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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
installed in a predetermined location on a transportation route on which an item is moved and wirelessly communicate that reads information for identifying the item transported by the worker and information for identifying a worker;
include an item master in which the storage location of the item is stored corresponding to the information for identifying the item; and
configured to obtain item transportation information from the reading device via the communication device, the item transportation information including the information for identifying the item transported by the worker and the information for identifying the headset worn by the worker, refer to the item master and check the storage location of the item corresponding to the obtained information for identifying the item, generate navigation information on a basis of the item transportation information and the checked storage location of the item, the navigation information including a route for moving the item to the storage location or to a stop to the storage location from a current location,
convert the generated navigation information into audio information, and
cause the headset worn by the worker to output the audio information.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “a communication device, an item, wireless communication reading device, the controller, storage device, audio information”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, a communication device, wireless communication reading device, an item, the controller, storage device, audio information. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (the controller, storage device)
mere data gathering/post solution activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process- obtaining item transportation information including a current location of the worker, information;
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(an item and a communication device, wireless communication reading device);
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B-
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception- see MPEP 2106.05
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claim 2 describes a large language model, storage device and natural language processing; Claim 3 describes a large language model; Claim 4 describes a controller; Claim 5 describes reading devices; Claim 6 describes a controller, reading device, communication device; Claim 7 describes reading device, controller and communication device; Claim 8 describes aa wireless tag, reading device; Claim 9 describes a headset, reading device and wireless tag, but these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 inherit the same deficiencies through dependency and as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the predetermined locations in which reading devices are installed" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of Examination, the Examiner is interpreting installed communication devices as meeting the limitations of the claim. Appropriate Correction is required.
Claims 6-7 inherit the same deficiencies through dependency and as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollu U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0073725 in view of Logan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0080930 A1 in further view of Hance U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0088586 A1
As per Claims 1 and 10, Gollu teaches a communication device configured to be installed in a predetermined location on a transportation route on which an item is moved (see para. 48 and 51) and wirelessly communicate with a reading device that reads information for identifying the item transported by the worker (see para. 51 and fig. 1)
a storage device configured to store item information (see para. 36-41 and para. 51)
the controller configured to obtain item transportation information from the reading device via the communication device, the item transportation information including the information for identifying the item transported by the worker (see para. 51 and para. 79)
refer to the information and check the storage location of the item corresponding to the obtained information (see para. 81-82 and 123)
Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Logan
a communication device that reads information for identifying a headset worn by the worker (see para. 24 and 86)
obtain item transportation information including information for identifying the headset worn by the worker (see para. 24, 74 and 86),
generate navigation information on a basis of the item information and the storage location of the item, the navigation information including a route for moving the item to the storage location or to a stop to the storage location from a current location (see fig. 5B; para 41 and 39), convert the generated navigation information into audio information (see para. 4 and 79), and cause the headset worn by the worker to output the audio information (see para. 4 and 79). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Gollu to include the teachings of Logan to promote faster order fulfillment as suggested by the cited portion of Logan. Gollu teaches transportation information.
Gollu does not teach the limitation taught by Hance refer to the item master and check the storage location of the item corresponding to the obtained information for identifying the item, a storage device configured to include an item master in which the storage location of the item is stored corresponding to the information for identifying the item (see para. 36). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 4, Gollu in view of Logan and Hance teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Logan wherein the controller obtains the item transportation information on the transportation route for the item at least once (see para. 74 and 6). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 5, Gollu in view of Logan and Hance teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Gollu further teaches wherein a plurality of the predetermined locations in which the reading devices are installed is present on the transportation route (see para. 48).
As per Claim 6, Gollu in view of Logan and Hance teach the apparatus of claim 5 as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Logan wherein the controller obtains the item transportation information from a plurality of the reading devices via the communication device (see para. 75 and 79), Gollu further teaches the plurality of reading devices being installed at the plurality of predetermined locations (see para. 48). The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Logan.
As per Claim 7, Gollu in view of Logan and Hance teach the apparatus of claim 5 as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Logan wherein on the reading device, information for identifying the reading device is registered, and the controller obtains the information for identifying the reading device from the reading device together with the item transportation information via the communication device (see para. 75 and 79). The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Logan.
As per Claim 8, Gollu in view of Logan and Hance teach the apparatus of claim 1
as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Logan wherein to the item, a wireless tag on which the information for identifying the item is registered is attached, and the reading device installed in the predetermined location reads the information for identifying the item from the wireless tag.
As per Claim 9. Gollu in view of Logan and Hance teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Logan wherein the headset has a wireless tag on which the information for identifying the headset is registered, and the reading device installed in the predetermined location reads the information for identifying the headset from the wireless tag (see para. 32). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollu U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0073725 in view of Logan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0080930 A1 in further view of Hance U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0088586 A1 and Tran U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240252048 A1
As per Claim 2, Gollu in view of Logan in further view of Hance teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Tran wherein the storage device further includes a large language model, and the controller generates the navigation information by natural language processing using the large language model (see para. 299). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Gollu, Logan and Hance to include the teachings of Tran to allow the user to navigate without constantly looking at a screen or map, keeping their focus on busy warehouse surroundings.
As per Claim 3, Gollu in view of Logan in further view of Hance teach the apparatus of claim 2 as described above. Gollu does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Tran wherein the large language model is a language model learned for generating navigation information that directs a route to move a user (see para. 299). The cited prior art describes moving an item to the storage location. The motivation is the same as opined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628