DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 1 August 2025.
Claims 1 – 8 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 limitations 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: “an acquisition unit,” “a calculation unit,” “an alert notification unit,” “a generation unit,” and “a simulator” in claim 1. Claim 3 recites “an output unit,” “a selection reception unit,” “a determination unit.” Claim 6 recites “an accelerable work notification unit.” Claims 2, 4, and 5 inherit the interpretation 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.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite acquiring completion information of each work process throughout a warehouse; comparing the acquired completion information with a work process in a previously generated work plan and calculating a progress status of the work process; notifying an alert if the progress status of the work process is a threshold or less based on the calculation result; generating a recovery plan in which a worker and/or a work content are/is changed, each time the alert is notified; and simulating the generated recovery plan and calculating the work efficiency of the entire work on the day based on the recovery plan. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system, the method, and the computer readable storage medium are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of work planning and task assignment, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are acquiring completion information of each work process throughout a warehouse; comparing the acquired completion information with a work process in a previously generated work plan and calculating a progress status of the work process; notifying an alert if the progress status of the work process is a threshold or less based on the calculation result; generating a recovery plan in which a worker and/or a work content are/is changed, each time the alert is notified; and simulating the generated recovery plan and calculating the work efficiency of the entire work on the day based on the recovery plan.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to various units, simulator, computer, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: various units, simulator, computer, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of outputting plans and selecting, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0204752 (hereinafter, Rorro).
Regarding claim 1, Rorro teaches a warehouse work management system that manages a work volume based on a worker and a shipping order in each process in a warehouse operation, comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires completion information of each work process throughout a warehouse (¶ 25, “The platform also includes reporting tools for providing real-time information about work progress with respect to the generated plans, such that work across the various teams can be better coordinated, and production staffing needs can be shifted when appropriate. At a high level, the platform has three main components: a data ingestion component that receives relevant data from warehouse management systems (WMS) and performance tracking systems used to generate the work plans,”);
a calculation unit that compares the acquired completion information with a work process in a previously generated work plan and calculates a progress status of the work process (¶ 25, “The platform also includes reporting tools for providing real-time information about work progress with respect to the generated plans”) (¶ 50, “As shown in the present example, the team overperformed during the first portion of the shift, then adjusted its performance (e.g., possibly as a result of a reallocation of resources prompted in one of the check & adjust periods 146a-b) such that its rate of performing work tasks was more closely aligned with its warehouse process plan.”);
an alert notification unit that notifies an alert if the progress status of the work process is a threshold or less based on the calculation result (¶ 84, “The resources allocated for each time period, for example, can be summarized based on the staffing inputs provided for each zone-period. If the “Total Staff Available” is less than the allocated staffing, for example, a visual notification (e.g., a highlight) can be provided, which indicates that resources should be reallocated.”);
a generation unit that generates a recovery plan in which a worker and/or a work content are/is changed, each time the alert is notified (¶ 46, “If the output is not acceptable, for example, the operations manager can again use the work task input interface 182 to adjust the work plan (e.g., by selecting different tasks, resequencing the tasks, and/or assigning different resources to the tasks)”); and
a simulator that simulates the generated recovery plan and calculates the work efficiency of the entire work on the day based on the recovery plan (¶ 46, “By experimenting with various different task, sequence, and resource scenarios, for example, operations managers can efficiently generate and refine feasible work plans for their respective teams”) (¶ 47, “At 374, the warehouse coordination system 210 receives and stores the simulated warehouse process plan that specifies the tasks to be performed over the shift.”).
Regarding claim 2, Rorro teaches the warehouse work management system according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates a plurality of the recovery plans, and the simulator simulates a plurality of the recovery plans and calculates the work efficiency of the entire work on the day based on each of the recovery plans (¶ 50, “At 382, the performance monitoring user interface is presented by the client device 302 (e.g., similar to any of the computing devices 122a-d, shown in FIG. 1A). In general, performance monitoring user interfaces can include various numeric and/or graphical indications of actual work progress for a team during a shift, relative to predicted work progress for the team. In the present example, the performance monitoring user interface 190 includes a predicted work progress indicator 192 and an actual work progress indicator 194”) (¶ 50, “By aligning the actual production of teams to their respective production plans, for example, process bottlenecks and physical congestion can be reduced in the warehouse environment 100, improving overall efficiency across the various teams 120a-d.”) (¶ 53, “the performance monitoring interfaces 490 can be used to compare real-time work progress for various warehouse processes to simulated work plans. Real-time work progress, for example, can be determined based on real-time data 474 (e.g., similar to the real-time data 174, shown in FIG. 1A).”).
Regarding claim 3, Rorro teaches the warehouse work management system according to claim 2, further comprising: an output unit that simultaneously outputs the plurality of the recovery plans simulated; a selection reception unit that receives selection for a plurality of the recovery plans output; and a determination unit that determines the recovery plan received by selection as the work plan after selection on the day (¶ 46, “At 368, the warehouse coordination system 210 transmits an output of the simulation of the tasks to be performed over the shift for the warehouse process, and at 370, the client device 302 presents the simulated output. Referring to FIG. 1A, for example, the plan creation interface 180 can include a simulation output interface 186 through which the operations manager can review the output of the simulation of the tasks (e.g., predicted throughput of a team over a shift when performing the warehouse process according to the specified plan). If the output is not acceptable, for example, the operations manager can again use the work task input interface 182 to adjust the work plan (e.g., by selecting different tasks, resequencing the tasks, and/or assigning different resources to the tasks), and can provide a command to run a simulation of the adjusted work plan. By experimenting with various different task, sequence, and resource scenarios, for example, operations managers can efficiently generate and refine feasible work plans for their respective teams. When the output is determined by the operations manager as being acceptable, for example, the operations manager can confirm and submit the work plan for his or her team for possible inclusion in an overall plan for a shift. In the present example, at 372 the work plan is confirmed and submitted by the operations manager at 372, who provides a command to confirm and submit the work plan by selecting the submission control 188 of the simulation output interface 186.”) (¶ 71, “At 560, generated warehouse process plans can be analyzed to determine whether the combination of plans achieves appropriate workflow in a warehouse environment. Referring to FIG. 1B, for example, during pre-shift period 132e, the work plans generated during pre-shift periods 132a-d can be reviewed and analyzed in combination, to determine whether the overall workflow throughout the warehouse environment 100, according to the work plans, achieves operational goals. Operational goals, for example, may include overall throughput through a warehouse environment (e.g., a number of processed containers per shift across multiple teams), prioritized production by one or more teams (e.g., a number of containers received, a number of containers shipped, etc.), time-based goals (e.g., transporting containers of goods by a specified date), safety-based goals, or other suitable goals.”).
Regarding claim 4, Rorro teaches the warehouse work management system according to claim 3, wherein the output unit outputs a plurality of the recovery plans simulated, in optimal order of work efficiencies of the entire work on the day (¶ 42, “the plan creation user interface 180 can provide suggested sequencing and/or resource application values such that the work plan is optimized according to the criteria.”) (¶ 56, “The plan creation user interfaces, for example, can facilitate creating a sequence for work to be performed during a shift, applying labor assumptions and staffing to that work, simulating the performance of the work according to the created sequence, iteratively applying modifications to a work plan, and then uploading the work plan. The plan creation user interfaces can include a variety of features to help guide a user through a planning process, for example, including providing guidance on the historical performance of a particular team for which work is being planned, current warehousing loads, information from other teams that impact the particular team for which work is being planned, and alerts to identify deficiencies or other problems with a proposed plan.”).
Regarding claim 5, Rorro teaches the warehouse work management system according to claim 3, wherein the output unit outputs all recovery plans that complete a work process of the entire warehouse on the day among a plurality of the recovery plans simulated (¶ 46, “the work plan is confirmed and submitted by the operations manager at 372, who provides a command to confirm and submit the work plan by selecting the submission control 188 of the simulation output interface 186.”) (¶ 47, “the warehouse coordination system 210 receives and stores the simulated warehouse process plan that specifies the tasks to be performed over the shift.”) (¶ 52, “output resulting from simulation of planned work tasks for the receiving team 120a can be used as input for creating a work plan for the storage and retrieval team 120b, output resulting from simulation of planned work tasks for the storage and retrieval team 120b can be used as input for creating a work plan for the sortation team 120c, and output resulting from simulation of planned work tasks for the sortation team 120c can be used as input for creating a work plan for the shipping team 120d.”).
Regarding claim 6, Rorro teaches the warehouse work management system according to claim 3, further comprising an accelerable work notification unit notifies that the work content scheduled after the following day can be moved forward if the work completion time of the recovery plan received by selection is scheduled to be earlier than an ordinarily set work completion time on the day (¶ 94, “the total volume selected for this workstation is 0 as there is no volume for the assigned days. The volume can be verified based on the “Selected” column, for example, which provides total volume selected based on the sequence. Therefore, in the present example, Pick Sequence 2 should not be selected for CR03 for the shift. In addition, the total number of available locations for the workstations based on the size(s) can be provided under the “Open Location” column, for example.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, claims 7 and 8 are similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 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, 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights