim 1.
Determining module in Para. 4 of Claim 1.
Reporting module in Para. 5 of Claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The modules are not given a specific structure in the specification, as there are no details to whether these modules are processors, circuits or other similar electronic component. The claims should be amended to remove the module language which indicates the use of 112(f).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 1-4 are directed to a system, which is a statutory category. Claims 5-8 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category. Claims 1-8 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The independent claim 1, and similarly claim 5, recites:
A digital transport system disposed on a server and applied to a warehouse environment having a plurality of storage areas, each storage area providing goods storage for a plurality of goods senders and recipients (additional element analyzed in Step 2A, Prong 2);
the digital transport system comprising:
a connection module 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));
a setting module coupled with the connection module, the setting module allowing each sender and recipient to set up a direct transport according to a transport request of goods on the setting module (a setting module 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));
a receiving module coupled with the connection module, the receiving module 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 (the receiving module 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));
a determining module coupled with the setting module and the receiving module, the determining module determining if 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));
when the determining module determines that the transport request corresponding to the request task is set as the direct transport, the determining module generates a simplified signal (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)); and
a reporting module coupled with the determining module, the reporting module receiving the simplified signal from the determining module, and sending the task information of the request task and an integrated report command to the warehouse management system of the recipient through the application interface, 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 (reporting of 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)). 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 2-4, and 6-8, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0136255 A1 Grabovski et al. (hereinafter Grabovski).
Regarding claim 1, Grabovski teaches a digital transport system disposed on a server and applied to a warehouse environment having a plurality of storage areas, each storage area providing goods storage for a plurality of goods senders and recipients (Grabovski Abstract, management of warehouse; [0044] the system being on a computer network); the digital transport system comprising:
a connection module connecting a warehouse management system of each of the senders and each of the recipients through an application interface (Grabovski [0062-0063] task manager includes a task source interface, including scheduling agent that manages assignments);
a setting module coupled with the connection module, the setting module allowing each sender and recipient to set up a direct transport according to a transport request of goods on the setting module (Grabovski [0063] the scheduling agent matches the incoming tasks and assign to a worker);
a receiving module coupled with the connection module, the receiving module 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 (Grabovski [0066-0067] the task request includes information about the task itself, and helps to connect);
a determining module coupled with the setting module and the receiving module, the determining module determining if the transport request corresponding to the request task is set as the direct transport (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route);
when the determining module determines that the transport request corresponding to the request task is set as the direct transport, the determining module generates a simplified signal (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route); and
a reporting module coupled with the determining module, the reporting module receiving the simplified signal from the determining module (Grabovski [0079] the task performer interface is able to receive tasks from the scheduling agent, and therefore the scheduling agent sends the task information, with commands on the task to complete, within the warehouse management system; Fig. 2), and
sending the task information of the request task and an integrated report command to the warehouse management system of the recipient through the application interface, 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 (Grabovski [0079] the task performer interface is able to receive tasks from the scheduling agent, and therefore the scheduling agent sends the task information, with commands on the task to complete, within the warehouse management system; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Grabovski teaches the digital transport system of claim 1, wherein when the request task is a purchase request, the recipient is allowed to establish a purchase order from an enterprise resource planning system (Grabovski [0036] an order is generated to create a task, and this can be an example of a purchase order);
the enterprise resource planning system sends the purchase order to an enterprise resource planning system of the sender (Grabovski [0038; Fig. 2, the task generator, is the request task, the task source interface is able to send the order to a planning system, or the scheduling agent, and then send out to perform);
the enterprise resource planning system of the sender establishes an outbound order based on the purchase order, and the sender transmits the outbound order to the warehouse management system of the sender (Grabovski [0038; Fig. 2, the task generator, is the request task, the task source interface is able to send the order to a planning system, or the scheduling agent, and then send out to perform).
Regarding claim 3, Grabovski teaches the digital transport system of claim 2, wherein the determining module determines if the warehouse management system of the recipient has set the transport request as the direct transport (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route); when the determining module determines that the warehouse management system of the recipient has set the transport request as the direct transport, the reporting module sends the task information of the request task and the integrated report command to the warehouse management system of the recipient through the application interface (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route, and send to the task performer interface).
Regarding claim 4, Grabovski teaches the digital transport system of claim 3, 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 (Grabovski [0028] picking tasks, including picking, restocking, unloading and tracking).
Regarding claim 5, Grabovski teaches a digital transport method using a digital transport system, the digital transport method applied to a warehouse environment having a plurality of storage areas, each storage area providing goods storage for a plurality of goods senders and recipients (Grabovski Abstract, management of warehouse; [0044] the system being on a computer network); the digital transport method comprising: a connection step: connecting a warehouse management system of each of the senders and each of the recipients through an application interface (Grabovski [0062-0063] task manager includes a task source interface, including scheduling agent that manages assignments): a transport setting step: each sender and recipient setting a transport request of goods as a direct transport on the warehouse management system (Grabovski [0063] the scheduling agent matches the incoming tasks and assign to a worker); a task determining step: the application interface receiving a request task from the warehouse management system of the sender, the application interface determining if the transport request corresponding to the request task is the direct transport (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route); when the application interface determines that the transport request corresponding to the request task is the direct transport, the application interface generates a simplified signal, wherein the request task comprises a task information and one corresponding recipient (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route); a simplified reporting step: the application interface sending the task information of the request task and an integrated report command to the warehouse management system of the recipient, 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 (Grabovski [0079] the task performer interface is able to receive tasks from the scheduling agent, and therefore the scheduling agent sends the task information, with commands on the task to complete, within the warehouse management system; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Grabovski teaches the digital transport method of claim 5, wherein when the request task is a purchase request, the recipient is allowed to establish a purchase order from an enterprise resource planning system (Grabovski [0036] an order is generated to create a task, and this can be an example of a purchase order); the enterprise resource planning system sends the purchase order to an enterprise resource planning system of the sender (Grabovski [0038; Fig. 2, the task generator, is the request task, the task source interface is able to send the order to a planning system, or the scheduling agent, and then send out to perform); the enterprise resource planning system of the sender establishes an outbound order based on the purchase order, and the sender transmits the outbound order to the warehouse management system of the sender (Grabovski [0038; Fig. 2, the task generator, is the request task, the task source interface is able to send the order to a planning system, or the scheduling agent, and then send out to perform).
Regarding claim 7, Grabovski teaches the digital transport method of claim 6, wherein in the simplified reporting step, according to the simplified signal, the application interface determines if the warehouse management system of the recipient has set the transport request as the direct transport (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route); when the application interface determines that the warehouse management system of the recipient has set the transport request as the direct transport, the application interface sends the task information of the request task and the integrated report command to the warehouse management system of the recipient (Grabovski [0068-0070] the scheduling agent uses an optimization engine that is able to determine the best route, and make a determination about the best route, and send to the task performer interface).
Regarding claim 8, Grabovski teaches the digital transport method of claim 7, 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 (Grabovski [0028] picking tasks, including picking, restocking, unloading and tracking).
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).
Conclusion
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