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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to application 17/786,552 filed 6/17/2022. Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, and 15 were amended and claims 2 and 5 were cancelled in the reply filed 5/23/2025. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-15 were amended in the reply filed 10/1/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15 are pending. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 7 regarding claims 1-15: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but most are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to an improvement to a computer or technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 does not recite a method for organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examples of commercial interactions and fundamental economic principles are not exclusory. The claimed invention is directed to organizing items and containers for packing and shipping goods to recipients. This falls squarely in the sub-category of “commercial interactions – business relations” because it involves an organization of the business relation between a service provider and a service consumer. See spec. pg. 2 which states, “In real scenarios, multiple constraints can be placed by the customers and the warehouse managers. For example, customer-specific constraints are that cargo from two different vendors cannot go in the same container or only a limited amount of types can go together - as in apparels cannot go together with shoes and so forth.” The commercial parties described here include customers, vendors, and warehouse managers, and minimizing the costs between each of these parties while providing services. Furthermore, the claims are explicitly directed to “fundamental economic practices” because the claims are directed to optimizing shipping/logistics. "[B]usiness practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods have existed at least for several decades, if not longer." Electronic Comm. v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology, technical field, and a computer by providing a specific and improved process by which a computer may efficiently determine an assignment for a plurality of items into a plurality of containers. However, the alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 amounts to “significantly more” than the alleged abstract idea because the features of the claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claims merely describe a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea is merely “applied.” The mere performance data input, analysis, and output using a generic computer cannot be found patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 11 regarding claims 1-15: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered, and are moot. Claims 1, 3, and 6-15 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0158272) in view of Powers (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0374046), and claim 4 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0158272) in view of Powers (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0374046) in view of Csirik (NPL Attached).
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, 3-4, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1, 14, and 15 recite a method, an electronic device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for performing the method comprising obtaining, for each respective item of the plurality of items, a plurality of attributes associated with the respective, the attributes comprising at least a volume and a weight of the respective item; obtaining a set of container parameters associated with a corresponding container, the set of container parameters comprising one or more of a volume of the container or a residual capacity of the container; obtaining one or more constraints, wherein the one or more constraints are associated with the plurality of attributes associated with a respective item and limit assigning items in a same container; sorting and indexing the plurality of containers in volume order; sorting and indexing the plurality of items based on one or more of volume or weight; identifying a first indexed container of the plurality of containers; initializing a residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on a total capacity of the first indexed container; identifying a first indexed item of the plurality of items; determining, based on the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container and on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item, that the first indexed item satisfies a capacity criterion for the first indexed container; determining, based on the one or more constraints, that the first indexed item satisfies a constraint criterion associated with the first indexed container; determining an assignment, based at least in part on the first indexed item satisfying the capacity criterion and the constraint criterion, of the first indexed item to the first indexed container; updating, based on the assignment, the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item; removing, based on the assignment, the first indexed item from the plurality of indexed items; and outputting, based on the assignment, an assignment plan of the items into the containers. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 15 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, and a machine, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations obtaining, for each respective item of the plurality of items, a plurality of attributes associated with the respective, the attributes comprising at least a volume and a weight of the respective item; obtaining a set of container parameters associated with a corresponding container, the set of container parameters comprising one or more of a volume of the container or a residual capacity of the container; obtaining one or more constraints, wherein the one or more constraints are associated with the plurality of attributes associated with a respective item and limit assigning items in a same container; sorting and indexing the plurality of containers in volume order; sorting and indexing the plurality of items based on one or more of volume or weight; identifying a first indexed container of the plurality of containers; initializing a residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on a total capacity of the first indexed container; identifying a first indexed item of the plurality of items; determining, based on the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container and on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item, that the first indexed item satisfies a capacity criterion for the first indexed container; determining, based on the one or more constraints, that the first indexed item satisfies a constraint criterion associated with the first indexed container; determining an assignment, based at least in part on the first indexed item satisfying the capacity criterion and the constraint criterion, of the first indexed item to the first indexed container; updating, based on the assignment, the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item; removing, based on the assignment, the first indexed item from the plurality of indexed items; and outputting, based on the assignment, an assignment plan of the items into the containers, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers the concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g. commercial interactions (e.g., business relations), and fundamental economic principles (e.g., shipping/logistics)). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g. commercial interactions (e.g., business relations), and fundamental economic principles (e.g., shipping/logistics)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.-
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Such claimed components of the generic computer environment include: an electronic device (claims 1, 14, and 15), a memory circuitry (claim 14), a processor circuitry (claim 14), an interface (claim 14), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 15), a display (claim 15), and a touch-sensitive surface (claim 15). The claimed devices are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the aforementioned additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements an electronic device (described on Spec. pg. 14), a memory circuitry (described on Spec. pg. 15), a processor circuitry (described on Spec. pg. 15), an interface (described on Spec. pg. 15), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (described on Spec. pg. 15), a display (described on Spec. pg. 20), and a touch-sensitive surface (described on Spec. pg. 20) as shown, are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4 and 6-13 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 3-4 and 6-13 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0158272) in view of Powers (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0374046).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Barr discloses the following limitations:
A method, performed by an electronic device, for assigning a plurality of items into a plurality of containers, the method comprising: [See [0006] Barr teaches using a computer-implemented system (i.e., an electronic device) to allocate items to containers (i.e., assigning a plurality of items into a plurality of containers).]
obtaining, for each respective item of the plurality of items, a plurality of attributes associated with the respective item, the attributes comprising at least a volume and a weight of the respective item; [See [0139] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes the volumes of one or more of a plurality of different items (i.e., obtaining, for each respective item of the plurality of items, a plurality of attributes associated with the respective item, the attributes comprising at least a volume ...). Barr [0139] further teaches that the item attribute data also includes information about the weight of the items (i.e., the attributes comprising at least ... a weight of the respective item).]
obtaining a set of container parameters associated with a corresponding container, the set of container parameters comprising one or more of a volume of the container or a residual capacity of the container; [See [0140] Barr teaches fetching container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of one or more of a plurality of different containers (i.e., obtaining a set of container parameters associated with a corresponding container). Barr [0142] further teaches obtaining the volume of space available in the plurality of different containers (i.e., the set of container parameters comprising one or more of a volume of the container or a residual capacity of the container).]
obtaining one or more constraints, wherein the one or more constraints are associated with the plurality of attributes associated with a respective item and limit assigning items in a same container; [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers (i.e., obtaining one or more constraints). Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., wherein the one or more constraints are associated with the plurality of attributes associated with a corresponding item and limit assigning items in a same container).]
identifying a first indexed container of the plurality of containers; initializing a residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on a total capacity of the first indexed container; [See [0142] Barr teaches a container already occupied by one or more items (i.e., identifying a first indexed container of the plurality of containers) and calculating the remaining volume (i.e., initializing a residual capacity vector of the first indexed container) based on the container’s interior dimensions (i.e., based on a total capacity of the first indexed container) and the volume of the items already occupying the container.]
identifying a first indexed item of the plurality of items; determining, based on the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container and on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item, that the first indexed item satisfies a capacity criterion for the first indexed container; [See [0142] Barr teaches a container already occupied by one or more items and calculating the remaining volume based on the container’s interior dimensions and the volume of the items already occupying the container. Barr [0151] further teaches using the cartonization engine 118 to optimize the use of available space (i.e., the residual capacity vector) in a specified container (i.e., the first indexed container). Barr [0142-0143]; [0160] further teaches determining whether an item will fit into the available space of the container based on the volume of the available space and the volume of the item (i.e., determining, based on the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container and on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item, that the first indexed item satisfies a capacity criterion for the first indexed container).]
determining, based on the one or more constraints, that the first indexed item satisfies a constraint criterion associated with the first indexed container; [See [0142] Barr teaches a container already occupied by one or more items and calculating the remaining volume based on the container’s interior dimensions and the volume of the items already occupying the container. Barr [0151] further teaches using the cartonization engine 118 to optimize the use of available space in a specified container. Barr [0142-0143]; [0160] further teaches determining whether an item will fit into the available space of the container based on the volume of the available space and the volume of the item (i.e., determining, based on the one or more constraints, that the first indexed item satisfies a constraint criterion associated with the first indexed container).]
determining an assignment, based at least in part on the first indexed item satisfying the capacity criterion and the constraint criterion, of the first indexed item to the first indexed container; [See [0142] Barr teaches a container already occupied by one or more items and calculating the remaining volume based on the container’s interior dimensions and the volume of the items already occupying the container. Barr [0151] further teaches using the cartonization engine 118 to optimize the use of available space in a specified container. Barr [0142-0143]; [0160] further teaches determining whether an item will fit into the available space of the container based on the volume of the available space and the volume of the item.]
updating, based on the assignment, the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item; [See [0142] Barr teaches a container already occupied by one or more items and calculating the remaining volume based on the container’s interior dimensions and the volume of the items already occupying the container (i.e., updating, based on the assignment, the residual capacity vector of the first indexed container based on one or more of the volume or weight of the first indexed item). Barr [0151] further teaches using the cartonization engine 118 to optimize the use of available space in a specified container. Barr [0142-0143]; [0160] further teaches determining whether an item will fit into the available space of the container based on the volume of the available space and the volume of the item.]
removing, based on the assignment, the first indexed item from the plurality of indexed items; and [See (Fig. 13A); [0168] Barr teaches first items being assigned to a first container and then determining an appropriately sized container for the remaining items in the customer order. In other words, when determining an appropriately sized container for the remaining items in the customer order, the first items are not considered because they are already assigned to a first container (i.e., removing, based on the assignment, the first indexed item from the plurality of indexed items).]
outputting, based on the assignment, an assignment plan of the items into the one or more containers. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers. Barr [0144] further teaches displaying the determination of which specific items should be placed in which specific containers on a graphical user interface (GUI).]
Barr does not, however Powers does, explicitly disclose the following limitations:
sorting and indexing the plurality of containers in volume order; [See [0052]; (Fig. 3, element 304); Powers teaches existing containers are sorted, e.g., by ascending order of volume remaining, where the fullest container is sorted first (i.e., sorting and indexing the plurality of containers in volume order).]
sorting and indexing the plurality of items based on one or more of volume or weight; [See [0049]; [0055]; Powers teaches sorting a list of items based on a volume descending order of the items (i.e., sorting and indexing the plurality of items based on one or more of volume or weight).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the container and item organizing techniques of Barr with the container and item organizing techniques of Powers. By making this combination, the system of Barr would be able to arrange containers in a manner that would allow easy recognition of a container of slightly less or more volume than one that cannot adequately be used for a set of items. For example, if a set of items cannot fit in a container, a different container with slightly more volume may be easily identified by a list of containers sorted by volume. Similarly, if an item does not fit in a container, the next smallest item on a list of items sorted by volume may be selected instead.
Regarding claim 3, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
determining whether attributes associated with a first item violates the one or more constraints [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., determining whether attributes associated with a first item violates the one or more constraints). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized.]
wherein determining the assignment of the items into the one or more containers comprises: ... - upon determining that the attributes associated with the first item do not violate the one or more constraints, assigning the first item to a first container. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., upon determining that the attributes associated with the first item do not violate the one or more constraints, assigning the first item to a first container). Barr [0144] further teaches displaying the determination of which specific items should be placed in which specific containers on a graphical user interface (GUI). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized.]
Regarding claim 6, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the set of performance parameters comprises one or more performance parameters indicative of cost associated with the one or more containers, and/or a capacity associated with the one or more containers [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers. Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized (i.e., wherein the set of performance parameters comprises one or more performance parameters indicative of cost associated with the one or more containers, and/or a capacity associated with the one or more containers).]
Regarding claim 7, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the attributes comprise one or more of: a shipping order, a purchase order, a date of arrival at origin warehouse, an origin port, a destination port, a plant code, an expected time of arrival, a cargo type, a stoke keeping unit, a vendor attribute, a volume of the cargo, and a weight of the cargo. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes (i.e., wherein the attributes comprise one or more of ... a volume of the cargo) and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers.]
Regarding claim 8, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the set of container parameters comprises one or more of: a volume of the container, a residual capacity of the container, and a maximum capacity of the container. [See [0142] Barr teaches calculating the volume of space available in a container based on the interior dimensions of the container (i.e., wherein the set of container parameters comprises one or more of: a volume of the container ...).]
Regarding claim 9, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
determining, for each item, and based on the attributes associated with the item, whether the item fits into a residual capacity of a container of the one or more containers, without violating the constraints. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers. Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized. Barr [0134] further teaches that determining how items may fit within a given volume based on dimensions of each item (i.e., determining, for each item, and based on the attributes associated with the item, whether the item fits into a residual capacity of a container of the one or more containers, without violating the constraints).]
Regarding claim 10, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 and 9 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
when it is determined that the item fits into the residual capacity of the container without violating the constraints, assigning the item to the container. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Barr [0134] further teaches that determining how items may fit within a given volume based on dimensions of each item. Barr [0143] further teaches that, based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., when it is determined that the item fits into the residual capacity of the container without violating the constraints, assigning the item to the container). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized.]
Regarding claim 11, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 and 9 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
when the item does not fit into the residual capacity of the container without violating the constraints, forgoing the assignment of the item to the container. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Barr [0134] further teaches that determining how items may fit within a given volume based on dimensions of each item. Barr [0143] further teaches that, based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., - when the item does not fit into the residual capacity of the container without violating the constraints, forgoing the assignment of the item to the container). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized.]
Regarding claim 12, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 and 9 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
determining a number of conflicts in a container; - determining whether the number of determined conflicts satisfy a criterion. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Barr [0134] further teaches that determining how items may fit within a given volume based on dimensions of each item. Barr [0143] further teaches that, based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., - determining a number of conflicts in a container; and - determining whether the number of determined conflicts satisfy a criterion). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized.]
when it is determined that the number of determined conflicts does not satisfy the criterion, the method comprises terminating the process; and when it is determined that the number of determined conflicts satisfy the criterion, the method comprises continue to assign items. (Examiner’s Note: Based on the description in spec. pgs. 13-14, Examiner is interpreting these limitations to mean: when it is determined that items fit within the bounds of a container, the process is terminated; when it is determined that items do not fit within the bounds of a container, the process continues its determination process.) [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Barr [0134] further teaches that determining how items may fit within a given volume based on dimensions of each item. Barr [0143] further teaches that, based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers. Barr (Fig. 10, element 1010, 1012); [0143-0144] teaches that its process does not move forward until a packaging solution is found for the plurality of items which allows the items to fit within associated containers. In other words, the system of Barr continues to search for a set of containers to fit a plurality of items (i.e., when it is determined that the number of determined conflicts satisfy the criterion, the method comprises continue to assign items) until an optimized solution is found (i.e., when it is determined that the number of determined conflicts does not satisfy the criterion, the method comprises terminating the process).]
Regarding claim 13, Barr in view of Powers discloses all claim 1 and 3 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
upon determining that attributes associated with the first item violate the one or more constraints, assigning the first item to a container other than the first container. [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Barr [0134] further teaches that determining how items may fit within a given volume based on dimensions of each item. Barr [0143] further teaches that, based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers (i.e., - upon determining that attributes associated with the first item violate the one or more constraints, assigning the first item to a container other than the first container). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized.]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0158272) in view of Powers (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0374046) in view of Csirik (NPL Attached).
Regarding claim 4, Barr discloses all claim 1 limitations. Barr further discloses the following limitations:
wherein determining the assignment of the items into the one or more containers comprises: - optimizing a set of performance parameters indicative of shipping performance based on the attributes, the set of container parameters and the constraints ... [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers. Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers. Barr [0144] further teaches displaying the determination of which specific items should be placed in which specific containers on a graphical user interface (GUI). Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized (i.e., optimizing a set of performance parameters indicative of shipping performance based on the attributes, the set of container parameters and the constraints ...).]
by applying, to an item set comprising the items, and a container set comprising the one or more containers, an assignment scheme ... with a plurality of counters indicative of the corresponding constraints placed on the attributes of the corresponding items (Examiner’s Note: the claim term “counters” does not have a clear, narrow definition in light of the specification. Examiner is interpreting the term “counters” as broad digital representations of the “constraints placed on the attributes of the corresponding item.”) [See [0139-0140] Barr teaches retrieving item attribute information which includes item volumes and container attribute information which includes the interior dimensions of containers. Barr [0143] further teaches which of one or more of a plurality of different items (i.e., an item set) can be placed into one or more of a plurality of different containers (i.e., a container set). Based on the volume of the items, the available space in the containers, and the business rules applicable to the location, items, and containers, (i.e., constraints placed on the attributes of the corresponding items) it is determined which items are to be placed in which containers. Barr [0138]; (Fig. 10) teaches that these steps are performed as part of a method used to reduce shipping costs by determining the minimum packaging required to fit a number of items such that shipping costs are minimized (i.e., by applying, to an item set comprising the items, and a container set comprising the one or more containers, an assignment scheme ... with a plurality of counters indicative of the corresponding constraints placed on the attributes of the corresponding items).]
Although Barr teaches determining an optimized container solution for a given plurality of items, Barr does not explicitly teach using a next-fit-decreasing algorithm as part of its determination. Powers does not remedy this deficiency. Csirik does, however, teach the following limitations:
... based on a next-fit-decreasing (NFD) algorithm ... [See (pg. 1) Csirik teaches using a next-fit decreasing heuristic as a method of bin packing in order to find the smallest number of bins in which items can be packed.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the container solution optimization method of Barr in view of Powers with the solution to a bin packing problem of Csirik. By making this combination, Barr in view of Powers would be able to utilize the next fit decreasing algorithm in order to determine the fewest number of containers needed to store a plurality of items. This would allow a user of Barr in view of Powers to use this known, mathematically supported bin packing algorithm to make its container packing determinations, while also allowing a user of Barr in view of Powers to use the techniques taught by Barr in view of Powers to make its container packing determinations. A user would then be able to choose one of these two solutions that best fits their needs.
Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but was not used in the prior art rejections:
Sundaresan (U.S. Pat. No. 9,230,233) – Systems and methods for implementing specialty packaging in a materials handling facility
Saito (U.S. Pat. No. 10,740,714) – Machine learning for determination of shipping rules and shipping methods for order fulfillment
Saha (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0172736) – System and method for optimizing use of standardized shipping containers
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights