DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 12/29/2025 filling of Application 18/814,939.
Claims 3, 9-20 have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 21 are now presented.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that even if the subject matters as recited in claim 1 is considered as an abstract idea, the abstract idea of claim 1 is integrated into a practical application because claim 1 recites additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is patent eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer elements (a management device for yarn spindle production being configured to execute the abstract idea) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the obtaining of production data and obtaining a distance amounts to receiving or retrieving information e.g., mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the generic computer in combination with the obtaining data does not add anything further than looking at the elements individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: the management device; the yarn spindle warehouse management apparatus in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case Claims 1-8 are directed toward a yarn spindle warehouse management method. Claims 9-14 are directed toward a yarn spindle warehouse management device. Claims 15-20 are directed toward a yarn spindle warehouse management computer program product. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of yarn spindle warehouse management which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A yarn spindle warehouse management method, applied to a warehouse management system, the warehouse management system comprising, a first stacker and a second stacker and the method comprises:
sending, a yarn spindle warehousing request, first production data and first historical sales data of a first type of yarn spindles to the yarn spindle warehouse management apparatus; wherein the yarn spindle warehousing request comprises at least one of a type, a batch number or a quantity of the first type of yarn spindles, the first production data comprises at least one of a production quantity, production efficiency or a production duration of the first type of yarn spindles, and the first historical sales data comprises at least one of sales revenue, a sales quantity or a sales channel of the first type of yarn spindles;
in response to reception of the yarn spindle warehousing request, the first production data and the first historical sales data, inputting, by the yarn spindle warehouse management apparatus, the first production data and the first historical sales data into a prediction model, to obtain a first estimated delivery time of the first type of yarn spindles output by the prediction model; wherein the prediction model is trained by the yarn spindle warehouse management apparatus by:
inputting the second production data and the second historical sales data into a preset model, to obtain a sales forecast value of the first type of yarn spindles within a second time period; wherein the first time period is earlier than the second time period;
constructing a loss function based on the sales forecast value within the second time period and a sales true value within the second time period; and
training, based on the loss function, the preset model, to obtain the prediction model;
allocating, a first target storage location for the first type of yarn spindles, based on the first estimated delivery time and storage status information of each storage location in a stereoscopic warehouse, comprising:
determining, according to the first historical sales data, estimated sales volume of the first type of yarn spindles within a first preset time period;
determining a delivery probability of the first type of yarn spindles based on the estimated sales volume and the first production data, wherein the delivery probability is positively correlated with the production quantity of the first type of yarn spindles and the estimated sales volume of the first type of yarn spindles within the first preset time period;
determining an idle storage location corresponding to a distance matching with the delivery probability as the first target storage location, wherein the delivery probability is negatively correlated with the distance matching with the delivery probability;
sending, a warehousing task carrying a position of the first target storage location to the first stacker; and
executing, by the first stacker, the warehousing task based on the position of the first target storage location, to store the first type of yarn spindles to the first target storage location.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of sending a yarn spindle warehousing request, first production data and first historical sales data of a first type of yarn spindles; inputting the second production data and the second historical sales data into a preset model, to obtain a sales forecast value of the first type of yarn spindles within a second time period; wherein the first time period is earlier than the second time period; constructing a loss function based on the sales forecast value within the second time period and a sales true value within the second time period; and training, based on the loss function, the preset model, to obtain the prediction model; allocating, a first target storage location for the first type of yarn spindles, based on the first estimated delivery time and storage status information of each storage location in a stereoscopic warehouse, comprising: determining, according to the first historical sales data, estimated sales volume of the first type of yarn spindles within a first preset time period; determining a delivery probability of the first type of yarn spindles based on the estimated sales volume and the first production data, wherein the delivery probability is positively correlated with the production quantity of the first type of yarn spindles and the estimated sales volume of the first type of yarn spindles within the first preset time period; determining an idle storage location corresponding to a distance matching with the delivery probability as the first target storage location, wherein the delivery probability is negatively correlated with the distance matching with the delivery probability; sending, a warehousing task carrying a position of the first target storage location to the first stacker; and executing, by the first stacker, the warehousing task based on the position of the first target storage location, to store the first type of yarn spindles to the first target storage location are directed to yarn spindle production and inventory management which sales activities or behaviors, and a fundamental business practice and therefore abstract.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the limitations of inputting the second production data and the second historical sales data into a preset model, to obtain a sales forecast value of the first type of yarn spindles within a second time period; wherein the first time period is earlier than the second time period; constructing a loss function based on the sales forecast value within the second time period and a sales true value within the second time period; and training, based on the loss function, the preset model, to obtain the prediction model; allocating, a first target storage location for the first type of yarn spindles, based on the first estimated delivery time and storage status information of each storage location in a stereoscopic warehouse, comprising: determining, according to the first historical sales data, estimated sales volume of the first type of yarn spindles within a first preset time period; determining a delivery probability of the first type of yarn spindles based on the estimated sales volume and the first production data, wherein the delivery probability is positively correlated with the production quantity of the first type of yarn spindles and the estimated sales volume of the first type of yarn spindles within the first preset time period; determining an idle storage location corresponding to a distance matching with the delivery probability as the first target storage location, wherein the delivery probability is negatively correlated with the distance matching with the delivery probability under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A yarn spindle warehouse management method, applied to a warehouse management system, the warehouse management system comprising a yarn spindle warehouse management apparatus, a management device for yarn spindle production,
obtaining a second production data and a second historical sales data of the first type of yarn spindles within a first time period; wherein the second production data comprises at least one of a production quantity, production efficiency or a production duration of the first type of yarn spindles within the first time period, and the second historical sales data comprises at least one of sales revenue, a sales quantity or a sales channel of the first type of yarn spindles within the first time period;
obtaining a distance from each idle storage location in the stereoscopic warehouse to a delivery port of the stereoscopic warehouse; and
.
However, the computer elements (a management device for yarn spindle production being configured to execute the abstract idea) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the obtaining of production data and obtaining a distance amounts to receiving or retrieving information e.g., mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the generic computer in combination with the obtaining data does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the obtaining of data is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."” Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) also states that creating output data has been identified as conventional (see Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017)).
Further Claims 2-8 further limit the abstract ideas already rejected in claim fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-8 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a system or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, Claims 9-20 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 1-8.
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights