DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/19/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 18 have been amended. Claims 5, 13-17, and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-28 have been added. Claims 1- 4, 6-12, 18, and 21-28 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim objections
The cancellation of claim 17 is acknowledged and accordingly the claim objection is now moot.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The claims have been amended in responses to the rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections and accordingly the rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as set forth previously have been withdrawn (or are rendered moot for those claims which have since been cancelled).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has amended the claims in response to the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and argues that the claims, as amended are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality. Particularly, applicant argues that the claim limitations require specific computational techniques, teal-time geometric calculations, and augmented reality visualization which cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using generic assistive physical aids. Applicant further argues that if the claim 1 does recite an abstract idea, the claim as a whole provides a specific computer-implemented method for designing logistically load carriers that includes dynamically adjusting dimensions in real time and providing interactive visualization in augmented reality.
Applicants arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. While the examiner acknowledges that the claim recites additional elements beyond what is recited as a judicial exception, the additional elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. The acts of determining, selecting, adding, calculating, adjusting, and generating per the claims are all acts which can be performed mentally or using assistive physical aids such as a pen and paper or generic computer. Displaying a generated 3D model in augmented reality is recited at a high level of generality such that the mechanism by which the model is displayed is non-inventive. Displaying 3D models in augmented reality in an unspecified way amounts to merely outputting data in an augmented reality technological environment, wherein generically transmitting data to a display has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner such as in the claim. The remaining additional elements merely limit the use of the judicial exceptions to the particular field of use of logistics load carrier design. Any asserted improvements appear to be rooted in the steps which can be construed as a mental process(es); however the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement may be provided by one or more additional elements with the judicial exception. The relationship by which the additional elements are tied to the judicial exception(s) likewise does not provide any inventive concept.
The applicant argues that the integration of additional elements demonstrates an improvement in computer-aided design and visualization.
Applicant’s argument is not convincing. An improvement in computer aided design is not reflected in the claims- an improvement of a design method using a generic computer/ computer components is recited in the claims. The design is that which can be performed mentally. Nor is an improvement to visualization provided by the claims. The claim merely uses an existing and well understood technology as a mechanism by which to output the result of the design. The means by which the visualization actually occurs is not improved. The claim appears to be the improvement of a design methodology (which can be practically performed in the human mind using assistive aids) that leverages generic computers to perform the process in a computing environment and generically recited computing components, such as augmented reality, to display to output the result of the design in an unspecified way. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”.
Accordingly, by the rationale provided in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The claims have been amended in response to the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The applicant argues that the amended claim 1 requires calculating and adjusting dimensions of the first and second element, wherein the calculation is based on technical characteristics of the third element and the determined available interior space. Applicant argues that these features are not disclosed by Devarajan.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no requirements as to what the calculation nor the adjustment entails, aside from the operations being based on technical characteristics of the third element and the available interior space. Devarajan meets such requirements. The initial configuration of the parts (which includes the frame and racks by which the parts are placed) is determined according to the available container space and according to properties of the component parts (as technical characteristics) ((Devarajan, ¶48) " The user may also use some degree of engineering knowledge, best practice guidelines, judgment, and/or experience
in creating the initial orientation of parts. 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. For example, generally flat or planar component parts such as the fender panel 50 will most likely be given an initial configuration wherein the adjacent parts are approximately parallel to one another. Component parts having non-planar or otherwise irregular shapes may be arranged in some other assumed volume-efficient configuration to similarly maximize the efficient utilization of space in the container. "). A filtering process (as a calculation of elements with appropriate dimensions) is applied to both the container frame and racks after identifying the constraints of the components part in step 105 ((Devarajan, ¶50) "Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness"). The methodology is described as being iterative and including user feedback (as a real-time process) based on optimization results, whereby the user may change (calculate or adjust) the size/dimensions of the frame or racks according to the component part ((Devarajan, ¶94) " It should be appreciated that the above-described methodology is executable in an iterative manner. The user 26 may advantageously elect to selectively change a design parameter as part of a comprehensive packaging study for a component part. The shipping density optimization software program optimizes factors such as a feature on the component part, the number of component parts in the rack, the configuration of component parts stored on the rack, the size of the rack, the number of racks per container, and the type of conveyance. "). Furthermore, Devarajan explicitly suggests that changes to the component part directly affect rack density and further describe rack density aspects including the rack size ((Devarajan, ¶7) " Therefore, any change to the shape and/ or size of a particular component part could potentially affect the rack density, as well as the freight and container investment costs. "); ((Devarajan, ¶53) " The results may include information such as optimized number of parts per rack, financial impact, container size, part configuration, and clearance between parts or the like. Various aspects of the rack density can be illustrated, including number of racked components, rack size, or potential areas of improvement. ").
The applicant further argues that Devarajan does not disclose an augmented reality display.
Examiner agrees, as acknowledged in the previous action’s rejection of claim 7 (previously recited this feature), that Devarajan does not fairly disclose using augmented reality to display the results. Devarajan discloses using virtual reality in the display solution. However, as rejected in the previous action, Ship Technology is relied upon to disclose the augmented reality feature and one having skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to Devarajan because simple substitution of the augmented reality for the virtual reality as the display environment would have yielded predictable results.
Accordingly, claim 1 and the claims incorporating features of claim 1 remain rejected over the prior art by the combined references set forth and applied in this action under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The claims have been amended in response to the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the features of the amended claim 1 to include the calculating and adjusting of the first and second elements. By incorporation of such features, the applicant argues that dependent claims 6, 7 are novel over the prior art.
The arguments presented are not persuasive. As stated in the response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (see above), these features argued by the applicant are disclosed by the prior art of record as set forth in the ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this action.
Applicant further argues that the cancellation of claims 15-17 renders their rejection moot. Acknowledgement is made of the cancelled claims. The rejection no longer applies.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 18, 23, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “an ERP system” in line 3. First introductions of acronyms should be clearly presented in the claim to avoid any ambiguity as to the meaning of the acronym. When read in light of the specification, ¶23 states that ERP refers to a software package for Enterprise Resource Planning. The claim should reflect this definition upon first instance in the claims, followed by the acronym in parenthesis. For example, claim 9 could be rewritten to instead recite “an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a CAD system” in line 2. First introductions of acronyms should be clearly presented in the claim to avoid any ambiguity as to the meaning of the acronym. When read in light of the specification, ¶24 states that CAD refers to a software package for Computer-Aided Design. The claim should reflect this definition upon first instance in the claims, followed by the acronym in parenthesis. For example, claim 18 could be rewritten to instead recite “a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) system”.
Claim 23 recites “and or” in line 2 which should instead be written “and/or”.
Claim 24 recites “an ERP system” in line 21. First introductions of acronyms should be clearly presented in the claim to avoid any ambiguity as to the meaning of the acronym. When read in light of the specification, ¶23 states that ERP refers to a software package for Enterprise Resource Planning. The claim should reflect this definition upon first instance in the claims, followed by the acronym in parenthesis. For example, claim 24 could be rewritten to instead recite “an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 recites a new limitation “wherein one or more constraints, including an orientation of the first, second, and third elements is imposed to optimize the arrangement of the first, second and third elements”. In the originally filed claim 8, a constraint of a component is disclosed (“wherein one or more constraints, such as an orientation of the components, is imposed on the optimization of the arrangement of the components.”). In the specification, imposing a constraint on the arrangement of the components includes an orientation as the constraint in ¶56 (“In one embodiment one or more constraints can be imposed on the optimization of the arrangement of the components. A non-limiting example of a constraint is the orientation of the components. This is advantageous, for example, if the components have to be arranged according to a specific orientation in order to remove them from the logistics load carrier in an ergonomic manner. This is also advantageous if the components have to be loaded and unloaded from a logistics load carrier on a certain side. This constraint can be entered separately or included as metadata in the model of the third element.”). The specification describes a component as corresponding to the third element in ¶12. However, there does not appear to be adequate support for imparting an orientation constraint on the first or second element, nor on their corresponding frame or layout element that would suggest so. The orientation constraint is only described as being entered separately or as metadata for the model of the third element (component). Alternatively, the specification in ¶56 describes that other types of constraints (such as number of components) may be imparted as metadata for the model of the first or second element. There is no support reasonably demonstrating that the orientation constraint would be applied to the first or second element, as recited in the claims.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the designed logistics load carrier" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the method is described in line 2 as being intended for designing a logistics load carrier, the designed logistics load carrier is not established within the claim as an element prior to reciting “the designed logistics load carrier”.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, 18, and 21-23 incorporate the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 is 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. The word “can” renders the claim indefinite because it is not positively recited what is actually required by the claims. The scope of the claim is not ascertainable because the limitation following the word “can” appears to be optional.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the 3D component to be transported" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claims which claim 23 depends recite the use of a 3D model of a third element, wherein the third element is a component to be transported, the preceding claims do not recite the component to be transported in terms of being 3D, such as given in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the material, weight, or color of the 3D model or alternatively the material, weight or color of the component to be transported. For purposes of this examination, the claim limitation is being interpreted to read “the component to be transported”.
Claim 26 recites “ERP systems” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis. Previously, only a singular ERP system was introduced in claim 24 from which claim 26 depends. It is unclear if there are multiple instances of the ERP system or a singular instance. For purposes of this examination, the limitation is being interpreted as a singular system.
Claims 27 and 28 incorporate the deficiency of claim 26 and are rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of claim 7 “further comprising displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics carrier in augmented reality” does not further limit the scope of the claim it depends from (claim 1) because claim 1 likewise recites “displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier in augmented reality.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 depends from claim 14 which has since been cancelled by the applicant. Accordingly, the dependency of the claim is improper and the scope is not ascertainable. For purposes of this examination, the claim is being interpreted as a direct dependent from Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6-12, 18, and 21-28 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 2-4, 6-12, 18, and 21-23 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, and based on the determined available interior space: 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.
calculating and adjusting dimensions of the first and second element in real time, wherein adjusting the dimensions of the first and second element is based on technical characteristics of the third element and the determined available interior space; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a calculation and adjustment of dimensions in real time according to judgements made regarding technical characteristics and the available interior space. 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 make the observations and judgements of the technical characteristics and the available interior space so as to inform a calculation and adjustment of dimensions as a means of providing real-time feedback to the observations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites “calculating”, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as a mathematical calculation.
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))
displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier in augmented reality – . This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. 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 of augmented reality.
The courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) to the judicial exception and 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 because the claim appears to be using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task which can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive aids.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, an additional element was found to be Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which requires further evaluation 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.
Displaying a generated 3D model in an augmented reality amounts to transmitting and receiving data over a network. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner such as in the claim. Appending well understood, routine, and conventional activity to a recited judicial exception does not qualify the limitation as significantly more than the judicial exception.
The courts have further 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.
Claim 24
Step 1: Claim 24 and dependent claims 25-28 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 24 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
select 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.
select 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.
add 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.
calculate and adjust dimensions of the first and second element in real time, wherein adjusting the dimensions of the first and second element is based on technical characteristics of the third element and the determined available interior space; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a calculation and adjustment of dimensions in real time according to judgements made regarding technical characteristics and the available interior space. 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 make the observations and judgements of the technical characteristics and the available interior space so as to inform a calculation and adjustment of dimensions as a means of providing real-time feedback to the observations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites “calculating”, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as a mathematical calculation.
generating a 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier; and; 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.
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program product for designing a logistics load carrier, wherein the computer program product includes: This additional element has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer
a library of models, stored on memory- This additional element has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer and further as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
including a plurality of models of a first element of the logistics load carrier and a plurality of models of a second element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the first element is a type of frame and the second element is a type of a layout element; -This additional element has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of logistics load carrier design
a computer aided design (CAD) system configured to: -This additional element has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
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; and;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
an ERP system, wherein the ERP system includes cost data for adjusting the first and second elements;-This additional element has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
an augmented reality system for a user interface for displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier in augmented reality– . This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. 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 of augmented reality.
The courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) to the judicial exception, invoking the use of computers as a tool to execute the judicial exception (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))), and 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 because the claim appears to be using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task which can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive aids.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, an additional element was found to be Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which requires further evaluation 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 following elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
a library of models, stored on memory
an augmented reality system for a user interface for displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier in augmented reality
Storing a library of models in memory amounts to retrieving and storing information in memory. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim.
Displaying a generated 3D model in an augmented reality amounts to transmitting and receiving data over a network. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner such as in the claim.
Appending well understood, routine, and conventional activity to a recited judicial exception does not qualify the limitation as significantly more than the judicial exception.
The courts have further found that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and invoking the use of generic computing components to execute the judicial exception 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 the model of the first, the second and the third element are 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.
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 further comprising [[…]] adjusting the dimensions of the layout element and the frame when a user changes the available interior space, which can reasonably be read to entail observing changes of the available interior space and making a judgement as to what the dimensions of the layout 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 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 generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier, the method further comprises generating 2D detail drawings of the designed logistics carrier., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the 3D model of the designed carrier and creating 2D drawings of the designed carrier 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 further comprising displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics carrier 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 additionally recites wherein one or more constraints, including an orientation of the first, second, and third elements, is imposed to optimize the arrangement of the first, second, and third elements. This task can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement on optimizing the arrangement of the elements according to observations and evaluations of orientation constraints of the first, second, and third elements. 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 8 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 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 determined in real-time using cost data stored in an ERP system. which can reasonably be read to entail observing data stored in an ERP system and performing a cost calculation based on the data. 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 additionally recites wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, metadata of the third element is extracted and as a constraint when selecting the first and second element. This limitation can reasonably be read to entail observing and evaluating metadata of the third element and using the data so as to make a judgment for selecting the first and second element. 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 10 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 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 automatically. 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 18
Step 1: Claim 18 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter previously but no longer exists in the present claims due to the cancellation by the applicant. Claim 18 is being interpreted as a dependent claim of Claim 1 for purposes of this examination. Accordingly, Claim 18 incorporates the judicial exception of Claim 1 and falls into the corresponding category of statutory matter as stated previously.
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 a 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 21
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 21, 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 21 additionally recites further comprising selecting a layout element which has dimensions that fall within the available space. This limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an observation of the available space and making a judgment of a layout element with specific dimensions. 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 21 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 22
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 22, 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 22 additionally recites wherein a designer, prior to generating the 3D model, can adjust the designed logistics load carrier to meet predetermined requirements. This limitation can be reasonably read to entail a designer making a judgment as to the design of the logistics load carrier according to observations of predetermined requirements. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, and is explicitly recited as being performed by a designer. 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 22 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 23
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 23, 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 23 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 23 additionally recites the limitation wherein the metadata includes at least one of material, weight, and or color of the 3D component to be transported.. 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 25
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 25, the judicial exception of independent claim 24 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 25 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 25 additionally recites the limitation a designed logistics load 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 26
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 26, the judicial exception of independent claim 24 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 26 additionally recites wherein cost calculations are performed on a designed logistics load carrier using the cost data stored in the ERP systems. This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing cost calculations according to cost data on an ERP system. 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 evaluating data stored on an ERP system and performed cost calculations accordingly. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, because the claim recites the performance of a mathematical calculation, the claim also recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 26 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 27
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 27, the judicial exception of independent claim 24 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 27 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 27 additionally recites the limitation wherein the augmented reality system displays an intermediate result of each step performed by the CAD system. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting and further identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the exception to the particular technological environment of an augmented reality and cad system. The courts have found that appending insignificant extra solutionary activity with the judicial exception does not integrate the 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 element 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 encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network which has been found by the courts to be a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function. The courts have found that appending well understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. 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 28
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 28, the judicial exception of independent claim 24 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 28 additionally recites wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, metadata of the third element is extracted and used as a constraint when selecting the first and second element. This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating metadata pertaining to the third element and using the judgments obtained from such step to further making a judgment for selecting the first and second element. 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 28 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, 18, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devarajan et al ( US 2009/0299790 A1), hereinafter referred to as Devarajan in view of Ship Technology (Ship Technology, “Will augmented reality transform shipping?”, December 6, 2017, ship-technology.com), hereinafter referred to as Ship Technology.
Regarding claim 1, Devarajan discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) A computer-implemented method, executed on one or more processors, 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: "); ((Devarajan, ¶20) " The remotely located computer system 10 includes a server having a processor, and a memory. ")
determining an available interior space for the logistics load carrier, and based on the determined available interior space: Available container space is known and used to create an initial orientation of parts ((Devarajan, ¶48) " The user may also use some degree of engineering knowledge, best practice guidelines, judgment, and/or experience in creating the initial orientation of parts. 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; and 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.")
calculating and adjusting dimensions of the first and second element in real time, wherein adjusting the dimensions of the first and second element is based on technical characteristics of the third element and the determined available interior space; The initial configuration of the parts (which includes the frame and racks by which the parts are placed as first and second elements) is determined according to the available container space and according to properties of the component parts (as technical characteristics) ((Devarajan, ¶48) " The user may also use some degree of engineering knowledge, best practice guidelines, judgment, and/or experience in creating the initial orientation of parts. 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. For example, generally flat or planar component parts such as the fender panel 50 will most likely be given an initial configuration wherein the adjacent parts are approximately parallel to one another. Component parts having non-planar or otherwise irregular shapes may be arranged in some other assumed volume-efficient configuration to similarly maximize the efficient utilization of space in the container. "). A filtering process in step 110 of the methodology (as a calculation of elements with appropriate dimensions) is applied to both the container frame and racks after identifying the constraints of the components part in step 105, thereby indicating that the filtering is based on the characteristics set in block 105 ((Devarajan, ¶45) "In block 105 the user selects other parameters or characteristics regarding the component part 50 for use in optimizing the rack density. For example, the user may identify subassemblies of the component part to use in the analysis is shown in FIG. 6 at 68."). ((Devarajan, ¶50) " The methodology advances to block 110, and the user selects a filter option for selecting a rack from the rack database. These filter options are presented in a window, and the user utilizes a user input device to make a selection, as shown in FIG. 7 at 70.Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness"). The methodology is described as being iterative and including user feedback (as a real-time process) based on optimization results, whereby the user may change (calculate or adjust) the size/dimensions of the frame or racks according to the component part ((Devarajan, ¶94) " It should be appreciated that the above-described methodology is executable in an iterative manner. The user 26 may advantageously elect to selectively change a design parameter as part of a comprehensive packaging study for a component part. The shipping density optimization software program optimizes factors such as a feature on the component part, the number of component parts in the rack, the configuration of component parts stored on the rack, the size of the rack, the number of racks per container, and the type of conveyance. "). Furthermore, Devarajan explicitly suggests that changes to the component part directly affect rack density and further describe rack density aspects including the rack size ((Devarajan, ¶7) " Therefore, any change to the shape and/ or size of a particular component part could potentially affect the rack density, as well as the freight and container investment costs. "); ((Devarajan, ¶53) " The results may include information such as optimized number of parts per rack, financial impact, container size, part configuration, and clearance between parts or the like. Various aspects of the rack density can be illustrated, including number of racked components, rack size, or potential areas of improvement. ").
generating a 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier; and ((Devarajan, ¶8) "Advantageously, potential vehicle model designs can be considered in a timely and cost-effective manner by analyzing a digital representation of a proposed design, versus preparing a physical prototype of an individual component, or the vehicle, or a portion thereof. In the past, container designers sometimes used the three- dimensional CAD model to analyze the shipping density of the component part in a two-dimensional environment. "); ((Devarajan, ¶51) "In block 120, the design density of the selected component part on the rack, and transportation conveyance is analyzed and the copies of the models are reconfigured within the container model and with respect to one another using an analytical optimization process described beginning in circle A of FIG. 4B."); See also Figure 5 for 3D generated depiction of container model. The computer generated models include a model of a container for transporting components ((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")
displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier in [[augmented]] reality. Information and complex digital representations are described as being displayable on display devices ((Devarajan, ¶27) " The user computer system 22 includes a display device 24b, such as a display terminal, to display information to the user 26. In this example, information is displayed on the display device 24b in a series of screens, also referred to as a browser. Examples of such screens are illustrated in FIGS. 5-26."); ((Devarajan, ¶28) " Preferably, the user computer system 22 is configured to provide for fast display capability for rendering and viewing of large, complex digital representations."). It is suggested that the software program may contain modules including that of a virtual reality modeling language browser for display of the 3D models generated as part of the methodology ((Devarajan , ¶30) " The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3. It should be appreciated that other modules may also be utilized. In block 30, the module is a Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) browser, which is an open standard for 3D models. The VRML browser includes features which interact through embedded scripts and external applications, as well as exchange or interact with 3D models via the Web. Most CAD systems also support the export of native CAD models, such as VRML. The VRML browser may be a plug-in to a web browser, and used to visualize VRML worlds.”). The computer generated models include a model of a container for transporting components ((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")
Devarajan discloses the display of 3D models using virtual reality. Devarajan does not disclose; however Ship Technology discloses displaying 3D models of shipping vessels in augmented reality ((Ship Technology, ¶8-9) "Rather than immersing us in an alternate universe as virtual reality does, devices that use augmented reality enhance our actual surroundings by adding holograms into our field of vision to interact with. AR makes it possible to merge the real and the digital world, creating a mixed reality. There are almost unlimited possibilities, especially as the technology progresses. For example, instead of looking at a general arrangement drawing (GA) plan on a screen, workers could look at the entire ship in 3D on a table in front of them. They could look at it from all angles, virtually highlight certain areas, or display the main engine, making the interaction feel more natural instead of looking at a screen.").
Devarajan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of container design optimization for component part logistics purposes. Ship technology is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of improving shipping company processes using technologies to automate and enhance existing processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified Devarajan in view of Ship technology to incorporate augmented reality over virtual reality because simple substitution of one known element for another would yield predictable results. The predictable results would have been that instead of displaying the model in a completely virtual environment, the model would instead be displayed in a mixed reality environment. One would have been motivated to do so because Ship technology suggests that augmented reality provides a more natural and interactive experience as opposed to strictly screen viewing.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein the model of the first, the second and the third element are selected, added and/or changed in any order. Figure 4A depicts the selection of a component part, the selection of a rack, and a modification of a part in a flowchart illustrating the method. The component part model is placed in an initial configuration ((Devarajan, ¶46) "The user may select to view the selected orientation of the component parts. The user 26 is preferably provided a window on the display device 24b containing relevant parameters. Using the user input device 25c, the user 26 may highlight and select an option. The initial configuration of the multiple copies of the component part model is preferably made by the user based upon known constraints related to the packing and/or shipping of the component part in question."). The user selects a rack at block 110 of the method ((Devarajan, ¶50) "The methodology advances to block 110, and the user selects a filter option for selecting a rack from the rack database."). The container and part model are selected interactively per claim 1 ((Devarajan, Page 8, Claim 1) "an executable shipping density optimization software program, wherein the user uses the user computer system to execute the shipping density optimization software program and to communicate with the remotely located computer system to interactively select the component part model and the container model, and the software program is configured to:"). The referenced disclosure appears to present an exemplary ordering of tasks for selecting and adding the models for analysis and does not limit them in any particular sequence. The process is described as iterative and interactive wherein modules (to include part initialization where models are selected and/or added, manipulation where models are changed) of the program may be returned to throughout the process, thereby indicating that no limitations exist on the sequence of execution ((Devarajan, ¶30) "The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3."); ((Devarajan, ¶38) "The user may select to return to another module as part of the interactive optimization process.")
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein dimensions of the frame and/or the layout element are defined as a constraint. Optimized results are generated for a given rack and a given container and information previously provided by the user and databases (wherein dimensions are included in that information per Figs 5, 7 and 10), thereby indicating that the rack and the container are constraints on the optimized value ((Devarajan, ¶55) " Referring to FIG. 4B, a methodology for optimizing density of the component part on the rack by manipulating copies of the computer models begins in circle A and continues to block 200. In block 200, the methodology obtains information regarding the component part and selected rack. The methodology may utilize the information previously selected by the user from the corresponding databases. Other inputs from the user may also be considered. An example of a screen for selecting rack parameters is illustrated in FIG. 10 at 76."); ((Devarajan, ¶53) " In block 125, the optimized density results are provided to the user. The optimized results provide an estimate of rack, container and conveyance density, as well as associated transportation and investment costs for a given rack and container. The results may be displayed as a window on the display screen, as shown in FIG. 11 at 78, FIG. 12 at 80, FIG. 13 at 86, or FIG.14 at 87. The results may include information such as optimized number of parts per rack, financial impact, container size, part configuration, and clearance between parts or the like. Various aspects of the rack density can be illustrated, including number of racked components, rack size, or potential areas of improvement.")
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses further comprising automatically adjusting the dimensions of the layout element when a user changes the available interior space. A filtering process is applied whereby the user can specify container dimensions and after the container dimensions are applied in a filter, the user is prompted for available racks in the database that correspond to the filter, thereby indicating that the dimension options for the rack are adjusted automatically by the filtering process according to the dimensions of the container. ((Devarajan, ¶50) " The methodology advances to block 110, and the user selects a filter option for selecting a rack from the rack database. These filter options are presented in a window, and the user utilizes a user input device to make a selection, as shown in FIG. 7 at 70. Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness. The user may also select a dimensional tolerance such as clearance between parts. The user may also select part orientation in the rack. After making these selections, the user uses the data input device 24c to choose a "select rack" option, which initiates a search of the rack database, and uses the selected filter options to identify available racks. As previously described, the rack database 12 is a database of available racks."). Container dimensions include usable space, see Devarajan depicting user-specified usable inches of a container for a container specification in Figure 5.
Regarding claim 7, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan discloses further (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) further comprising displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics carrier in [[augmented]] reality. Information and complex digital representations are described as being displayable on display devices ((Devarajan, ¶27) " The user computer system 22 includes a display device 24b, such as a display terminal, to display information to the user 26. In this example, information is displayed on the display device 24b in a series of screens, also referred to as a browser. Examples of such screens are illustrated in FIGS. 5-26."); ((Devarajan, ¶28) " Preferably, the user computer system 22 is configured to provide for fast display capability for rendering and viewing of large, complex digital representations."). It is suggested that the software program may contain modules including that of a virtual reality modeling language browser for display of the 3D models generated as part of the methodology ((Devarajan , ¶30) " The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3. It should be appreciated that other modules may also be utilized. In block 30, the module is a Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) browser, which is an open standard for 3D models. The VRML browser includes features which interact through embedded scripts and external applications, as well as exchange or interact with 3D models via the Web. Most CAD systems also support the export of native CAD models, such as VRML. The VRML browser may be a plug-in to a web browser, and used to visualize VRML worlds.”). The computer generated models include a model of a container for transporting components ((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")
Devarajan discloses the display of 3D models using virtual reality. Devarajan does not disclose; however Ship Technology discloses displaying 3D models of shipping vessels in augmented reality ((Ship Technology, ¶8-9) "Rather than immersing us in an alternate universe as virtual reality does, devices that use augmented reality enhance our actual surroundings by adding holograms into our field of vision to interact with. AR makes it possible to merge the real and the digital world, creating a mixed reality. There are almost unlimited possibilities, especially as the technology progresses. For example, instead of looking at a general arrangement drawing (GA) plan on a screen, workers could look at the entire ship in 3D on a table in front of them. They could look at it from all angles, virtually highlight certain areas, or display the main engine, making the interaction feel more natural instead of looking at a screen.").
The motivation to combine the references follows that rationale stated in the rejection of claim 1 and is not restated for brevity.
Regarding claim 8, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan discloses further wherein one or more constraints, including an orientation of the first, second and third elements, is imposed to optimize the arrangement of the first, second, and third elements. The orientation of the parts are set as configuration parameters for the optimizer whereby the rotation of the part may be limited as a constraint to the optimization ((Devarajan, ¶34) " The RDM core tries several configurations of parts within the rack as possible outcomes. Configuration is defined as the combination of a linear position of each part relative to each of the x-, y-, and z-axes (position); and an angular position relative to each of the x-, y-, and z-axes ( orientation). Each configuration is arrived at by applying an initial transform followed by a random transform. The random transform may be constrained by a specified optimizer range. For example, the angle by which the part model is rotated about one or more of the axes may be limited to a specified range. "); ((Devarajan, ¶35) " For each configuration, the number of component parts that can be packaged in the rack is computed. This number is the "objective function value" for the optimizer. "); ((Devarajan, ¶51) " It should be appreciated that the density optimization methodology searches for the optimal position and orientation (which together define the configuration) of multiple copies of the selected part model in or on the selected rack 52. In general, the part density is the objective function to be optimized. "). ((Devarajan, ¶94) " The shipping density optimization software program optimizes factors such as a feature on the component part, the number of component parts in the rack, the configuration of component parts stored on the rack, the size of the rack, the number of racks per container, and the type of conveyance.") The orientation of the component parts is relative to the rack and frame positioned in given axes, as shown in Figure 8, thereby indicating that the first and second elements comprise an orientation of the component placed therein (as the orientation of the plurality of elements).
Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, metadata of the third element is extracted and used as a constraint when selecting the first and second element. The model of the component part is selected for analysis (adding the model of the third element) and subsequently other parameters and characteristics (metadata) are selected regarding the component part in block 105 ((Devarajan, ¶44-45) " Referring to FIG-4A, the methodology begins in block 100, where the user 26 selects a component part for analysis. [[..]] The methodology advances to block 105. In block 105 the user selects other parameters or characteristics regarding the component part 50 for use in optimizing the rack density. For example, the user may identify subassemblies of the component part to use in the analysis, as shown in FIG. 6 at 68. ") The initial configuration of the carrier and it’s corresponding pieces is created based on constraints pertaining to the component part ((Devarajan, ¶46) " These parameters or characteristics may also include the initial component part orientation within the rack as shown in FIG. 8 at 54. The component parts may be arranged within the rack in various packaging configurations, such as single sided, double sided, top loaded, end loaded or the like. The user may select to view the selected orientation of the component parts. The user 26 is preferably provided a window on the display device 24b containing relevant parameters. Using the user input device 25c, the user 26 may highlight and select an option. The initial configuration of the multiple copies of the component part model is preferably made by the user based upon known constraints related to the packing and/or shipping of the component part in question. Known constraints may be based on engineering knowledge and best practice guidelines for shipping a component part."). The methodology then moves on to block 110 for selecting the rack (as the second element) and container dimensions (as the first element) based on the constraints for the component imparted previously in block 105 ((Devarajan, ¶50) " The methodology advances to block 110, and the user selects a filter option for selecting a rack from the rack database. These filter options are presented in a window, and the user utilizes a user input device to make a selection, as shown in FIG. 7 at 70. Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness. The user may also select a dimensional tolerance such as clearance between parts. The user may also select part orientation in the rack. After making these selections, the user uses the data input device 24c to choose a "select rack" option, which initiates a search of the rack database, and uses the selected filter options to identify available racks. As previously described, the rack database 12 is a database of available racks. The methodology advances to block 115.")
Regarding claim 11, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein the model of the first and the second element is selected from a library of models. ((Devarajan, ¶22) “For example, a packaging library may be available which details the specifications for a rack, or contain a geometric mesh model of the package. ") ((Devarajan, Page 8, Claim 3) " A system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the data storage means includes a library containing the container model. ")
Regarding claim 12, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein an intermediate result of each step of the method is automatically visualized. Windows are presented as part of a software program to implement the steps of the methodology, which enables the visualization of the described steps (See Figures 5-20). The optimization software is described as being interactive in nature (( Devarajan, ¶29) " A shipping density optimization computer software program 18 utilizes the set of information or instructions from the user 26, information from the database 12, 14, design tools and analysis tools 16, to carry out the method to be described of interactively optimizing shipping density for a container."). Viewing operations, including fast display capability for rendering digital representations is available as part of the computer and GUI described which displays the software implementing the methodology. ((Devarajan, ¶28) " Another type of input method is a graphical user interface that allows menu selection, parameter modification and performs other types of viewing operations using the user interactive device 24c. Still another example of an input method is a pop-up dialog box containing available information or instructions. Preferably, the user computer system 22 is configured to provide for fast display capability for rendering and viewing of large, complex digital representations. "). Effects can be interactively viewed ((Devarajan, ¶33) " For example, the user may specify initial transforms, and interactively view its effect, and/or the user may specify optimized ranges for the transforms."); ((Devarajan, ¶38) " In block 42, a results viewer and feature modifier module is illustrated. The results VRML is viewed and may be manipulated to modify the geometry of the model being worked with. The user interacts with the VRML result to modify features of the part that may limit or decrease the packing density with the objective of improving the final packing density. The user may select to return to another module as part of the interactive optimization process ")
Regarding claim 18, the proposed combination discloses The computer system according to claim 14, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein the computer system is linked to a CAD system. ((Devarajan, ¶25) " The system 8 may also include various ComputerAided Design (CAD) tools 16, which may be used by the method, to be described. CAD design tools 16 may encompass solid modeling, surface modeling visualization or parametric design techniques. ")
Regarding claim 21, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses further comprising selecting a layout element which has dimensions that fall within the available space. Usable space of the container is defined as a constraint in terms of length, width, and height in Figure 5. Usable space is smaller than the exterior dimensions of the container, per Figure 5. Racks are filtered based on the container and previously selected criteria including container dimensions ((Devarajan, ¶50) " Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame")((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 "); ((Devarajan, ¶20) " In this example the component part is stored on a rack, and the rack is placed in a container. ")
Regarding claim 23, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 10, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein the metadata includes at least one of material, weight, and or color of the 3D component to be transported. ((Devarajan, ¶46) " The initial configuration of the multiple copies of the component part model is preferably made by the user based upon known constraints related to the packing and/or shipping of the component part in question. Known constraints may be based on engineering knowledge and best practice guidelines for shipping a component part."); ((Devarajan, ¶47) " Similarly, the material and/or type of construction of the part are considerations in the minimum allowable distance, with easily damaged parts calling for a greater inter-part clearance than parts that are more robust.")
Claim(s) 9, 22, and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devarajan et al ( US 2009/0299790 A1), (Devarajan) in view of Ship Technology (Ship Technology, “Will augmented reality transform shipping?”, December 6, 2017, ship-technology.com), (Ship Technology) in view of Katz et al (US 2002/0178077 A1), hereinafter referred to as Katz.
Regarding claim 9, the proposed combination of Devarajan and Ship Technology discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein a cost calculation of the designed logistics load carrier is determined in real-time using cost data [[stored in an ERP system.]] Container investment costs and a financial impact estimate are generated for a given design ((Devarajan, ¶43) " The methodology approximates the density of a model part in a rack or container, and quantifies the associated freight and container investment costs. "); ((Devarajan, ¶37) " In block 40, a results generator module is illustrated. In this module, the RDM core results are interpreted and a VRML world of the packaged configuration is created. An output report is also generated that includes information, such as an estimate of the financial impact on freight and investment costs resulting from the change in container density. "); ((Devarajan, ¶53) "The optimized results provide an estimate of rack, container and conveyance density, as well as associated transportation and investment costs for a given rack and container.")
Devarajan does not disclose the source of the cost data used in the calculation; however Katz discloses cost data stored in an ERP system that used for financial impact analysis. ((Katz, ¶44) " In further reference to FIG. 3A, in accordance with the present invention, internal data from ERP systems 52 preferably include proprietary information about internal operations, such as costs, assets, capital equipment data, PO's, demand forecasts, ownership status, purchasing records, stockroom inventories, order processing data, ledgers, product information, manufacturer information, distributor information, retailer information, supply inventories, supply forecast, inventory targets, contract terms, contract prices, sales targets, fill rates, JIT reports, part numbers, supplier ratings, VMI data, stockroom inventories, and/or ERP planning data, etc.")
Katz is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of logistics and supply chain optimizations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the optimization software for designing a logistics container with ideal packing density as disclosed by Devarajan to integrate an ERP system with cost data as disclosed by Katz because some teaching, suggestion or motivation would have led one having skill to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Devarajan discloses an optimization software for the packing density of a model part in a container that includes functionality to evaluate how changes to the design impact container investment costs ((Devarajan, ¶43) " The methodology approximates the density of a model part in a rack or container, and quantifies the associated freight and container investment costs. In addition, the methodology evaluates the density impact of modifications to component part features."). However, though Devarajan suggests that the software may integrate other software modules and that the methodology may quantify the effect of changes on associated costs (( Devarajan ¶12, “The software program implementing the method integrates various software tools and expert knowledge to automatically approximate the shipping density, or parts per container and transportation conveyance of new model parts. The methodology quantifies the effect changes, such as to the component part or on part density, will have on the associated costs.”), Devarajan does not particularly disclose how the information for generating cost estimates and making evaluations for cost improvements is obtained or stored. Katz provides an integrated approach where by information from an ERP system maybe be used in conjunction with other logistics planning systems ((Katz, ¶40) " VCI system 28 preferably includes applications and components that integrate internal data 30, external data 32, planning functions 34, and execution functions 36. Internal data 30 preferably consist of proprietary data (typically intrinsic or having particular relevance to the particular enterprise) that are retrieved from a plurality of customer enterprise systems, such as ERP systems, SCM systems, supply databases, internal parts databases, inventories, etc., which may exist across one or multiple business units within the enterprise (i.e., business units that manufacture different products that include common or similar components, etc.)"). By incorporating the logistics planning and design system of Devarajan into the integrated approach disclosed by Katz, one would arrive at the claimed invention. One having skill would be motivated to make such a change so as to have a comprehensive logistics carrier design and planning system that enables an efficient identification of risk and opportunity in terms of cost/ financial impact ((Katz, ¶10) "The present invention is an effort to address such limitations of conventional approaches with a Value Chain Intelligence (VCI) system, which integrates the external and internal data required by manufacturing companies to gain strategic insights into ever-changing business demands and requirements. Targeting procurement and supply chain professionals, VCI systems in accordance with the present invention provide a variety of solutions that enable companies to reduce the risk of shortages, quickly take advantage of market opportunities, and improve overall capital efficiency. Such VCI systems allow companies to access external supplier and spot market data, integrate this data with internal data from multiple enterprise systems, analyze the impact of this data on the supply chain to identify risks and opportunities, and act on these findings.").
Regarding claim 22, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 9, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein a designer, prior to generating the 3D model, can adjust the designed logistics load carrier to meet predetermined requirements. The initial configuration is based on known constraints, wherein the initial configuration would be understood to occur before the final design exported ((Devarajan, ¶46) " The initial configuration of the multiple copies of the component part model is preferably made by the user based upon known constraints related to the packing and/or shipping of the component part in question. Known constraints may be based on engineering knowledge and best practice guidelines for shipping a component part.")
Regarding claim 24, Devarajan discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) A system comprising: ((Devarajan, ¶20) " Referring to the drawings and in particular to FIG. 1, a system 8 for interactively optimizing shipping density of a component part in a container is provided.")
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program product for designing a logistics load carrier, wherein the computer program product includes: ((Devarajan, ¶10) " Accordingly, the present invention is a system and method for interactively optimizing shipping density of racked parts by a user. 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.");((Devarajan, ¶29) " A shipping density optimization computer software program 18 utilizes the set of information or instructions from the user 26, information from the database 12, 14, design tools and analysis tools 16, to carry out the method to be described of interactively optimizing shipping density for a container. The shipping density optimization computer software program 18 is implemented by the user 26, and may be resident on the user computer system 22 or the remote computer system 10.")
a library of models, stored on memory, including a plurality of models of a first element of the logistics load carrier and a plurality of models of a second element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the first element is a type of frame and the second element is a type of a layout element; ((Devarajan, Claim 3) " A system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the data storage means includes a library containing the container model."); ((Devarajan, ¶21) " The remote computer system 10 includes an electronic storage device or information database 12 in communication with the server. The database 12 may include information such as product design, assembly, manufacturing rules and guidelines, or the like. The information may be stored within a knowledge-based library associated with the database 12. The information may provide guidelines relevant to the methodology, such as to how to orient a component in a rack, spacing between components, or a type of rack for a particular component.")
a computer aided design (CAD) system configured to: ((Devarajan, ¶25) " The system 8 may also include various ComputerAided Design (CAD) tools 16, which may be used by the method, to be described.")
select 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.")
select 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. ")
add 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; and 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.")
calculate and adjust dimensions of the first and second element in real time, wherein adjusting the dimensions of the first and second element is based on technical characteristics of the third element and the determined available interior space; The initial configuration of the parts (which includes the frame and racks by which the parts are placed as first and second elements) is determined according to the available container space and according to properties of the component parts (as technical characteristics) ((Devarajan, ¶48) " The user may also use some degree of engineering knowledge, best practice guidelines, judgment, and/or experience in creating the initial orientation of parts. 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. For example, generally flat or planar component parts such as the fender panel 50 will most likely be given an initial configuration wherein the adjacent parts are approximately parallel to one another. Component parts having non-planar or otherwise irregular shapes may be arranged in some other assumed volume-efficient configuration to similarly maximize the efficient utilization of space in the container. "). A filtering process in step 110 of the methodology (as a calculation of elements with appropriate dimensions) is applied to both the container frame and racks after identifying the constraints of the components part in step 105, thereby indicating that the filtering is based on the characteristics set in block 105 ((Devarajan, ¶45) "In block 105 the user selects other parameters or characteristics regarding the component part 50 for use in optimizing the rack density. For example, the user may identify subassemblies of the component part to use in the analysis is shown in FIG. 6 at 68."). ((Devarajan, ¶50) " The methodology advances to block 110, and the user selects a filter option for selecting a rack from the rack database. These filter options are presented in a window, and the user utilizes a user input device to make a selection, as shown in FIG. 7 at 70.Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness"). The methodology is described as being iterative and including user feedback (as a real-time process) based on optimization results, whereby the user may change (calculate or adjust) the size/dimensions of the frame or racks according to the component part ((Devarajan, ¶94) " It should be appreciated that the above-described methodology is executable in an iterative manner. The user 26 may advantageously elect to selectively change a design parameter as part of a comprehensive packaging study for a component part. The shipping density optimization software program optimizes factors such as a feature on the component part, the number of component parts in the rack, the configuration of component parts stored on the rack, the size of the rack, the number of racks per container, and the type of conveyance. "). Furthermore, Devarajan explicitly suggests that changes to the component part directly affect rack density and further describe rack density aspects including the rack size ((Devarajan, ¶7) " Therefore, any change to the shape and/ or size of a particular component part could potentially affect the rack density, as well as the freight and container investment costs. "); ((Devarajan, ¶53) " The results may include information such as optimized number of parts per rack, financial impact, container size, part configuration, and clearance between parts or the like. Various aspects of the rack density can be illustrated, including number of racked components, rack size, or potential areas of improvement. ").
[[an ERP system, wherein the ERP system]] includes cost data for adjusting the first and second elements; Cost impacts are evaluated with regard to changes of container density (which result from changes in the design of the container including the frame and racks) ((Devarajan, ¶12) " The methodology quantifies the effect changes, such as to the component part or on part density, will have on the associated costs."); ((Devarajan, ¶37) " An output report is also generated that includes information, such as an estimate of the financial impact on freight and investment costs resulting from the change in container density."); ((Devarajan, ¶39) " Such a modification will make financial sense if it is shown that the shipping cost reduction gained by the increase in packaged density exceeds the manufacturing cost incurred by performing the additional manufacturing step at the destination, as compared with forming the required part geometry at the point of origin."); ((Devarajan, ¶43) " The methodology approximates the density of a model part in a rack or container, and quantifies the associated freight and container investment costs."); ((Devarajan, ¶53) " The optimized results provide an estimate of rack, container and conveyance density, as well as associated transportation and investment costs for a given rack and container.")
an [[augmented]] reality system for generating a 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier; and ((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."); ((Devarajan, ¶30) " The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3. It should be appreciated that other modules may also be utilized. In block 30, the module is a Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) browser, which is an open standard for 3D models. The VRML browser includes features which interact through embedded scripts and external applications, as well as exchange or interact with 3D models via the Web. Most CAD systems also support the export of native CAD models, such as VRML. The VRML browser may be a plug-in to a web browser, and used to visualize VRML worlds. "). The computer generated models include a model of a container for transporting components ((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")
a user interface for displaying the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier in [[augmented]] reality. Information and complex digital representations are described as being displayable on display devices of a user system ((Devarajan, ¶27) " The user computer system 22 includes a display device 24b, such as a display terminal, to display information to the user 26. In this example, information is displayed on the display device 24b in a series of screens, also referred to as a browser. Examples of such screens are illustrated in FIGS. 5-26."); ((Devarajan, ¶28) " Preferably, the user computer system 22 is configured to provide for fast display capability for rendering and viewing of large, complex digital representations."). The container models are exported for interaction via the web for virtual reality viewing ((Devarajan, ¶30) " The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3. It should be appreciated that other modules may also be utilized. In block 30, the module is a Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) browser, which is an open standard for 3D models. The VRML browser includes features which interact through embedded scripts and external applications, as well as exchange or interact with 3D models via the Web. Most CAD systems also support the export of native CAD models, such as VRML. The VRML browser may be a plug-in to a web browser, and used to visualize VRML worlds. "). The computer generated models include a model of a container for transporting components ((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")
While Devarajan discusses the consideration of costs with regard to changes to the design of the carrier for shipping density calculations, Devarajan does not explicitly disclose the cost data being stored or sourcing from an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. However, Katz discloses the invocation of a software module in response to events effecting the procurement of an item. Particularly, Katz describes the utilization of an ERP system, wherein the ERP system contains data including cost information. ((Katz, ¶44) " In further reference to FIG. 3A, in accordance with the present invention,internal data from ERP systems 52 preferably include proprietary information about internal operations, such as costs, assets, capital equipment data, PO's, demand forecasts, ownership status, purchasing records, stockroom inventories, order processing data, ledgers, product information, manufacturer information, distributor information, retailer information, supply inventories, supply forecast, inventory targets, contract terms, contract prices, sales targets, fill rates, JIT reports, part numbers, supplier ratings, VMI data, stockroom inventories, and/or ERP planning data, etc.")
Devarajan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of container design optimization for component part logistics purposes. Katz is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of logistics and supply chain optimizations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the optimization software for designing a logistics container with ideal packing density as disclosed by Devarajan to integrate an ERP system with cost data as disclosed by Katz because some teaching, suggestion or motivation would have led one having skill to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Devarajan discloses an optimization software for the packing density of a model part in a container that includes functionality to evaluate how changes to the design impact container investment costs ((Devarajan, ¶43) " The methodology approximates the density of a model part in a rack or container, and quantifies the associated freight and container investment costs. In addition, the methodology evaluates the density impact of modifications to component part features."). However, though Devarajan suggests that the software may integrate other software modules and that the methodology may quantify the effect of changes on associated costs (( Devarajan ¶12, “The software program implementing the method integrates various software tools and expert knowledge to automatically approximate the shipping density, or parts per container and transportation conveyance of new model parts. The methodology quantifies the effect changes, such as to the component part or on part density, will have on the associated costs.”), Devarajan does not particularly disclose how the information for generating cost estimates and making evaluations for cost improvements is obtained or stored. Katz provides an integrated approach where by information from an ERP system maybe be used in conjunction with other logistics planning systems ((Katz, ¶40) " VCI system 28 preferably includes applications and components that integrate internal data 30, external data 32, planning functions 34, and execution functions 36. Internal data 30 preferably consist of proprietary data (typically intrinsic or having particular relevance to the particular enterprise) that are retrieved from a plurality of customer enterprise systems, such as ERP systems, SCM systems, supply databases, internal parts databases, inventories, etc., which may exist across one or multiple business units within the enterprise (i.e., business units that manufacture different products that include common or similar components, etc.)"). By incorporating the logistics planning and design system of Devarajan into the integrated approach disclosed by Katz, one would arrive at the claimed invention. One having skill would be motivated to make such a change so as to have a comprehensive logistics carrier design and planning system that enables an efficient identification of risk and opportunity in terms of cost/ financial impact ((Katz, ¶10) "The present invention is an effort to address such limitations of conventional approaches with a Value Chain Intelligence (VCI) system, which integrates the external and internal data required by manufacturing companies to gain strategic insights into ever-changing business demands and requirements. Targeting procurement and supply chain professionals, VCI systems in accordance with the present invention provide a variety of solutions that enable companies to reduce the risk of shortages, quickly take advantage of market opportunities, and improve overall capital efficiency. Such VCI systems allow companies to access external supplier and spot market data, integrate this data with internal data from multiple enterprise systems, analyze the impact of this data on the supply chain to identify risks and opportunities, and act on these findings.").
The proposed combination of Devarajan and Katz does not particularly disclose the utilization of augmented reality because Devarajan only discloses the use of virtual reality visualization. However, Ship Technology suggests the utilization of visualization through augmented reality. ((Ship Technology, ¶8-9) "Rather than immersing us in an alternate universe as virtual reality does, devices that use augmented reality enhance our actual surroundings by adding holograms into our field of vision to interact with. AR makes it possible to merge the real and the digital world, creating a mixed reality. There are almost unlimited possibilities, especially as the technology progresses. For example, instead of looking at a general arrangement drawing (GA) plan on a screen, workers could look at the entire ship in 3D on a table in front of them. They could look at it from all angles, virtually highlight certain areas, or display the main engine, making the interaction feel more natural instead of looking at a screen.").
Ship technology is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of improving shipping company processes using technologies to automate and enhance existing processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the proposed combination of Devarajan and Katz view of Ship technology to incorporate augmented reality over virtual reality because simple substitution of one known element for another would yield predictable results. The predictable results would have been that instead of displaying the model in a completely virtual environment, the model would instead be displayed in a mixed reality environment. One would have been motivated to do so because Ship technology suggests that augmented reality provides a more natural and interactive experience as opposed to strictly screen viewing.
Regarding claim 25, the proposed combination discloses The system of claim 24, as stated previously. Devarajan discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein a designed logistics load carrier is displayed in [[augmented]] reality. Information and complex digital representations are described as being displayable on display devices ((Devarajan, ¶27) " The user computer system 22 includes a display device 24b, such as a display terminal, to display information to the user 26. In this example, information is displayed on the display device 24b in a series of screens, also referred to as a browser. Examples of such screens are illustrated in FIGS. 5-26."); ((Devarajan, ¶28) " Preferably, the user computer system 22 is configured to provide for fast display capability for rendering and viewing of large, complex digital representations."). It is suggested that the software program may contain modules including that of a virtual reality modeling language browser for display of the 3D models generated as part of the methodology ((Devarajan , ¶30) " The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3. It should be appreciated that other modules may also be utilized. In block 30, the module is a Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) browser, which is an open standard for 3D models. The VRML browser includes features which interact through embedded scripts and external applications, as well as exchange or interact with 3D models via the Web. Most CAD systems also support the export of native CAD models, such as VRML. The VRML browser may be a plug-in to a web browser, and used to visualize VRML worlds.”). The computer generated models include a model of a container for transporting components ((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")
Devarajan discloses the display of 3D models using virtual reality. Devarajan does not disclose; however Ship Technology discloses displaying 3D models of shipping vessels in augmented reality ((Ship Technology, ¶8-9) "Rather than immersing us in an alternate universe as virtual reality does, devices that use augmented reality enhance our actual surroundings by adding holograms into our field of vision to interact with. AR makes it possible to merge the real and the digital world, creating a mixed reality. There are almost unlimited possibilities, especially as the technology progresses. For example, instead of looking at a general arrangement drawing (GA) plan on a screen, workers could look at the entire ship in 3D on a table in front of them. They could look at it from all angles, virtually highlight certain areas, or display the main engine, making the interaction feel more natural instead of looking at a screen.").
The motivation to combine the references follows that rationale stated in the rejection of claim 24 and is not restated for brevity.
Regarding claim 26, the proposed combination discloses The system of claim 25, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein cost calculations are performed on a designed logistics load carrier using the cost data [[stored in the ERP systems.]] Container investment costs and a financial impact estimate are generated for a given design ((Devarajan, ¶43) " The methodology approximates the density of a model part in a rack or container, and quantifies the associated freight and container investment costs. "); ((Devarajan, ¶37) " In block 40, a results generator module is illustrated. In this module, the RDM core results are interpreted and a VRML world of the packaged configuration is created. An output report is also generated that includes information, such as an estimate of the financial impact on freight and investment costs resulting from the change in container density. "); ((Devarajan, ¶53) "The optimized results provide an estimate of rack, container and conveyance density, as well as associated transportation and investment costs for a given rack and container.")
Devarajan does not disclose the source of the cost data used in the calculation; however Katz discloses cost data stored in an ERP system that used for financial impact analysis. ((Katz, ¶44) " In further reference to FIG. 3A, in accordance with the present invention, internal data from ERP systems 52 preferably include proprietary information about internal operations, such as costs, assets, capital equipment data, PO's, demand forecasts, ownership status, purchasing records, stockroom inventories, order processing data, ledgers, product information, manufacturer information, distributor information, retailer information, supply inventories, supply forecast, inventory targets, contract terms, contract prices, sales targets, fill rates, JIT reports, part numbers, supplier ratings, VMI data, stockroom inventories, and/or ERP planning data, etc.")
The rationale for making such a combination follows that as provided for claim 24 and is not restated for brevity.
Regarding claim 27, the proposed combination discloses The system of claim 26, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein the [[augmented]] reality system displays an intermediate result of each step performed by the CAD system. Windows are presented as part of a software program to implement the steps of the methodology, which enables the visualization of the described steps (See Figures 5-20). The optimization software is described as being interactive in nature ((Devarajan, ¶29) "A shipping density optimization computer software program 18 utilizes the set of information or instructions from the user 26, information from the database 12, 14, design tools and analysis tools 16, to carry out the method to be described of interactively optimizing shipping density for a container."). Viewing operations, including fast display capability for rendering digital representations is available as part of the computer and GUI described which displays the software implementing the methodology. ((Devarajan, ¶28) " Another type of input method is a graphical user interface that allows menu selection, parameter modification and performs other types of viewing operations using the user interactive device 24c. Still another example of an input method is a pop-up dialog box containing available information or instructions. Preferably, the user computer system 22 is configured to provide for fast display capability for rendering and viewing of large, complex digital representations. "). Effects can be interactively viewed ((Devarajan, ¶33) " For example, the user may specify initial transforms, and interactively view its effect, and/or the user may specify optimized ranges for the transforms."). The results viewer may comprise a virtual reality system typed display ((Devarajan, ¶38) " In block 42, a results viewer and feature modifier module is illustrated. The results VRML is viewed and may be manipulated to modify the geometry of the model being worked with. The user interacts with the VRML result to modify features of the part that may limit or decrease the packing density with the objective of improving the final packing density. The user may select to return to another module as part of the interactive optimization process "). The methodology is described as being implemented in a CAD system for visualization aspects ((Devarajan, ¶30) " The shipping density optimization software program 18 may include executable modules for implementing the software program. An example of such modules is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3. It should be appreciated that other modules may also be utilized. In block 30, the module is a Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) browser, which is an open standard for 3D models. The VRML browser includes features which interact through embedded scripts and external applications, as well as exchange or interact with 3D models via the Web. Most CAD systems also support the export of native CAD models, such as VRML. The VRML browser may be a plug-in to a web browser, and used to visualize VRML worlds.")
Devarajan discloses the display of 3D models using virtual reality. Devarajan does not disclose; however Ship Technology discloses displaying 3D models of shipping vessels in augmented reality ((Ship Technology, ¶8-9) "Rather than immersing us in an alternate universe as virtual reality does, devices that use augmented reality enhance our actual surroundings by adding holograms into our field of vision to interact with. AR makes it possible to merge the real and the digital world, creating a mixed reality. There are almost unlimited possibilities, especially as the technology progresses. For example, instead of looking at a general arrangement drawing (GA) plan on a screen, workers could look at the entire ship in 3D on a table in front of them. They could look at it from all angles, virtually highlight certain areas, or display the main engine, making the interaction feel more natural instead of looking at a screen.").
Devarajan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of container design optimization for component part logistics purposes. Ship technology is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of improving shipping company processes using technologies to automate and enhance existing processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified Devarajan in view of Ship technology to incorporate augmented reality over virtual reality because simple substitution of one known element for another would yield predictable results. The predictable results would have been that instead of displaying the model in a completely virtual environment, the model would instead be displayed in a mixed reality environment. One would have been motivated to do so because Ship technology suggests that augmented reality provides a more natural and interactive experience as opposed to strictly screen viewing.
Regarding claim 28, the proposed combination discloses The system of claim 27, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, metadata of the third element is extracted and used as a constraint when selecting the first and second element. The model of the component part is selected for analysis (adding the model of the third element) and subsequently other parameters and characteristics (metadata) are selected regarding the component part in block 105 ((Devarajan, ¶44-45) " Referring to FIG-4A, the methodology begins in block 100, where the user 26 selects a component part for analysis. [[..]] The methodology advances to block 105. In block 105 the user selects other parameters or characteristics regarding the component part 50 for use in optimizing the rack density. For example, the user may identify subassemblies of the component part to use in the analysis, as shown in FIG. 6 at 68. ") The initial configuration of the carrier and it’s corresponding pieces is created based on constraints pertaining to the component part ((Devarajan, ¶46) " These parameters or characteristics may also include the initial component part orientation within the rack as shown in FIG. 8 at 54. The component parts may be arranged within the rack in various packaging configurations, such as single sided, double sided, top loaded, end loaded or the like. The user may select to view the selected orientation of the component parts. The user 26 is preferably provided a window on the display device 24b containing relevant parameters. Using the user input device 25c, the user 26 may highlight and select an option. The initial configuration of the multiple copies of the component part model is preferably made by the user based upon known constraints related to the packing and/or shipping of the component part in question. Known constraints may be based on engineering knowledge and best practice guidelines for shipping a component part."). The methodology then moves on to block 110 for selecting the rack (as the second element) and container dimensions (as the first element) based on the constraints for the component imparted previously in block 105 ((Devarajan, ¶50) " The methodology advances to block 110, and the user selects a filter option for selecting a rack from the rack database. These filter options are presented in a window, and the user utilizes a user input device to make a selection, as shown in FIG. 7 at 70. Examples of filter options include the type of transport mode, such as truck or rail. Other filter options may relate to costs. The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness. The user may also select a dimensional tolerance such as clearance between parts. The user may also select part orientation in the rack. After making these selections, the user uses the data input device 24c to choose a "select rack" option, which initiates a search of the rack database, and uses the selected filter options to identify available racks. As previously described, the rack database 12 is a database of available racks. The methodology advances to block 115.")
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of Devarajan in view of Ship Technology as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arambulo (Arambulo, B., “Quickly Create 2D Drawings from 3D Models for Manufacturing”, January 19, 2018, solidprofessor.com), hereinafter referred to as Arambulo.
Regarding claim 6, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan does not particularly disclose; however Arambulo discloses wherein, based on the generated 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier, the method further comprises generating 2D detail drawings of the designed logistics carrier. 3D models are used to created 2D drawing files in SOLIDWORKS ((Arambulo, ¶1) " Drawings are used to document 3D models in the traditional 2D format. These drawings display dimensions, Bill of Materials, and other instructions needed for manufacturing. In this course, you’ll learn that the parametric relationship between the 3D model and 2D drawing file lets you make edits quickly and efficiently, making SOLIDWORKS drawings a valuable tool in design and development.")
Arambulo is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor- that is it is related to the leveraging 3D modeling for design purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have included the generation of 2D drawings based on generated 3D models into the claimed invention because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art references would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Devarajan discloses the generation of a 3D model of a shipping container and further discloses that other information can be generated regarding the design but does not particularly disclose the generation of 2 D detail drawings. ((Devarajan, ¶37) " In block 40, a results generator module is illustrated. In this module, the RDM core results are interpreted and a VRML world of the packaged configuration is created. An output report is also generated that includes information, such as an estimate of the financial impact on freight and investment costs resulting from the change in container density. "). Arambulo provides a utility that enables the generation of 2D drawings from 3D models and notes that the tool is particularly useful for conveying the design to the manufacturer to ensure correct manufacturing per the design ((Arambulo, ¶2-3) " For example, if you’re designing a race car, you can use SOLIDWORKS to convey the necessary design information to the manufacturer. For race cars, it’s crucial to manufacture the chassis correctly because a small design error can compromise its integrity. Using drawing tools in SOLIDWORKS can detail every necessary drawing view to show the manufacturer all angles of the chassis. Adding hole callouts to your drawings is also important as it delineates the hardware needed for the holes and properly communicates design intent to the manufacturer. The hatching tool allows you to see which areas of the race car’s chassis are hollow, revealing how structurally stable the chassis is at specific locations. Sticking with the race car example, once it’s time for assembly, you can use the assembly drawings tool to tell the manufacturer the number of components your design includes. Use assembly exploded views to define the assembly order and methods. An accurate Bill of Materials itemizes the components of an assembly to guarantee the discovery of missing parts and prevent costly delays."). Accordingly, by applying the generation of 2D drawings from 3D models, as disclosed in Arambulo to the 3D model of the designed and density optimized logistics load container as disclosed by Devarajan, one having skill would arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been compelled to make such a combination because Arambulo suggests that such a feature is key for communicating the design accurately to the manufacturer, particularly with regards for stability and cost considerations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.G.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights