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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “sends an exception request to the first policy” appears to be grammatical error and should be “sends an exception request for the first policy”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “grant access to the first policy to the first local computing device” appears to be grammatical error and should be “grant access of the first policy to the first local computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “granting access to the first policy to a first local computing device” appears to be grammatical error and should be “granting access of the first policy to a first local computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “granting access to the first policy to a second local computing device” appears to be grammatical error and should be “granting access of the first policy to a second local computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “sends an exception request to the first policy” appears to be grammatical error and should be “sends an exception request for the first policy”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a computing device for creating, defining, and determining…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1 line 15, the recited limitation “the zone category for the first restriction zone” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “determine whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy” in line 11 and “determine that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy” in lines 12-13 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if the zone category recited first is for the zone category for the first restriction zone and is being compared to the zone category created for the first policy or if this is a different category zone?
In claim 8 line 7, the recited limitation “the zone category for the first restriction zone” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “determine whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy” in line 9 and “determine that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy” in lines 11-12 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if the zone category recited first is for the zone category for the first restriction zone and is being compared to the zone category created for the first policy or if this is a different category zone?
In claim 15 line 14, the recited limitation “the zone category for the first restriction zone” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “determine whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy” in line 16 and “determine that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy” in lines 17-18 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if the zone category recited first is for the zone category for the first restriction zone and is being compared to the zone category created for the first policy or if this is a different category zone?
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite create a first policy that is available for applying to a potential restriction zone in the first covered environment and a second covered environment; define a rule for the first policy; create a zone category for the first policy; create a first restriction zone for the first covered environment, wherein creating the first restriction zone includes defining the zone category for the first restriction zone and a location for the first restriction zone; determine whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “computing device including a processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as different zones data of an environment (i.e., traffic, objects, et,.) could create a first policy that is available for applying to a potential restriction zone in the first covered environment and a second covered environment; define a rule for the first policy; create a zone category for the first policy; create a first restriction zone for the first covered environment, wherein creating the first restriction zone includes defining the zone category for the first restriction zone and a location for the first restriction zone; determine whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy. The mere nominal recitation of “computing device including a processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of apply the first policy to the first restriction zone; apply the first policy; a remote computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that; a first local computing device that is configured for serving the first covered environment that includes a local processor and a local memory component, the local memory component storing local logic. The applying steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a remote computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that; a first local computing device that is configured for serving the first covered environment that includes a local processor and a local memory component, the local memory component storing local logic is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the applying steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draayer et al (US 20220068131 A1) in view of Draayer et al (US 20200399105 A1, hereinafter Draayer (105))
With respect to claim 1, Draayer discloses a system comprising: a materials handling vehicle in a first covered environment (see at least [0005-0006] and [0044]); a remote computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that (see at least [0007), when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform at least the following: create a first policy that is available for applying to a potential restriction zone in the first covered environment and a second covered environment (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]); define a rule for the first policy (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]); create a zone category for the first policy (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]); and a first local computing device that is configured for serving the first covered environment that includes a local processor and a local memory component (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]), the local memory component storing local logic that, when executed by the local processor, causes the system to perform at least the following: create a first restriction zone for the first covered environment (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]), wherein creating the first restriction zone includes defining the zone category for the first restriction zone and a location for the first restriction zone (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]).
However, Draayer do not specifically disclose whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy; in response to determining that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy, apply the first policy to the first restriction zone; and in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, apply the first policy.
Draayer (105) teaches determining whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy (see at least [0113] and [0156]); in response to determining that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy, apply the first policy to the first restriction zone (see at least [0113] and [0156]); and in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, apply the first policy (see at least [0113] and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Draayer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Draayer (105) of determining whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy; in response to determining that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy, apply the first policy to the first restriction zone; and in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, apply the first policy. This would be done to decrease potential damage to a vehicle and reduce human errors (see Draayer para 0003).
With respect to claim 2, Draayer do not specifically disclose wherein the first local computing device sends an exception request to the first policy to the remote computing device and wherein the remote computing device determines whether to grant the exception request.
Draayer (105) teaches wherein the first local computing device sends an exception request to the first policy to the remote computing device and wherein the remote computing device determines whether to grant the exception request (see at least [0113], [0136-0137], [0143-0144], [0156-0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Draayer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Draayer (105) wherein the first local computing device sends an exception request to the first policy to the remote computing device and wherein the remote computing device determines whether to grant the exception request. This would be done to decrease potential damage to a vehicle and reduce human errors (see Draayer para 0003).
With respect to claim 3, Draayer do not specifically disclose wherein in response to determining to grant the exception request, the remote computing device creates a second policy and provides access to the second policy only to the first local computing device.
Draayer (105) teaches wherein in response to determining to grant the exception request, the remote computing device creates a second policy and provides access to the second policy only to the first local computing device (see at least [0113], [0136-0137], [0143-0144], [0156-0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Draayer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Draayer (105) wherein in response to determining to grant the exception request, the remote computing device creates a second policy and provides access to the second policy only to the first local computing device. This would be done to decrease potential damage to a vehicle and reduce human errors (see Draayer para 0003).
With respect to claim 4, Draayer do not specifically disclose wherein in response to determining to grant the exception request, the remote computing device alters the first policy.
Draayer (105) teaches wherein in response to determining to grant the exception request, the remote computing device alters the first policy (see at least [0113], [0136-0137], [0143-0144], [0156-0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Draayer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Draayer (105) wherein in response to determining to grant the exception request, the remote computing device alters the first policy. This would be done to decrease potential damage to a vehicle and reduce human errors (see Draayer para 0003).
With respect to claim 5, Draayer do not specifically disclose wherein the remote computing device further grants access to the first policy to the first local computing device.
Draayer (105) teaches wherein the remote computing device further grants access to the first policy to the first local computing device (see at least [0113], [0136-0137], [0143-0144], [0156-0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Draayer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Draayer (105) wherein the remote computing device further grants access to the first policy to the first local computing device. This would be done to decrease potential damage to a vehicle and reduce human errors (see Draayer para 0003).
With respect to claim 6, Draayer discloses a second local computing device that serves the second covered environment (see at least [0051], [0055], and [0074]), wherein the second local computing device is granted access to the first policy for use in the second covered environment (see at least [0051], [0055], and [0074]).
With respect to claim 7, Draayer discloses wherein the zone category includes at least one of the following: a high traffic area, a pedestrian area, a truck-specific area, or an end of aisle area (see at least [0045], [0047], [0050], [0054-0055], and [0058]).
With respect to claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. As such, claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, and 7 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 15, Draayer discloses a system comprising: a remote computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that (see at least [0005-0007] and [0044]), when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform at least the following: create a first policy that is available for applying to a potential restriction zone in a first covered environment and a second covered environment; define a rule for the first policy (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]); create a zone category for the first policy (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]); and a first local computing device that is configured for serving the first covered environment that includes a local processor and a local memory component (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]), the local memory component storing local logic that, when executed by the local processor, causes the system to perform at least the following: create a first restriction zone for the first covered environment, wherein creating the first restriction zone includes defining the zone category for the first restriction zone and a location for the first restriction zone (see at least [0042-0044], [0047], [0055], [0058], and [0068-0072]).
However, Draayer do not specifically disclose determining whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy; in response to determining that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy, apply the first policy to the first restriction zone; and in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, apply the first policy.
Draayer (105) teaches whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy (see at least [0113] and [0156]); in response to determining that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy, apply the first policy to the first restriction zone (see at least [0113] and [0156]); and in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, apply the first policy (see at least [0113] and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Draayer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Draayer (105) of whether the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy; in response to determining that the zone category matches the zone category for the first policy, apply the first policy to the first restriction zone; and in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, apply the first policy. This would be done to decrease potential damage to a vehicle and reduce human errors (see Draayer para 0003).
With respect to claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 they are claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. As such, claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective claims 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and are incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights