DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on April 7, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claims 2-21 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 2-21 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 2, 11 and 18, the claims describe the monitoring of loading/unloading dock operations to determine and compare efficiencies in performing operations which is a mental process (observation/evaluation/judgement). Other than reciting an apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a user interface, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind or with the help of paper and pencil. For example, aggregating data, determining efficiency and displaying information could be performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. The limitations regarding a sensor are not positively recited. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. 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. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. 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 aggregating, determining and displaying 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 3-10, 12-17 and 19-21, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone (WO 2017/062638 A1) in view of Fan H (CN110516946B) further in view of Kostival (US 2015/0019277 A1).
Claim 2
Stone discloses the following limitations:
An apparatus comprising: memory; machine readable instructions; and at least one programmable circuit to execute the machine readable instructions to: aggregate sensor feedback data from multiple docks of a material handling facility, (see at least paragraph 0020 and figure 1-employs a controller 134 to analyze conditions at a loading dock 106; paragraphs 0016-0017-sensors to monitor areas).
Stone discloses the monitoring of a dock using sensors. Stone does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Fan H does:
data indicative of performance of tasks included in at least one of a loading process or an unloading process associated with trailers at ones of the multiple docks, (see at least paragraphs 0004-loading and unloading completion time; change the planned loading and unloading time of the next stage according to the actual loading and unloading time of each stage and 0022-0023-loading and unloading synchronization).
data to be archived with timing data indicative of at least one of a duration or a timing of ones of the tasks; (see at least paragraphs 0004-loading and unloading completion time; change the planned loading and unloading time of the next stage according to the actual loading and unloading time of each stage and 0022-0023-loading and unloading synchronization).
determine efficiencies with which a sequence of operations is performed at different ones of the multiple docks over a period of time, the sequence of operations including multiple different ones of the tasks; (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0021- average operating efficiency including location, 0026-actual times vs planned times and paragraph 0037).
and generate a graphical user interface for presentation by a display, the graphical user interface to indicate differences in the efficiencies between different ones of the multiple docks (see at least paragraphs 0004-loading and unloading completion time; change the planned loading and unloading time of the next stage according to the actual loading and unloading time of each stage, 0020-0022-average operating efficiency including location, 0026 and 0029-selecting a scheduling plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Also, Kostival in at least figure 1 and claim 9 discloses a user interface to display details in the loading and unloading processes at a particular location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further apply the teachings in Kostival to the combination Stone/Fan H in order to improve operating efficiency (Kostival paragraph 0046). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 3
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to compare first ones of the efficiencies associated with a first dock of the multiple docks to second ones of the efficiencies associated with the first dock, (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0021-avarage operating efficiency including location, 0026-actual times vs planned times and 0036).
the first ones of the efficiencies associated with at least one of a first time of day, a first work shift, or a first carrier, the second ones of the efficiencies associated with at least one of a second time of day different from the first time of day, a second work shift different from the first work shift, or a second carrier different from the first carrier. (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0021-average operating efficiency including location, 0026-actual times vs planned times and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 4
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to identify a first dock of the multiple docks to which a trailer is to be assigned based on the efficiencies with which the sequence of operations was performed at the first dock during the period of time relative to the efficiencies with which the sequence of operations was performed at other ones of the multiple docks during the period of time. (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0021-average operating efficiency including location, 0026-actual times vs planned times and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 5
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to determine the efficiencies based on comparisons of the timing data associated with the multiple different ones of the tasks in the sequence of operations relative to target threshold durations for the multiple different ones of the tasks. (see at least paragraphs 0004-selectable loading and unloading completion time; change the planned loading and unloading time of the next stage according to the actual loading and unloading time of each stage, 0021-0022 and 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 6
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to set the target threshold durations for the multiple different ones of the tasks based on the sensor feedback data and based on the timing data. (see at least paragraphs 0005-selectable loading and unloading completion time; change the planned loading and unloading time of the next stage according to the actual loading and unloading time of each stage, 0022-0023 and 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 7
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to analyze the timing data to identify the performance of first ones of the tasks that exceeds corresponding ones of the target threshold durations more often than other ones of the tasks to enable identification of tasks regarding which training is to be provided. (see at least paragraphs 0004-selectable loading and unloading completion time; change the planned loading and unloading time of the next stage according to the actual loading and unloading time of each stage, 0021-0023 and 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 8
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein the differences in the efficiencies between different ones of the multiple docks are represented by a heat map in the graphical user interface, different regions of the heat map corresponding to different ones of the multiple docks. (see at least paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 9
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein the multiple different ones of the tasks included in the sequence of operations are specified based on user input. (see at least paragraphs 0023, 0026 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 10
Furthermore, Fan H discloses the following limitations:
wherein the multiple different ones of the tasks included in the sequence of operations correspond to either first tasks or second tasks, the first tasks are associated with an arrival phase of the at least one of the loading process or the unloading process, and the second tasks are associated with a departure phase of the at least one of the loading process or the unloading process. (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0023, 0026 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Stone and Fan H in order to improve the operating efficiency (Fan H paragraph 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
As per claims 11-20, claims 11-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-10 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
