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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2025 08/25/2025 and 10/01/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
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 XXX are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea organization of data, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a machine and a method.
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of dividing an area into zones and creating rules for zones in which to apply to vehicles.
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to organizing data. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further [defining specific rules, multiple zones etc.], or to implement the idea onto generic computer components [processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable medium].
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, elements of a vehicle controller and sensors merely use generically recited features as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The recited elements include;
processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable medium
However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality, with nothing to explicitly differentiate them from what is routine and conventional in the prior art.
Additionally, the claims do recite “apply the restriction zone and restriction zone policy”. However, this merely amounts to a generic “apply it”, and does not even require active control of a vehicle/system. For example, a method of ‘applying’ a zone could merely be the display of a speed limit, or labeling a school zone etc. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity 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 the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draayer US20220068131A1 in view of Gariepy (US10241515B2).
Regarding claim 1, Draayer teaches;
A system comprising: a remote computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor (taught as a processor, element 30, associated with a memory that contains rules of the road for various zones, communicating in real time with a receiver via a real-time location system, paragraph 0070), causes the system to perform at least the following:
create a restriction zone policy for a plurality of covered environments (taught as rules of the road, paragraph 0055, wherein systems are setup to encompass both inside and outside environments, paragraph 0072), wherein the restriction zone policy defines a first rule [[with a restriction range]] (taught as rules of the road including restrictions, such as speed limiting, paragraph 0055) on a hypothetical materials handling vehicle (taught as a material handling vehicle, paragraph 0044) that is located in a restriction zone in at least one of the plurality of covered environments (taught as rules of the road being established for vehicles within an environment, paragraph 0055);
create a first restriction zone for a first covered environment (taught as establishing zones, element 40, within an environment, paragraph 0048), wherein creating the first restriction zone includes defining a first location in the first covered environment of the first restriction zone (shown in Fig 3, where each zone defines a specific space within the environment); and
apply the restriction zone and the restriction zone policy to the location in the first covered environment (taught as the processor, when it is determined that a vehicle enters a part of a zone that designates a rule of the road with a speed limit, lowering the vehicle speed to obey, paragraph 0068).
However, Draayer does not explicitly teach; wherein the restriction zone policy defines a first rule with a restriction range (emphasis added), and associate the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone, wherein associating the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone includes defining a first value within the restriction range for the first rule.
Gariepy teaches; wherein the restriction zone policy defines a first rule with a restriction range (taught as a speed limit zone, which defines upper and lower speed limits during a time period as an operational constraint, column 7 lines 24-26),
associate the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone, wherein associating the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone includes defining a first value within the restriction range for the first rule (taught as operational constraints defining a space on the map of the facility where the constrain applies, column 7 lines 16-23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the more specific restriction policy specifications /templates, including a restriction range as taught by Gariepy in the system taught by Draayer in order to improve implementation across multiple environments. Both arts are analogous and directed to zone based speed/operation control of vehicles, and would result in predictable results.
Gariepy
A system comprising:
a remote computing device that includes a processor and a memory component (taught as a computing device, element 108, including a processor and memory, column 5 line 64-clumn 6 line 1), the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform (taught as a computing device, element 108, connecting to a wireless network, column 5 lines 59-62, column 3 lines 16-18) at least the following:
create a restriction zone policy for a [[plurality of]] covered environments, wherein the restriction zone policy defines a first rule with a restriction range (taught as operational constraints defining a space on the map of the facility where the constrain applies, column 7 lines 16-23, the zone indicating a spatial ‘range’ where the restriction/constrain applies) on a hypothetical materials handling vehicle (taught as unmanned vehicles, element 104) that is located in a restriction zone in at least one of the plurality of covered environments (taught as a speed limit zone, which defines upper and lower speed limits during a time period as an operational constraint, column 7 lines 24-26; indicated to be for within a facility, building [inside/covered], column 3 lines 6-8);
create a first restriction zone for a first covered environment, wherein creating the first restriction zone includes defining a first location in the first covered environment of the first restriction zone (taught as operational constraints defining a space on the map of the facility where the constrain applies within the environment/facility, column 7 lines 16-23);
associate the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone, wherein associating the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone includes defining a first value within the restriction range for the first rule (taught as operational constraints defining a space on the map of the facility where the constrain applies, column 7 lines 16-23); and
apply the restriction zone and the restriction zone policy to the location in the first covered environment (taught as creating a new zone in response to a request with associated zone master rules [e.g. speed limits], column 7 lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 2, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Draayer further teaches; further comprising a materials handling vehicle in the first covered environment of the plurality of covered environments (taught as a materials handling vehicle, paragraph 0044, operating in a zone of the environment, paragraph 0067), wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for determining a location of the materials handling vehicle in the first covered environment (taught as a receiver, element 25, on a vehicle, shown in Fig 2, which determines the position of the vehicle, paragraph 0067), a vehicle sensor for detecting an orientation of the materials handling vehicle and a vehicle computing device (taught as the receiver determining straight-line vs horizontal distance within the zone, paragraph 0057, and determining a general heading such as the vehicle moving away from the beacon/zone, paragraph 0064), wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:
determine, from the vehicle transceiver and the vehicle sensor, that the materials handling vehicle is entering the restriction zone (taught as in response to a vehicle entering a zone by monitoring real-time location, paragraph 0066, which indicates a determination that a vehicle has entered a zone); and
apply the first rule to restrict operation of the materials handling vehicle once the materials handling vehicle enters the restriction zone (taught as the processor, when it is determined that a vehicle enters a part of a zone that designates a rule of the road with a speed limit, lowering the vehicle speed to obey, paragraph 0068, or general enforced compliance of rules of the road, paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 3, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection). Draayer further teaches; wherein the logic is further configured to perform at least the following:
create a second restriction zone for a second covered environment, wherein creating the second restriction zone includes defining a second location in the second covered environment of the second restriction zone (indicated in that the area contains multiple zones, paragraph 0049, with multiple rules of the road to follow, paragraph 0055);
apply the second restriction zone and the restriction zone policy to the second location in the second covered environment (taught as the processor, when it is determined that a vehicle enters a part of a zone that designates a rule of the road with a speed limit, lowering the vehicle speed to obey, paragraph 0068).
However, Draayer does not explicitly teach; associate the restriction zone policy with the second restriction zone, wherein associating the restriction zone policy with the second restriction zone includes defining a second value within the restriction range for the first rule;
Gariepy teaches; associate the restriction zone policy with the second restriction zone, wherein associating the restriction zone policy with the second restriction zone includes defining a second value within the restriction range for the first rule (taught as operational constraints defining a space on the map of the facility where the constrain applies, column 7 lines 16-23; wherein it includes creating a new zone, indicated in the process of Fig 4, column 7 lines 59-60, new operational constraints a template/range by creating and storing a new operational constraint, indicated in the process of Fig 4, and column 8 lines 61-64).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the more specific restriction policy specifications /templates, including a restriction range as taught by Gariepy in the system taught by Draayer in order to improve implementation across multiple environments. Both arts are analogous and directed to zone based speed/operation control of vehicles, and would result in predictable results. Allowing the creation of new zones/policies associated with the zone further allows one to establish location based rules, adding to the flexibility of the system (such as incorporating different speed limits for different nearby areas, as exemplified in Gariepy (column 9 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Draayer further teaches; wherein [[creating the first restriction zone]], associating the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone, and applying the first restriction zone are initiated by a local administrator of the first covered environment (taught as rules of the road being determined by vehicle operators, owners or other suitable persons, paragraph 0055).
However, Draayer does not explicitly teach; wherein creating the first restriction zone are initiated by a local administrator of the first covered environment
Gariepy teaches; wherein creating the first restriction zone, associating the restriction zone policy with the first restriction zone, and applying the first restriction zone are initiated by a local administrator of the first covered environment (taught as instantiating a template/range, such as with input of a keyboard and mouse, column 6 lines 62-64; wherein a user inputting a template would, in theory, be authorized to do so).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define an administrator/manual interaction to define zones and policies as taught by Gariepy in the system taught by Draayer in order to improve oversight as routine role allocation.
Regarding claim 5, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Draayer further teaches; wherein creating the restriction zone policy is initiated by an enterprise administrator (taught as rules of the road being determined by vehicle operators, owners or other suitable persons, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 6, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Draayer further teaches; wherein the logic further causes the system to receive an exception request [[to the restriction range]] for the first covered environment (taught as adding, changing or removing instructions for one or more rules of the road, paragraph 0072; updating the system with the new rule framework would involve some request/message/signal containing the information to do so). However, Draayer does not explicitly teach; wherein the logic further causes the system to receive an exception request to the restriction range for the first covered environment (emphasis added).
Gariepy teaches; wherein the logic further causes the system to receive an exception request to the restriction range for the first covered environment (taught as the computing device receiving updates to operational constraints, column 8 lines 61-64; while not explicitly an exception, this involves a change/modification/edit to the constraints, and effectively encompasses the scope of an exception)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a updates/modifications to the restriction range [operational constraints] as taught by Gariepy in the system taught by Draayer in order to improve adaptability and resolve conflicts. As suggested by Gariepy, such validation of receiving updates can help identify/resolve potential conflicts between zones (column 8 line 64 – column 9 line 3). Thus, adding a receiving step can allow for further validation of requested updates to a restriction range/operational constraint prior to the implementation and prevent/resolve conflicts.
Regarding claim 8, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Draayer further teaches; wherein the first rule includes at least one of the following: a speed rule (taught as a rule of the road including speed limit, paragraph 0055), a fork height rule (while not a rule/explicit constraint, the system control is operatively connected to a carriage height system, paragraph 0046, and could be combined) , an acceleration rule (taught as modifying materials-handling vehicle characteristics, including acceleration rates, paragraph 0042; which could be taught to obviously modify the taught rules of the road), a deceleration rule (taught as modifying materials-handling vehicle characteristics, including deceleration rates, paragraph 0042; which could be taught to obviously modify the taught rules of the road), or a vehicle specific rule (taught as rules of the road being specific to the type of vehicle, such as a tugger or order picker, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claims 9-14 16-18 and 20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-6 and 8. Therefore, claims 9-14 16-18 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims wherein;
9 and 17 correspond to claim 1,
10 corresponds to claim 2,
11 and 18 correspond to claim 3,
12-13 correspond to claims 4-5,
14 corresponds to claim 6, and
16 and 20 correspond to claim 8.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draayer (US20220068131A1) as modified by Gariepy (US10241515B2) and further in view of Hwang (US9843560B2).
Regarding claim 7, Draayer as modified by Gariepy teaches;
The system of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). Draayer further teaches; wherein the logic further causes the system to perform least the following:
receive a response to the exception request (indicated in receiving updated rules of the road, paragraph 0072);
create a new restriction zone policy with the exception incorporated (taught as adding, changing or removing instructions for the one or more rules of the road applicable to the zone, paragraph 0072); and
implement the new restriction zone policy in the first covered environment (taught as applying the updated instructions to the system, paragraph 0072).
However, Draayer does not explicitly teach; determine whether the response to the exception request grants an exception; in response to determining that the response to the exception request grants the exception request.
Hwang teaches; determine whether the response to the exception request grants an exception (Taught as a user requested custom firewall rules, not previously defined in the rules system, to be validated, column 4 line 65-column 5 line 3),
in response to determining that the response to the exception request grants the exception request (Taught as an administrator manually validating the determination that the user requested custom firewall rules, column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 3, and updating the firewall rule once validated, column 5 line 4-6, process is also shown in Fig 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate requests for custom [updated, changes] to a ruleset with validation/authentication to update, as suggested by Hwang, in the system taught by Draayer in order to improve security and flexibility of the system. As suggested in Hwang, sometimes requested rule change may not have all the attributes for elements required, and should thus be denied (column 5 lines 13-15), since trying to implement an incomplete/problematic rule could be dangerous to security/functionality of the system. This is further suggested in Gariepy, which includes a validation step to detect conflicts in operational constraints (column 8 line 61-column 9 line 1); the additional confirmation by a user/administrator to validate as suggested in Hwang further adds to the security while maintaining the ability to establish new/updated rules.
To reiterate, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to add in a validation/authentication step as taught by Hwang in the system taught by Draayer in order to improve security while maintaining flexibility and functionality of the system.
Regrading claims 15 and 19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 7. Therefore, claims 15 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further speed zone constraint applications, pertaining to the independent claims; US20250284281A1
For further software restriction policy rules; US8332909B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights