Jon M. Banks et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 202013872470 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/872,470 04/29/2013 Jon M. Banks END920130085US1 4426 30449 7590 06/01/2020 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS 22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE SUITE 302 LATHAM, NY 12110 EXAMINER GUILIANO, CHARLES A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): 30449@IPLAWUSA.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JON M. BANKS, JAMES E. VARAN, JEFFREY L. WILSON, and ANDREW P. WHITE Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DAVID C. McKONE, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–9 and 13–15. Claims 10–12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to assigning parts to storage locations in a warehouse. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for determining an optimum storage location in a warehouse for storing a part, storing the part in the optimum storage location, and picking the part from the optimum storage location, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a multiplicity of ratings of a respective multiplicity of parts having respective pick frequencies of the parts, wherein the parts with higher pick frequencies have higher ratings than the parts with lower pick frequencies; determining a multiplicity of grades of a respective multiplicity of storage locations in the warehouse based [on] a total number of the storage locations and a relative grade of the storage locations, wherein the relative grade of the storage locations is based on an ordering of the storage locations according to a sort based on accessability rating, strike, and load sequence of the storage locations, and wherein respective accessibilities of the storage locations to a loading dock or another collection point for the parts are based in part on load sequence and put sequence, and are relatively higher for storage locations closer to a floor than for storage locations further from the floor because the parts are to be picked from the storage locations by a forklift; receiving, by one or more processors, respective ranges of grades of the storage locations that satisfy storage location criteria of the respective multiplicity of ratings of the parts such that each part whose rating is higher than the rating of another part has a range of grades of satisfactory storage locations that is narrower Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 3 than a range of grades of satisfactory storage locations that the other part has; determining, for each combination of part and storage location, a location grade match score based on how closely the part's rating matches the storage location’s grade; determining, for each combination of part and storage location, a location size score based on how closely a planned stock quantity (PSQ) of the part matches the storage location’s size; determining, for each combination of part and storage location, a final score based, at least in part, on the location grade match score and the location size score; determining, for one part of the multiplicity of parts, an optimum storage location of the multiplicity of storage locations to store the one part, by selecting an empty storage location at which the final score with respect to the one part is higher than the final score for all other empty locations with respect to the one part; assigning the one part to the optimum storage location; storing the one part in the optimum storage location; and picking the one part, by the forklift, from the optimum storage location. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1–9 and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. (Final Act. 17–20.) Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 4 ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in concluding claims 1–9 and 13–15 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. (Appeal Br. 10–28.) ANALYSIS The Examiner concludes claims 1–9 and 13–15 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because: [The claims] are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for assigning parts to optimum storage locations based on the pick frequency of the parts, the grade for storage locations, the total number of storage locations, the relative grade of the storage locations, the location grade match score, the location size score, the planned stock quantity of the part, and the size of the storage location. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements provide no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and recitations of insignificant post-solution activity. (Final Act. 17.) The Examiner also concludes claims 3, 4, 8, and 14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter pursuant to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007), because the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable hardware storage device includes transitory propagating signals.” (Id. at 20.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 26, 2017); the Reply Brief (filed June 4, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed June 27, 2017); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Apr. 3, 2018) for the respective details. Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 5 Appellant acknowledges that the claim requirements directed to determining an optimum storage location recite a mathematical algorithm, which is an abstract idea. (Appeal Br. 13.) However, Appellant argues that the claims as a whole are not directed to an abstract idea because they also include the “storing” and “picking” steps, which “provide utility to claims 1, 3 and 5,” the independent claims. (Id. at 14.) Appellant also argues: Although claims 1, 3 and 5 involve collecting and analyzing information, claims 1, 3 and 5 are not directed to collecting and analyzing information, but rather are directed to determining an optimum storage location for storing a part, storing the part in the optimum storage location, and picking the part from the optimum storage location, which is not an abstract idea. (Id. at 14–15.) Furthermore, argues Appellant, for the same reason (i.e., the requirements of storing and picking), “claims 1, 3 and 5 cannot be performed entirely in the human mind and are thus not directed to an idea of itself.” (Id. at 15.) Appellant further argues that, in addition to not being directed to an abstract idea, the claims “recite significantly more than the abstract idea.” (Id. at 16.) In particular, argues Appellant: (i) the claims are similar to those of Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as directed to a technological improvement (here, “optimizing storage locations for parts in a warehouse.”); (ii) the claims perform an improved filtering function like those of Bascom; and (iii) the claims embody rules to improve technology like those of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Id. at 16–23.) In addition, Appellant argues the claims have specificity and thus “do not preempt significant inventive activity for assigning parts to optimum storage locations.” (Id. at 23.) Finally, Appellant argues that the recitation Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 6 of a forklift in claims 1, 3, and 5, and of ROMS in claims 13–15, transform the claims into something significantly more than an abstract idea. (Id. at 25–28.) In this connection, Appellant asserts the Examiner failed to meet the standards of Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), regarding the factual support required for a finding that claimed subject matter was well-understood, routine, and conventional. (Reply Br. 10–12.) As set forth below, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S. C. § 101. Here, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims relate to a method, independent claim 3 and its dependent claims relate to a computer program product; and independent claim 5 and its dependent claims relate to a system — i.e., a process, manufacture, or machine, respectively.3 However, the Supreme Court has long held that “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 598–99 (2013)). The “abstract ideas” category 3 We do not agree with the Examiner that claims 3, 4, 8, and 14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter pursuant to In re Nuijten. These claims specify a computer program product comprising “program code stored in the one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices,” and the Specification limits such devices to “not encompass signal propagation media such as copper cables, optical fibers and wireless transmission media.” (Spec. ¶ 28.) See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (factors to conclude claim avoids encompassing a non-statutory signal include “express intent in applicant’s specification to limit the term.”) Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 7 embodies the longstanding rule that an idea, by itself, is not patentable. Alice, 573 U.S. at 216–17. In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 8 Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). An “inventive concept” is “an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” 573 U.S. at 217–18. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” 573 U.S. at 221 (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. Further to the Alice/Mayo analytical framework, after the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this case, in January 2019, the U.S. Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 9 Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”).4 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. 4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). 5 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance — Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55. Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 10 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. In evaluating the claims at issue here, we consider claim 1 as representative, consistent with how Appellant and the Examiner analyze the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2017). Regarding Step 2A Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, as Appellant admits (and we agree), the bulk of claim 1 recites a mathematical algorithm to determine an optimum storage location: 1. A method for determining an optimum storage location in a warehouse for storing a part . . . the method comprising the steps of: receiving a multiplicity of ratings of a respective multiplicity of parts having respective pick frequencies of the parts, wherein the parts with higher pick frequencies have higher ratings than the parts with lower pick frequencies; determining a multiplicity of grades of a respective multiplicity of storage locations in the warehouse based a total number of the storage locations and a relative grade of the storage locations, wherein the relative grade of the storage locations is based on an ordering of the storage locations according to a sort based on accessability Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 11 rating, strike, and load sequence of the storage locations, and wherein respective accessibilities of the storage locations to a loading dock or another collection point for the parts are based in part on load sequence and put sequence, and are relatively higher for storage locations closer to a floor than for storage locations further from the floor because the parts are to be picked from the storage locations by a forklift; receiving, [by one or more processors,] respective ranges of grades of the storage locations that satisfy storage location criteria of the respective multiplicity of ratings of the parts such that each part whose rating is higher than the rating of another part has a range of grades of satisfactory storage locations that is narrower than a range of grades of satisfactory storage locations that the other part has; determining, for each combination of part and storage location, a location grade match score based on how closely the part’s rating matches the storage location's grade; determining, for each combination of part and storage location, a location size score based on how closely a planned stock quantity (PSQ) of the part matches the storage location’s size; determining, for each combination of part and storage location, a final score based, at least in part, on the location grade match score and the location size score; determining, for one part of the multiplicity of parts, an optimum storage location of the multiplicity of storage locations to store the one part, by selecting an empty storage location at which the final score with respect to the one part is higher than the final score for all other empty locations with respect to the one part; assigning the one part to the optimum storage location. . . . Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 12 (Appeal Br. 13, 31–32 (“Appellants acknowledge that determining an optimum storage location, by itself, is implemented via a mathematical algorithm which, according to Alice, is an abstract idea”).) As the Examiner concludes, other than the reference to processors (from which information used by the algorithm is received), all of the above steps are part of an expressed mathematical algorithm and also are capable of being performed in the human mind. (Final Act. 17–18; Ans. 9.) To that we would add that the entirety of claim 1 — including the additional requirements of “storing the one part in the optimum storage location; and picking the one part, by the forklift, from the optimum storage location” — recites a method of inventory control, which is a method of organizing human activity. See Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential). As stated in the 2019 Revised Guidance, abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. (2019Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 recites abstract ideas, as do the remaining claims. Further pursuant to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we consider whether there are additional elements set forth in claim 1 that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Here, Appellant argues that the abstract idea of claim 1 additionally involves the “very important . . . . ‘storing’ and ‘picking’ steps [which] provide utility to claims 1, 3 and 5.” (Appeal Br. 14.) Appellant argues that, because of these additional steps, the claimed steps “cannot be performed entirely in the human mind.” (Id. at 15.) However, we agree with the Examiner that these steps “are merely Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 13 insignificant post-solution activity.” (Ans. 7.) “[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant post solution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)). Moreover, the “storing” and “picking” steps are themselves part of the abstract idea of the inventory control human activity (method of organizing human activity) as recited in the claims, and as such cannot form the basis for concluding that the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55 (“evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”); 2019 Revised Guidance, fn. 24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”). Appellant also relies on the claimed “processor,” from which is received the “ranges of grades of the storage locations” used in the claimed mathematical algorithm, and, in dependent claims 13–15, a read-only memory (ROM) that stores computer program code. (Appeal Br. 19, 27.) However, “merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Appellant further argues that the claimed subject matter improves “parts storage technology.” (Appeal Br. 16.) However, unlike Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016), on which Appellant Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 14 relies, there is no improvement to technology, but rather application of preexisting technology to implement the abstract idea itself. Nor does the subject matter of claim 1 contain additional elements that implement the judicial exception with a “particular machine,” because the claims do not specify any details in regard to inventory control beyond the recited algorithm. See MPEP § 2106.05 (b). Further, the method does not transform matter; at best it transforms information. See MPEP § 2106.05(c). Nor does claim 1 have any other meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05 (e)), or any of the other considerations set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 1 (and the remaining claims) is directed to mathematical concepts, mental processes, and a method of organizing human activity — inventory control — and thus is directed to abstract ideas, and there are no additional elements recited therein that would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Turning to the second step of the Alice inquiry (Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance), we consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 78 (2012)). We do not agree with Appellant that there are any additional elements of claim 1, whether taken individually or in combination, that would add “significantly more” to the recitation of claim 1 sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 15 patent-eligible application. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Other than using generic computer technology, the claimed improvement consists of the mathematical concepts and mental processes of the claimed abstract idea itself. “It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Moreover, “[p]atent law does not protect claims to an ‘asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas . . . no matter how groundbreaking the advance.’” 890 F.3d at 1359. As discussed above, Appellant argues that the subject matter of the claims embodies an improvement in technology, relying on Bascom and McRO. (Appeal Br. 18–20.) But Appellant has not shown that claim 1 is sufficiently similar to the claims in those cases. In Bascom, the court held eligible claims directed to a technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering solution—namely a “one-size-fits-all” filter at an Internet Service Provider (ISP)—more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution improved the computer system’s performance and, therefore, was patent-eligible. See id. But, unlike the filtering system improvements in Bascom that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed invention here uses generic computing components to implement abstract ideas as noted previously. In McRO, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 16 sequence of synchronized, animated characters. 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques — an improvement over manual three- dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1316. But, unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed invention here merely obtains information and uses generic computer technology to determine an optimum storage location in a warehouse for storing a part. The claimed subject matter is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts, and does not improve technology as was the case in McRO. Appellant argues the specific steps of the claims “do not preempt significant inventive activity for assigning parts to optimum storage locations.” (Appeal Br. 23.) However, “[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appellant also argues the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea given the requirement of “special purpose hardware, namely a forklift, to perform the step of picking the one part, by the forklift, from the optimum storage location.” (Appeal Br. 25.) Consistent with the USPTO “Berkheimer” guidance, we agree with the Examiner’s finding: [T]he recitation of “picking the one part, by the forklift, from the optimum storage location” is recited at a high level of generality and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known in the field of managing warehouse storage locations, which is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. . . . [I]n the field Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 17 of managing warehouse storage locations, it is common for a person to pick a part from a storage location in the warehouse using a forklift in response to a recommendation. (Ans. 18.) This finding by the Examiner is an instance where there can be no dispute that “additional element(s) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”6 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1. Appellant provides no arguments that would differentiate the remaining claims from claim 1. Thus, the foregoing analysis of claim 1 is exemplary of that for claims 2–9 and 13–15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of those claims. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 13–15 101 Eligibility 1–9, 13–15 6 April 19, 2018 USPTO Memorandum, “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.),” p. 4. Appeal 2018-006503 Application 13/872,470 18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation