DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #19/190,171, filed on 06/10/2026.
Claims 21-40 are now 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 21 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claims 28 and 35 claim a system comprising one or more servers. Therefore, the systems are considered apparatuses. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims 21, 28, and 35 are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims are directed to “identifying…a plurality of jobs to be performed using a plurality of robots and a plurality of material handling equipment, at least a portion of one or more jobs of the plurality of jobs being performed in combination with one or more people, monitoring the plurality of robots and the plurality of material handling equipment, a status and proximity of each of a plurality of robots and each of a plurality of material handling equipment with respect to a location of the plurality of jobs, determining one or more workflows for each of the plurality of jobs coordinating work assignments of the one or more workflows among the plurality of robots and the plurality of material handling equipment to perform respective portions of each of the one or more workflows, distributing the work assignments to the plurality of robots and the plurality of material handling equipment for performing the respective portions of each of the one or more workflows and monitoring a status of performance of respective work assignments by each of the plurality of robots and the plurality of material handling equipment for each of the workflows.” The claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims are directed to the activity of “commercial interactions, business relations.” A foreman or manager can identify the available entities to perform a task or complete a job, determine the assignments needed, assign the tasks to the plurality of available entities based on the most efficient or ideal use of the entities, and initiate the completion of the task or job as a whole as well as assign workflows. Such management work is common place on worksites ranging from construction to factories and warehouses, all which commonly include human workers and manually operated machinery, and often include such as robots an autonomous machinery. The claims simply automate the abstract idea using a computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically, “commercial interactions, business relations.” The claims are also secondarily directed to a mental process. A human operator such as a foreman or manager can identify the available entities to perform a task or complete a job, determine the assignments needed and the workflow of those assignments, assign the tasks to the plurality of available entities based on the most efficient or ideal use of the entities, and initiate the completion of the task or job as a whole. This can all be done as a mental task accompanied by verbal or written communication of some sort. The manager or foreman is making a judgment or opinion about work distribution based on an analysis of available entities. Such management work is common place on worksites ranging from construction to factories and warehouses, all which commonly include human workers and manually operated machinery, and often include such as robots an autonomous machinery. Therefore, the claims are secondarily directed to a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include the recitation of “one or more servers” “by a monitor via one or more interfaces,” and “a work distributor configured on one or more servers.” However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements of the claims also include “providing, as input to a model, the plurality of jobs and the status of proximity of each of the plurality of robots and the plurality of materials handling equipment, identified from monitoring, to perform responsive portions of each of the plurality of jobs” as well as “determining…using outputs of the model,” and “responsive to and using outputs from the model.” However, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are considered the equivalent of “apply it” or “using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claims merely describe at a very broad level the input into a model and using an output to determine workflows. The “use” of the model is only described as outputs in response to the inputs, the model outputting the results. There is no detail whatsoever as to how the model is “used,” other than describing what the outputs are, much less any technical step taken as a response to or improved by the use of the model. Therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner refers the applicant to the recent 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Including on Artificial Intelligence published in the Federal Register on July 17th, 2024. The update and the examples describe the level of technical detail that is considered sufficient or 101 eligible when the claims include such as the training and/or use of a machine learning model or other such similar model. The additional elements in the claims also include “monitoring by a monitor via one or more interfaces” and “displaying, by the monitor responsive to monitoring, via one or more user interfaces….” Absent further detail, these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com). Therefore these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation added by amendment establishing by a monitor of the one or more servers one or more interfaces to each of the plurality of robots and each of the plurality of material handling equipment using one or more application programming interfaces and protocols based at least on a type and configuration of each robot and each material handling equipment is recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element. “Establishing” using the “monitor” of the server one or more interfaces is basically stating that the monitor displays interfaces for each of the robots and equipment using one or more APIs. There is no technical improvement or improved interface. Each interface shows monitoring information such as location and workflow information for the particular robot or equipment. Therefore, this limitation is considered the equivalent of apply it or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the computer and communication arts to display multiple API-based interfaces for multiple electronic entities in a screen with associated data such as location, status, and other information. Therefore these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include the recitation of “one or more servers” “by a monitor via one or more interfaces,” and “a work distributor configured on one or more servers.” However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements of the claims also include “providing, as input to a model, the plurality of jobs and the status of proximity of each of the plurality of robots and the plurality of materials handling equipment, identified from monitoring, to perform responsive portions of each of the plurality of jobs” as well as “determining…using outputs of the model,” and “responsive to and using outputs from the model.” However, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are considered the equivalent of “apply it” or “using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claims merely describe at a very broad level the input into a model and using an output to determine workflows. The “use” of the model is only described as outputs in response to the inputs, the model outputting the results. There is no detail whatsoever as to how the model is “used,” other than describing what the outputs are, much less any technical step taken as a response to or improved by the use of the model. Therefore the additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The examiner refers the applicant to the recent 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Including on Artificial Intelligence published in the Federal Register on July 17th, 2024. The update and the examples describe the level of technical detail that is considered sufficient or 101 eligible when the claims include such as the training and/or use of a machine learning model or other such similar model. The additional elements in the claims also include “monitoring by a monitor via one or more interfaces” and “displaying, by the monitor responsive to monitoring, via one or more user interfaces….” Absent further detail, these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com). Therefore these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The limitation added by amendment establishing by a monitor of the one or more servers one or more interfaces to each of the plurality of robots and each of the plurality of material handling equipment using one or more application programming interfaces and protocols based at least on a type and configuration of each robot and each material handling equipment is recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element. “Establishing” using the “monitor” of the server one or more interfaces is basically stating that the monitor displays interfaces for each of the robots and equipment using one or more APIs. There is no technical improvement or improved interface. Each interface shows monitoring information such as location and workflow information for the particular robot or equipment. Therefore, this limitation is considered well-understood and conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the computer and communication arts to display multiple API-based interfaces for multiple electronic entities in a screen with associated data such as location, status, and other information. Therefore these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claims still are considered to be directed to an abstract idea. The claims the logical set of steps for identifying the entities available for a task, determining work assignments, distributing work assignments, and causing the initiation of performing and monitoring the work assignments. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claims 22 and 23 are recited at a high level of generality and are considered the equivalent of “apply it” or “using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claims merely describe at a very broad level the “training” of the model using the three data points without any detail whatsoever as to how the model is trained. The “using” of the model is only described as outputs in response to the inputs, the model outputting the results. There is no detail whatsoever as to how the model is “used,” other than describing what the outputs are, much less any technical step taken as a response to or improved by the use of the model. For claim 23, the additional element recites that the weights are adjusted over time based on an error signal and that the “model learns over time.” This again is recited at a high level of generality and the “model learning over time” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely descriptive. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner refers the applicant to the recent 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Including on Artificial Intelligence published in the Federal Register on July 17th, 2024. The update and the examples describe the level of technical detail that is considered sufficient or 101 eligible when the claims include such as the training and/or use of a machine learning model or other such similar model. Claim 24, absent further detail, is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google). Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more. The use of API’s, as recited, absent further detail, is considered a generic recitation of a technical element which is recited at a high level of generality. The API’s are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The protocols/instructions are simply being transmitted to the API of the robot or component. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts at the time of filing of the application to transmit instructions to an API of a device or machine. Claim 25 is considered part of the abstract idea, as communicating workflows could be done manually and by programming as part of a business operation by the manager or foreman, and if a computer is used this would simply be automating the abstract idea after the workflows are determined. Claims 26, 27, and 38 are considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of factors considered in determining workflows does not change the analysis and determination that could be done by a manager as part of a business process or mental evaluation. Claim 36, absent further detail, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not considered significantly more. Claim 37 is recited at a high level of generality and are considered the equivalent of “apply it” or “using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Therefore, this additional limitation is not considered significantly more. Claims 39 and 40 are considered part of the abstract idea, as modifying workflows or availability can be done as part of a business decision or mental process.
Therefore, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Double Patenting Rejection:
A Terminal Disclaimer has been filed. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection based on 35 USC 112b:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 9 of the response that the claims do not recite a mental process as several limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind:
The examiner points out that the “mental process” was not the primary abstract idea identified but only a secondary consideration. Further, the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis determines if the claims RECITE an abstract idea. This does not mean that each and every element must be fully encompassed by the abstract idea. Additional elements such as technical elements are often addressed in the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses. The examiner points the applicant to Court decisions such as OIP Techs v Amazon.com and buySAFE v Google which both involved e-commerce systems with multiple processors, servers, databases, network interfaces, interfaces, and other such components that performed the limitations and yet the Court still found the claims to be patent ineligible as they were directed to abstract ideas. The examiner further points the applicant to Example 47 of the USPTO Updated PEG Eligibility examples in which Claim 2 is considered patent ineligible even though the training and use of a model by a computer at a high level of generality is recited. Such steps are clearly not performed in the human mind, but the claims were still considered patent ineligible.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 10 of the response that the claims do not recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” and that the “claims recite a specific technical system architecture, not a business method, that establishes APIs tailored to heterogeneous equipment types, monitors through those interfaces, provides the monitoring data to a model, and uses the model outputs…”:
The fact a technical system is recited does not change the analysis. The Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis determines if the claims RECITE an abstract idea. This does not mean that each and every element must be fully encompassed by the abstract idea. Additional elements such as technical elements are often addressed in the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses. The examiner points the applicant to Court decisions such as OIP Techs v Amazon.com and buySAFE v Google which both involved e-commerce systems with multiple processors, servers, databases, network interfaces, interfaces, and other such components that performed the limitations and yet the Court still found the claims to be patent ineligible as they were directed to abstract ideas. Further, there is no active technical or improved technical step of tailoring or creating specialized API’s, the claims only describe the “establishing” by the monitor of the server ( it is unclear how a monitor could even in and of itself establish something) of one or more interfaces using one or more API’s or protocols. There is no technical detail at all as to how this is done, it is recited at a very high level of generality. These interfaces are described as being established “based on a type and configuration,” again with no technical detail at all. These additional elements are not part of the abstract idea but considered tools that are used to automate the abstract idea, and therefore the claims were still determined to recite an abstract idea. Finally, regarding the model and using of the model by inputting data and receiving an output is not considered part of the abstract idea and the examiner points out is also recited at a high level of generality with no detail at all as to how the model is used. Using a model in place of performing those steps mentally or performing the steps in other ways as part of a certain method of organizing human activity is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool since the claims do not offer any technical detail as to the training or use of the model. The examiner points the applicant to Example 47 of the USPTO Updated PEG Eligibility examples in which Claim 2 is considered patent ineligible even though the training and use of a model by a computer at a high level of generality is recited. The claims were still considered patent ineligible even though they provide more technical detail than what can be fond in the current claims regarding the model.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 10-11 of the response that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem of assigning workflows:
The examiner does not consider the assigning of workflows in and of itself a technical problem. The alleged designing, constructing, and/or configuring of the monitors to interface with the robots and/or equipment includes no active technical or improved technical step of tailoring or creating specialized API’s, the claims only describe the “establishing” by the monitor of the server ( it is unclear how a monitor could even in and of itself establish something) of one or more interfaces using one or more API’s or protocols. There is no technical detail at all as to how this is done, it is recited at a very high level of generality. These interfaces are described as being established “based on a type and configuration,” again with no technical detail at all.
Further, there is no actual active interfacing step in the claims between the monitors and the robots/equipment. At best there is a single distribution step of the workflows “using a work distributor.”
Finally, regarding the model and using of the model by inputting data and receiving an output is not considered integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the use of the model at a high level of generality with no detail at all as to how the model is used. Using a model, absent further detail, is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool since the claims do not offer any technical detail as to the training or use of the model. Claim 3 of Example 47 of the USPTO Updated PEG Eligibility examples, which is considered eligible, includes multiple steps at the end of the claims that show the technical detail of the practical application once the output from the trained model is received.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 12 of the response that the claims are eligible under Step 2B because the “establishing” limitation requires the system to create individualized interfaces to each piece of heterogenous equipment using API’s and protocols that are specifically tailored to the type and configuration of each robot and equipment:
There is no active technical or improved technical step of tailoring or creating specialized interfaces using API’s, the claims only describe the “establishing” by the monitor of the server ( it is unclear how a monitor could even in and of itself establish something) of one or more interfaces using one or more API’s or protocols. There is no technical detail at all as to how this is done, it is recited at a very high level of generality. These interfaces are described as being established “based on a type and configuration,” again with no technical detail at all. For this reason, this additional element is considered conventional use of interfaces to monitor robots and/or equipment and not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 12 of the response that the “ordered combination of elements…represents an inventive concept that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional:
The applicant alleges an inventive concept. But the examiner sees no such inventive concept, and the ordered combination recites establishing of type-specific interfaces, monitoring using those interfaces, providing the data to a model, and distributing work assignments based on the model. These elements individually have been shown in the prior art but also the examiner does not see an inventive concept in creating and use of interfaces for robots and equipment, inputting data into a model, and using the data output of the model to assign workflows.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 12 of the response that the parent application was allowed by the same examiner with the same “establishing” limitation and similar additional elements:
The examiner points out that the parent application includes multiple additional limitations and steps that the current claims do not include and that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the allowance of the parent application did not use the rationale of the “establishing” limitation as a basis for eligibility or patentability.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that the withdrawal was not due to the novelty of any one limitation added by amendment, but because the examiner could not justify a 4-5 reference combination of references with a good motivation to combine which would be needed to meet all the limitations of the claims as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights