DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are currently being examined.
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.
101 Analysis – Step I
Independent claim 1 recites a method for performing cross-dock operations, (i.e., a “process”). Therefore, claim1 falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of Process, Machine, Article of Manufacture, or Composition of Matter.
101 Analysis – Step 2A - Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are 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. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection based on “mental processes”.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for performing cross-dock operations comprising:
calculating a plurality of moving instructions based upon inbound manifest data;
dividing the plurality of moving instructions into a plurality of manual moving instructions and a plurality of automated moving instructions;
calculating a number of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) required for executing the plurality of automated moving instructions;
assigning a subset of the plurality of automated moving instructions to each AGV; and
performing the plurality of moving instructions.
101 Analysis – Step 2A- Prong II
The steps in the limitations set forth above comprise a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of each of the limitations in the mind of a person. The examiner submits that the foregoing limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human person. For example, “calculating a plurality of moving instructions based upon inbound manifest data” in the context of the claim could be performed in the mind of or by a person with experience or a background and skill in the art of cross-dock operations. Similarly, it would not be unusual to have a staff person with cross-dock operations experience be given the task of “dividing the plurality of moving instructions into a plurality of manual moving instructions and a plurality of automated moving instructions”. With respect to “calculating a number of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) required for executing the plurality of automated moving instructions”, it is conceivable that this task could be performed in the mind of or by a person familiar with automated fork trucks with instructions provided by a supervisor with cross-dock experience. With respect to “assigning a subset of the plurality of automated moving instructions to each AGV”, it is again conceivable that this task could be performed in the mind of or by a person familiar with automated fork trucks with instructions provided by a supervisor with cross-dock experience. Finally, “performing the plurality of moving instructions” could be performed in the mind of or by an experienced person that is familiar with cross-dock operations. In essence, if a process claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the steps in the mind of, or by a person, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more than the judicial exception”. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In that regard, it was demonstrated hereinabove that the process could be carried out in the mind of, or by, a person. The steps in the limitations set forth above are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of each of the limitations in the mind of or by a person. There is no structural element set forth in any of the claim 1 limitations that preclude the steps in the process from practically being performed in the mind of or by a person. Accordingly, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-14 do not include any elements or structure sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. These dependent claims include steps that include monitoring, reclassifying, assigning, verifying, identifying, and determining that could all be performed in the mind of or by a person familiar with cross-dock operations. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the lack of any element or structure to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application does not provide an inventive concept. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-14 are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101 and are rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Randazzo whose telephone number is 313-446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and between 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 August 4, 2025
Prosecution Insights