DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 14-28 are pending in this application. Claims 1-13 were canceled by preliminary amendment and claims 14-28 are new.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: applicant attempts to define and exemplify the nonstandard term “hole percent” in P12/L24-31. The definition recites, “The hole percent is calculated as the amount of free space divided by the number of cells times 100.” “Free space” in a storage system would conventionally constitute the total available storage space, including all space in the interior of the grid structure. However, the example immediately following the definition is inconsistent with the definition. It appears from the example that only the percentage of free space on the top level of the grid structure is being calculated. In other words, the “holes” in question are not holes in the interior of the space as the word “hole” seems to suggest; according to the example, applicant’s “hole percent” calculation is solely concerned with the free space for vehicles on the rail system atop the grid, whose movement could be partially or completely blocked by containers if the stacks are at their maximum allowed height, but not otherwise. As currently drafted, the specification provides insufficient antecedent basis for the term “hole percent” because doubt arises whether the definition or the example should be followed. See associated claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted above in an objection to the specification, applicant’s definition of the nonstandard term “hole percent” is self-contradictory and does not provide satisfactory written support for claim 14, which recites the term. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to apply applicant’s term as part of the method of claim 14. Claims 15-23 and 28 inherit the lack of support of claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the unsatisfactory definition of the nonstandard term “hole support” cited in rejections and objections above renders the claim indefinite as the metes and bounds of the invention are called into question by applicant’s failure to consistently define and exemplify the term. Claims 15-23 and 28 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 14. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider applicant’s “hole percent” to follow the implicit definition suggested by its example of P12/L26-31, namely that hole percent is the percentage of grid space on the top rail level of applicant’s ASRS which is not blocked by containers.
Regarding claim 24, the claim text is mangled and truncated to the point of incomprehensibility after line 7. Both supplied versions of the claims suffer from this problem. We cannot examine claim 24 on the merits in this office action because its metes and bounds are so profoundly indefinite. As Claims 25-27 depend from claim 24 and incorporate its text by reference they also cannot be examined on the merits in this office action. We regard it as at least plausible that system claim 24 is meant to parallel method claim 14 in all its particulars (in which case it might be considered allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 14), but we cannot establish this speculation with sufficient certainty to proceed with its examination.
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 14-23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more because the additional elements fail to both integrate into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all non-abstract elements are either deemed insignificant extra-solution activity or else are part of the well-understood technological context or field of use of the invention. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a) a dense-grid storage system of a standard type that merely provides context for the method and a basis for data gathering, b) container-handling vehicles of a dense grid storage system that are not actually active in the claims but likewise are merely the basis for data gathering, and c) a general-purpose computer that likewise is not claimed to have any concrete or novel features and is only material in that the claimed method is software method.
The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below. Independent claim 14 is representative of all rejected claims and will be considered as an exemplar for these claims.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry, the method for optimizing time of claim 14 is ostensibly directed to an eligible category of subject matter, i.e. an industrial method for performing calculations associated with a dense-grid storage system. Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and mathematical abstraction.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. In this case, the invention is primarily concerned with “mental processes” and also “mathematical concepts”.
Analysis of the limitations of claim 14 follows:
A method for optimizing time used for clearing up after digging for containers in a grid of an automated storage and retrieval system;The optimization of time per se is considered a mental process. The activity of “digging” for containers and of “clearing up” afterwards might perhaps be construed as being a real process involving real machines and structures, but in the instant application the activity does not in fact take place; rather calculations and data gathering steps are performed in order to prepare for the activity. Thus the activity itself is merely context for applicant’s time optimization method. In other words this is a “particular technological context or field of use”, per MPEP § 2106.04(d) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
the grid comprising a grid-based rail system being part of a framework structure, the rail system divided into a plurality of cells, the framework structure comprising upright members that define storage columns for storing containers within the framework structureAgain, this is “particular technological context or field of use.”
a central computer system with an Assigner program for assigning tasks to container handling vehiclesAgain, this is “particular technological context or field of use.”
wherein the Assigner program is configured to calculate the method comprising: the central computer system calculates a hole percent of the automated storage and retrieval systemThis simple calculation is a mathematical abstraction per applicant’s specification P12/L24-31.
the central computer system provides information regarding a density of container handling vehicles on the grid, the central computer system provides information regarding a working space, using at least one of the hole percent, the density of container handling vehicles on the grid, or the working space for calculating in an assigner part of the central computer system how much resources should be used for cleaning up after digging for containers in a storage and retrieval unit.The provision of information falls under the heading of “mere data gathering” and has been established to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g). We note that the concrete and grounded activity of cleaning up or clearing up after digging for containers is not actually performed in this claim, but rather the claimed calculations and data gathering are performed in order to determine information regarding a future activity.
All these limitations that disclose inventive elements disclose methods within the scope of unassisted human capabilities, while the others provide technological context. No hardware or other inventive structures appears in these claims apart from the technological-context features of the storage system, the storage system vehicles. The one device that actually operates in the claim is a general purpose computer. To the extent any computer system is implied by the limitations, per MPEP § 2106.05(a) the invention does not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” nor does it improve “any other technology or technical field.“ In particular, the courts have indicated that the mere automation of manual processes does not constitute an improvement in computer functionality (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I), second paragraph iii).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a dense-grid-structure ASRS and its robotic devices that “dig” for containers as part of storage and retrieval tasks and clear up afterwards, structures and activities well known to the art. If this activity (digging and clearing up) itself constituted applicant’s invention, it would indeed be integrated into a practical application, but applicant’s invention, rather, is an abstract method of time optimization that occurs in the context of preparing for the claimed activities without actually performing the activities themselves. 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 or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
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, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The first key limitation claiming an “additional element”, namely, “a grid of an automated storage and retrieval system, the grid comprising a grid-based rail system being part of a framework structure, the rail system divided into a plurality of cells, the framework structure comprising upright members that define storage columns for storing containers within the framework structure” plainly describes a standard ASRS of decades-long standing in the art, and moreover, per the above analysis, this is mere technological context for the invention and is not inventive itself. We consider that applicant’s invention as currently claimed consists in toto of data gathering and mathematical calculation.
Dependent claims 15-23 and 28 have been fully considered as well. The dependent claims add no inventive material substantially different from the analysis associated with claim 1; rather, they merely elaborate the method of independent claim 14 with more details, all of which constitute either mental process or mathematical abstraction. There is no indication that the combinations of elements in these claims improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
We note as an aside that claims 24-27 are not rejected in this office action under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the text of independent claim 24 is mangled beyond interpretation. However, we consider it likely that if independent claim 24 had been presented in its intended form that claims 24-27 would also have been rejected on similar grounds to claim 14. On amendment of these claims to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), care should be taken to likewise overcome potential rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 15-23 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claim 14, applicant’s method step of calculating “hole percent” for an ASRS was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. While European and Norwegian examiners have considered this inventive concept to be so simple as to be inherently obvious, our rationale rules for obviousness are stricter than the European standard. We consider the concept sufficiently inventive as to require explicit teaching from a reference for the independent claim to be demonstrated as obvious. Dependent claims 15-23 and 28 inherit the potential allowability of independent claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0097969 and WO 2021236164 were cited as anticipatory in the Norwegian search report for a related application, while US 2021/0237971 and WO 2021219742 were similarly cited in the European search report as anticipatory. These references, while bearing strongly on the instant application, fail to disclose or teach all applicant’s inventive features, specifically including failing to teach applicant’s “hole percent”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights