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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “an CAD system” which should alternatively read “a CAD system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the components/ the number of components" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously in the claim, a 3D model of a third element is defined as a singular component. There are no introductions of a plurality of components within the load carrier.
Dependent claims 2-20 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “wherein a model of a first, a second and a third element is selected” lacks clarity. Previously in the claim, a model of a first element, a model of a second element, and a 3D model of a third element were introduced. It is unclear what the model of the phrase in question is referring to. That is to say- it is unclear if there is an additional model comprising the first, second, and third models OR if a model is intended to refer to each element independently. For purposes of this examination, Examiner has interpreted the intent to be the latter. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted the claim to read “wherein the first model, the second model, and the third model are selected…”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the different steps of the method” lacks clarity because it is not defined what “different” steps are referring to. Specifically, it is unclear which steps are included and excluded by the phrase and therefore it is indefinite as to which steps of the method are repeated.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the components” lacks antecedent basis in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “all other steps” lacks clarity because it is not defined what “other” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear which steps are included and excluded by this phrase and therefore indefinite as to which steps of the method are carried out.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the layout” lacks antecedent basis. Previously, a layout element was recited in the claims but a layout was not introduced. For purposes of this examination, examiner has interpreted the phrase “the layout” to mean “the layout element”.
Furthermore in claim 20, the phrase “the components” lacks antecedent basis in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13 and 20 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
determining an available interior space for the logistics load carrier; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to the available space of a load carrier for utilization. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a model of a first element of the logistics load carrier,. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and making a judgement as to the appropriate model of a first element to utilize. This task can be performed within the human mind. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a model of a second element of the logistics load carrier The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and making a judgement as to the appropriate model of a second element to utilize. This task can be performed within the human mind. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
adding a 3D model of a third element of the logistics load carrier, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail generating a 3D model of a third element. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human can draw a 3D model of an element using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining dimensions of the frame and the layout element; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the frame and layout element so as to make an evaluation of the dimensions of each. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
optimizing an arrangement of the components in the layout element to maximize the number of components in the logistics load carrier, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the optimal arrangement of components in the layout so as to achieve a maximum number of components. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail creating a 3D model of the designed load carrier. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can use pen and paper as assistive physical aids to draw a model of the design in 3D space. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
The claim recites a computer-implemented method. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes which can be fully performed in the human mind, those process which can be performed using pen and paper as assistive aids, and processes that are implemented using a generic computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein the first element is a type of frame;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the second element is a type of a layout element;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the third element is a component to be transported and wherein the 3D model comprises the dimensions of the component;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the components are positioned within the layout element; and,- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the available interior space is a constraint for determining the dimensions of the frame and the layout element, wherein the available interior space falls within the dimensions of the frame, and wherein the dimensions of the layout element fall within the available space- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) so no further evaluation is required to determine if such limitations are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception.
The courts have found that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 1, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein a model of a first, a second and a third element is selected, added and/or changed in any order., which can reasonably be read to entail making an observation and judgement for a selection, or modifying models. These tasks can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, as stated previously. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements which would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.0
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein dimensions of the frame and/or the layout element are defined as a constraint. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein after changing the available interior space due to a change in the dimensions of the frame or the layout element, the dimensions of the layout element or the frame, respectively, change, which can reasonably be read to entail observing changes of the available interior space due to changes of the frame and layout and making a judgement as to what the dimensions of the element or frame should be in response to such change. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation automatically. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to perform the recited process. The courts have ruled adding a general purpose computer to an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the different steps of the method are repeated. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because the limitation identified in Step 2A Prong 2 was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), the element requires further evaluation to determine if the element is beyond activities which are well understood, routine, and conventional. Performing repetitive calculations have been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in this claim. The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding activities which are found to be well understood, routine, and conventional are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein, based on the 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier, 2D detail drawings are generated., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the 3D model of the designed carrier and creating 2D drawings based on the evaluation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can evaluate a 3D model and subsequently draw a 2D detail drawing using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein the 3D model of the designed logistics carrier is displayed in augmented reality. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element has further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking to a particular technological environment. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because the limitation was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), it requires further evaluation to determine if it is beyond well understood routine and conventional activity. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, displaying data involves the transmission of data, which has been recognized by the courts as a well understood routine and conventional activity The courts have found that limitations that amount to well understood routine and conventional activity as well as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation wherein one or more constraints, such as an orientation of the components, is imposed on the optimization of the arrangement of the components. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation wherein a cost calculation of the designed logistics load carrier is made. which can reasonably be read to entail performing a cost calculation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim explicitly recites a mathematical calculation, the claim has further been identified to include the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, additional metadata is entered, This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The claim also recites the additional element which is used as a constraint when selecting the first and second element which has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) .The courts have ruled adding insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because an element was identified and Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) in the previous analysis step, further evaluation is required to determine if the element is well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the element wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, additional metadata is entered involves transmitting or receiving data over a network. The courts have found the computer functions of transmitting and receiving data over a network as well understood, routine and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. The courts have found that limitations that amount to including well-understood, routine, and convention activities with the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the model of the first and the second element is selected from a library of models., which can reasonably be read to entail making an observation and judgment as to the appropriate model from the library of models to be used. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein an intermediate result of each step of the method is automatically visualized. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled invoking the use of generic computers as a tool does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of computers as a tool to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation wherein based on previous designs of logistics load carriers and after adding the 3D model of the third element, all other steps of the method are automatically carried out. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled adding a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding a computer to the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the claim is not directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Particularly the recitation of the phrase “computer system” encompasses embodiments which would make the claimed matter ineligible. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a computer program, because the matter is claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Accordingly, the claim encompasses software per se, in the interpretation where elements of a computer system are entirely software components. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also encompasses signals per se because the claim could encompass a computer readable storage medium which may include transitory signals. The specification in ¶66 notes that the computer system comprises a processor, permanent memory, a non-permanent working memory, and a network interface. However, such structural elements are not claimed and therefore the computer system is not so limited to such structural elements.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation A computer system for carrying out the computer-implemented method according to claim 1. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled adding a general purpose computer to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to using a general purpose computer with a judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 15 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible subject matter and therefore is also directed towards both signals per se and software per se.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to a CRM system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 16 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 16 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to a PLM system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 17 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 17 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to an ERP system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 18 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 18 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to an CAD system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the claim is not directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The phrase “a computer program comprising instructions” encompasses that which can be construed as software only and therefore the claim is directed to software per se. There are no structural recitations to limit the product to a physical or tangible form. The phrase “when executed by a computer” is non-functional descriptive language since the limitation does not necessitate that the computer execute the computer program. That is to say, the execution of the instructions by the computer is not required by the claims.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation A computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, performs the computer- implemented method according to claim 1. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled using a generic computer with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of a computer with the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation wherein the layout is a compartmentalization of the available interior space, and wherein forms of the compartmentalization match forms of the components. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devarajan et al ( US 2009/0299790 A1), hereinafter referred to as Devarajan.
Regarding claim 1, Devarajan discloses A computer-implemented method for designing a logistics load carrier comprising the following steps: A method is disclosed for optimizing a shipping density of a container ((Devarajan, ¶10) " Accordingly, the present invention is a system and method for interactively optimizing shipping density of racked parts by a user. "). See also Claim 7 describing a method implemented on a computer system ((Devarajan, Page 9, Col 1, Claim 7) " A method of allowing a user to interactively optimize shipping density of a plurality of copies of a component part in a container using a computer system, the method comprising the steps of: ")
determining an available interior space for the logistics load carrier; Available container space is known ((Devarajan, ¶48) "The user places the parts relative to one another in a manner that, in the user's estimation, provides an assumed volume-efficient use of the available container space"). The container is described as being used for transporting component parts, thereby indicating that the container is a logistics load carrier ((Devarajan, ¶10) "The system includes a user computer system, a communications network, a remotely located computer system, a data storage device, a computer-generated model of a component part, a computer-generated model of a container for transporting the component part and an executable shipping density optimization software program."). See also Figure 5 for usable fields for length, width, and height of the container.
selecting a model of a first element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the first element is a type of frame; When read in light of the specification (¶27), “a frame is an element that gives the logistics load carrier structural strength. The frame comprises a floor, walls, and a ceiling”. A model of a container is selected ((Devarajan, Page 9, Claim 7) " selecting a model of the container from a container database in communication with the computer system via the communications network;"). When further read in light of the specification (¶32, a frame type includes racks. The container is described as comprising a racked frame ((Devarajan, ¶50) " Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness."). See also Claim 6 ((Devarajan, Page 9, Claim 6) " A system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the container is a rack.")
selecting a model of a second element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the second element is a type of a layout element; A user selects a rack from a list and to display on the screen ((Devarajan, ¶51) " In block 115, the user 26 selects a rack from the filtered list of racks. In this example, the user is presented with a screen displaying a list of racks that meet the previously selected criteria. Advantageously, this filtering process reduces the number of racks for analysis. The user may utilize a user input device to highlight and select the desired rack. The user 26 may select to have the selected rack displayed on the display screen, as shown in FIG. 8 at 72. "). A rack is characterized as a model ((Devarajan, ¶49) " It is to be understood that the terms "component part," "container," and "rack" (as well as the plural forms of those terms) as used in describing the present methodology refer to the computer, geometric, or mesh models used in or by a CAD program, those models representing the actual component part(s) and rack being analyzed. ")
adding a 3D model of a third element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the third element is a component to be transported and wherein the 3D model comprises the dimensions of the component; A CAD model is generated for the component part and the user selects the component part model which is characterized by its size ((Devarajan, ¶11) " The component part design and models thereof are typically generated through the use of conventional computer- aided design (CAD), including computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) and computer-aided engineering (CAE) techniques. ")((Devarajan, ¶13) " The methodology includes the steps of the user selecting the component part model and container ")(( Devarajan, ¶24) " In this example, the component part model database 14 contains computer models, or math-based representations, of individual components part for use in the vehicle. The models may be stored in a CAD or mesh format or the like. For example, the model database 14 may include mesh modeling data for a component part, including minimum and maximum mesh size. It should be appreciated that the component part model database 14 may be integral with the information database 12. "); ((Devarajan, Page 9, Claim 8) " A method as set forth in claim 7 wherein the step of selecting a component part model further includes the step of selecting a geometric model of the component part from a library of geometric component part models maintained in a data storage device.")
determining dimensions of the frame and the layout element; Container dimensions and r