DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on March 3, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1 and 6-7, the claims describe work planning for selecting best route for workers which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction-instructions). The limitations on specifying routes to workers, analyzing/processing candidate routes, selecting a candidate route and specifying a travel order could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. The limitations regarding calculations such as total sum of movement distances is a mathematical concept. Other than reciting a processor and a memory, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claims out of the mental process, method of organizing a human activity and mathematical concept grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claims modified by adding generic computer components would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's work planning in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the specifying, processing and selecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Muruyama (WO 2022097285A1 (US 2023/0252385A1-English equivalent)).
Claim 1
Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a work planning program for causing a computer to execute:
first specification processing of specifying, for each of a plurality of candidate routes to sequentially travel a plurality of work positions included in a plurality of orders (see at least paragraph 0068-the picking worker or the picking work manager can shorten a total travel distance at the time of the picking work by performing the picking work using the notified optimum order combination and can improve the efficiency of the picking work-thus order combinations are used to assist the worker when sequentially travelling a plurality of work positions to pick the orders),
each of combinations of the orders such that a total sum of movement distances, in which each of a plurality of workers travels work positions specified by a combination of orders assigned to each of the plurality of workers in a case where the plurality of orders is assigned to the plurality of workers, satisfies a first predetermined condition; (see at least paragraph 0049- determines an order sequence by assigning orders for each group, paragraph 0050-the order sequence search unit 102 determines an order with the best index, one by one, according to a sequence of the remaining orders in the group, using the shelf area correspondence table 141 and the inter-area travel distance table 142 held by the index calculation information holding unit 104. The order sequence search unit 102 repeats to determine the orders for each group and determines all the order sequences and groups; a group corresponds to a batch in the context of Muruyama, thus the orders are combined in groups to satisfy the first condition, paragraph 0051-the order sequence search unit 102 may determine a combination of orders in consideration of the constraint conditions, when orders included in each group are determined, such condition is in particular a total travel distance; paragraph 0054-the order sequence search unit 102 specifies an order of which a total travel distance when the order is combined with the order a1 becomes the shortest, from among the remaining candidate orders one by one in a round-robin manner),
and second specification processing of selecting a candidate route in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers satisfies a second predetermined condition among the plurality of candidate routes obtained by executing the first specification processing, (see at least paragraph 0059-the efficiency index evaluation unit 103 may acquire the value of the index for each group in the optimum candidate order sequence calculated by the order sequence search unit 102 and calculate the value of the index of the optimum candidate order sequence using the values. For example, in a case where the total travel distance is used as the index, the efficiency index evaluation unit 103 may calculate the value of the index of the optimum candidate order sequence, by acquiring the value of the total travel distance for each group in the optimum candidate order sequence and obtaining a total, thus given the optimum order sequence in terms of batches, the method of Maruyama first calculates the travel distance for each batch and then sums the distances up to obtain the total travel distance; see also paragraph 0061-the efficiency index evaluation unit 103 compares the values of the indexes of the held optimum candidate order sequences and determines an order sequence with the best index value as the optimum order sequence, from among them, thus the best route is selected based on comparison of the total distances).
and specifying a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers satisfies a third predetermined condition by exchanging the travel order in the combination of the orders assigned to each of the plurality of workers. (see at least paragraph 0062-to search for the optimum candidate order sequence with the best index value using the group unit sequential order determination procedure and to specify the optimum order sequence with the best index value from among the optimum candidate order sequence corresponds to "optimization of the order sequence". In a case where the total travel distance is used as the index, to search for the optimum candidate order sequence with the shortest total travel distance using the group unit sequential order determination procedure and to specify the optimum order sequence with the shortest total travel distance from among the optimum candidate order sequence corresponds to the optimization of the order sequence, thus the final step of the method of Maruyama discloses searching for the optimum order sequence within a group or a batch, which clearly involves exchanging the travel orders to obtain all possible permutation within the group).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
causing the computer to further execute:
third specification processing of repeatedly selecting, among the plurality of candidate routes obtained by executing the first specification processing, a candidate route in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers satisfies the second predetermined condition, specifying one combination of the orders included in the selected candidate route, and specifying and adding combinations for remaining orders in the plurality of candidate routes; and (see at least paragraphs 0091-0092).
fourth specification processing of specifying a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers satisfies the second predetermined condition by exchanging the travel order in each of the combinations of the orders obtained by executing the third specification processing. (see at least paragraphs 0091-0092).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in the first specification processing, for each of the plurality of candidate routes, each of the combination of orders is specified such that the total sum of the movement distances in which each of the plurality of workers travels the work positions specified by the combination of the orders assigned to each of the plurality of workers is minimized (see at least paragraph 0029).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in the second specification processing, a candidate route in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers is minimized is selected from the plurality of candidate routes obtained by the first specification processing, and a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers is minimized is specified by exchanging the travel order among the combinations of orders assigned to each of the plurality of workers. (see at least paragraph 0062).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in the fourth specification processing, a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers is minimized is specified by exchanging the travel order in each combination of the orders obtained by executing the third specification processing. (see at least paragraph 0035).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
The processor configured to further execute third specification processing of repeatedly selecting, among the plurality of candidate routes obtained by executing the first specification processing, a candidate route in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers satisfies the second predetermined condition, specifying one combination of the orders included in the selected candidate route, and specifying and adding combinations for remaining orders in the plurality of candidate routes, and fourth specification processing of specifying a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers satisfies the second predetermined condition by exchanging the travel order in each of the combinations of the orders obtained by executing the third specification processing. (see at least paragraphs 0091-0092).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in the first specification processing, for each of the plurality of candidate routes, the processor specifies each of the combination of orders such that the total sum of the movement distances in which each of the plurality of workers travels the work positions specified by the combination of the orders assigned to each of the plurality of workers is minimized. (see at least paragraph 0029).
Claim 10
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in the second specification processing, the processor selects a candidate route in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers is minimized from the plurality of candidate routes obtained by the first specification processing, specifies a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers is minimized by exchanging the travel order among the combinations of orders assigned to each of the plurality of workers. (see at least paragraphs 0091-0092).
Claim 11
Furthermore, Muruyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in the fourth specification processing, the processor specifies a travel order in which the total sum of the movement distances of each of the plurality of workers is minimized by exchanging the travel order in each combination of the orders obtained by executing the third specification processing. (see at least paragraph 0029).
As per claims 6-7, claims 6-7 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-2 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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 A 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights