DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “an CAD system” which should alternatively read “a CAD system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the components/ the number of components" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously in the claim, a 3D model of a third element is defined as a singular component. There are no introductions of a plurality of components within the load carrier.
Dependent claims 2-20 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “wherein a model of a first, a second and a third element is selected” lacks clarity. Previously in the claim, a model of a first element, a model of a second element, and a 3D model of a third element were introduced. It is unclear what the model of the phrase in question is referring to. That is to say- it is unclear if there is an additional model comprising the first, second, and third models OR if a model is intended to refer to each element independently. For purposes of this examination, Examiner has interpreted the intent to be the latter. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted the claim to read “wherein the first model, the second model, and the third model are selected…”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the different steps of the method” lacks clarity because it is not defined what “different” steps are referring to. Specifically, it is unclear which steps are included and excluded by the phrase and therefore it is indefinite as to which steps of the method are repeated.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the components” lacks antecedent basis in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “all other steps” lacks clarity because it is not defined what “other” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear which steps are included and excluded by this phrase and therefore indefinite as to which steps of the method are carried out.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the layout” lacks antecedent basis. Previously, a layout element was recited in the claims but a layout was not introduced. For purposes of this examination, examiner has interpreted the phrase “the layout” to mean “the layout element”.
Furthermore in claim 20, the phrase “the components” lacks antecedent basis in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13 and 20 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
determining an available interior space for the logistics load carrier; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to the available space of a load carrier for utilization. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a model of a first element of the logistics load carrier,. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and making a judgement as to the appropriate model of a first element to utilize. This task can be performed within the human mind. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a model of a second element of the logistics load carrier The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and making a judgement as to the appropriate model of a second element to utilize. This task can be performed within the human mind. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
adding a 3D model of a third element of the logistics load carrier, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail generating a 3D model of a third element. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human can draw a 3D model of an element using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining dimensions of the frame and the layout element; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the frame and layout element so as to make an evaluation of the dimensions of each. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
optimizing an arrangement of the components in the layout element to maximize the number of components in the logistics load carrier, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the optimal arrangement of components in the layout so as to achieve a maximum number of components. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail creating a 3D model of the designed load carrier. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can use pen and paper as assistive physical aids to draw a model of the design in 3D space. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
The claim recites a computer-implemented method. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes which can be fully performed in the human mind, those process which can be performed using pen and paper as assistive aids, and processes that are implemented using a generic computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein the first element is a type of frame;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the second element is a type of a layout element;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the third element is a component to be transported and wherein the 3D model comprises the dimensions of the component;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the components are positioned within the layout element; and,- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the available interior space is a constraint for determining the dimensions of the frame and the layout element, wherein the available interior space falls within the dimensions of the frame, and wherein the dimensions of the layout element fall within the available space- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) so no further evaluation is required to determine if such limitations are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception.
The courts have found that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 1, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein a model of a first, a second and a third element is selected, added and/or changed in any order., which can reasonably be read to entail making an observation and judgement for a selection, or modifying models. These tasks can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, as stated previously. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements which would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.0
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein dimensions of the frame and/or the layout element are defined as a constraint. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein after changing the available interior space due to a change in the dimensions of the frame or the layout element, the dimensions of the layout element or the frame, respectively, change, which can reasonably be read to entail observing changes of the available interior space due to changes of the frame and layout and making a judgement as to what the dimensions of the element or frame should be in response to such change. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation automatically. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to perform the recited process. The courts have ruled adding a general purpose computer to an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the different steps of the method are repeated. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because the limitation identified in Step 2A Prong 2 was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), the element requires further evaluation to determine if the element is beyond activities which are well understood, routine, and conventional. Performing repetitive calculations have been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in this claim. The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding activities which are found to be well understood, routine, and conventional are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein, based on the 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier, 2D detail drawings are generated., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the 3D model of the designed carrier and creating 2D drawings based on the evaluation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can evaluate a 3D model and subsequently draw a 2D detail drawing using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein the 3D model of the designed logistics carrier is displayed in augmented reality. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element has further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking to a particular technological environment. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because the limitation was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), it requires further evaluation to determine if it is beyond well understood routine and conventional activity. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, displaying data involves the transmission of data, which has been recognized by the courts as a well understood routine and conventional activity The courts have found that limitations that amount to well understood routine and conventional activity as well as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation wherein one or more constraints, such as an orientation of the components, is imposed on the optimization of the arrangement of the components. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation wherein a cost calculation of the designed logistics load carrier is made. which can reasonably be read to entail performing a cost calculation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim explicitly recites a mathematical calculation, the claim has further been identified to include the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, additional metadata is entered, This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The claim also recites the additional element which is used as a constraint when selecting the first and second element which has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) .The courts have ruled adding insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because an element was identified and Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) in the previous analysis step, further evaluation is required to determine if the element is well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the element wherein when adding the 3D model of the third element, additional metadata is entered involves transmitting or receiving data over a network. The courts have found the computer functions of transmitting and receiving data over a network as well understood, routine and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. The courts have found that limitations that amount to including well-understood, routine, and convention activities with the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the model of the first and the second element is selected from a library of models., which can reasonably be read to entail making an observation and judgment as to the appropriate model from the library of models to be used. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein an intermediate result of each step of the method is automatically visualized. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled invoking the use of generic computers as a tool does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of computers as a tool to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation wherein based on previous designs of logistics load carriers and after adding the 3D model of the third element, all other steps of the method are automatically carried out. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled adding a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding a computer to the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the claim is not directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Particularly the recitation of the phrase “computer system” encompasses embodiments which would make the claimed matter ineligible. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a computer program, because the matter is claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Accordingly, the claim encompasses software per se, in the interpretation where elements of a computer system are entirely software components. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also encompasses signals per se because the claim could encompass a computer readable storage medium which may include transitory signals. The specification in ¶66 notes that the computer system comprises a processor, permanent memory, a non-permanent working memory, and a network interface. However, such structural elements are not claimed and therefore the computer system is not so limited to such structural elements.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation A computer system for carrying out the computer-implemented method according to claim 1. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled adding a general purpose computer to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to using a general purpose computer with a judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 15 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible subject matter and therefore is also directed towards both signals per se and software per se.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to a CRM system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 16 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 16 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to a PLM system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 17 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 17 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to an ERP system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the claim is not directed toward a statutory category of subject matter. Claim 18 depends from claim 14 which was identified to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 18 provides no structural recitations that would make the claim eligible.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer system is linked to an CAD system. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the claim is not directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The phrase “a computer program comprising instructions” encompasses that which can be construed as software only and therefore the claim is directed to software per se. There are no structural recitations to limit the product to a physical or tangible form. The phrase “when executed by a computer” is non-functional descriptive language since the limitation does not necessitate that the computer execute the computer program. That is to say, the execution of the instructions by the computer is not required by the claims.
Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations if the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation A computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, performs the computer- implemented method according to claim 1. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled using a generic computer with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of a computer with the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation wherein the layout is a compartmentalization of the available interior space, and wherein forms of the compartmentalization match forms of the components. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devarajan et al ( US 2009/0299790 A1), hereinafter referred to as Devarajan.
Regarding claim 1, Devarajan discloses A computer-implemented method for designing a logistics load carrier comprising the following steps: A method is disclosed for optimizing a shipping density of a container ((Devarajan, ¶10) " Accordingly, the present invention is a system and method for interactively optimizing shipping density of racked parts by a user. "). See also Claim 7 describing a method implemented on a computer system ((Devarajan, Page 9, Col 1, Claim 7) " A method of allowing a user to interactively optimize shipping density of a plurality of copies of a component part in a container using a computer system, the method comprising the steps of: ")
determining an available interior space for the logistics load carrier; Available container space is known ((Devarajan, ¶48) "The user places the parts relative to one another in a manner that, in the user's estimation, provides an assumed volume-efficient use of the available container space"). The container is described as being used for transporting component parts, thereby indicating that the container is a logistics load carrier ((Devarajan, ¶10) "The system includes a user computer system, a communications network, a remotely located computer system, a data storage device, a computer-generated model of a component part, a computer-generated model of a container for transporting the component part and an executable shipping density optimization software program."). See also Figure 5 for usable fields for length, width, and height of the container.
selecting a model of a first element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the first element is a type of frame; When read in light of the specification (¶27), “a frame is an element that gives the logistics load carrier structural strength. The frame comprises a floor, walls, and a ceiling”. A model of a container is selected ((Devarajan, Page 9, Claim 7) " selecting a model of the container from a container database in communication with the computer system via the communications network;"). When further read in light of the specification (¶32, a frame type includes racks. The container is described as comprising a racked frame ((Devarajan, ¶50) " Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness."). See also Claim 6 ((Devarajan, Page 9, Claim 6) " A system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the container is a rack.")
selecting a model of a second element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the second element is a type of a layout element; A user selects a rack from a list and to display on the screen ((Devarajan, ¶51) " In block 115, the user 26 selects a rack from the filtered list of racks. In this example, the user is presented with a screen displaying a list of racks that meet the previously selected criteria. Advantageously, this filtering process reduces the number of racks for analysis. The user may utilize a user input device to highlight and select the desired rack. The user 26 may select to have the selected rack displayed on the display screen, as shown in FIG. 8 at 72. "). A rack is characterized as a model ((Devarajan, ¶49) " It is to be understood that the terms "component part," "container," and "rack" (as well as the plural forms of those terms) as used in describing the present methodology refer to the computer, geometric, or mesh models used in or by a CAD program, those models representing the actual component part(s) and rack being analyzed. ")
adding a 3D model of a third element of the logistics load carrier, wherein the third element is a component to be transported and wherein the 3D model comprises the dimensions of the component; A CAD model is generated for the component part and the user selects the component part model which is characterized by its size ((Devarajan, ¶11) " The component part design and models thereof are typically generated through the use of conventional computer- aided design (CAD), including computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) and computer-aided engineering (CAE) techniques. ")((Devarajan, ¶13) " The methodology includes the steps of the user selecting the component part model and container ")(( Devarajan, ¶24) " In this example, the component part model database 14 contains computer models, or math-based representations, of individual components part for use in the vehicle. The models may be stored in a CAD or mesh format or the like. For example, the model database 14 may include mesh modeling data for a component part, including minimum and maximum mesh size. It should be appreciated that the component part model database 14 may be integral with the information database 12. "); ((Devarajan, Page 9, Claim 8) " A method as set forth in claim 7 wherein the step of selecting a component part model further includes the step of selecting a geometric model of the component part from a library of geometric component part models maintained in a data storage device.")
determining dimensions of the frame and the layout element; Container dimensions and rack size may be specified by the user ((Devarajan, ¶50) "The user may also specify container dimensions, such as length, width or height. Other user selectable options include rack size or rack frame thickness.")
optimizing an arrangement of the components in the layout element to maximize the number of components in the logistics load carrier, wherein the components are positioned within the layout element; and, Component parts are optimized in an arrangement so as to maximize the utilization of the container space((Devarajan, ¶48) "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."); The component parts are positioned in a selected rack ((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 ")
generating a 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier; ((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. ")
wherein the available interior space is a constraint for determining the dimensions of the frame and the layout element, wherein the available interior space falls within the dimensions of the frame, and wherein the dimensions of the layout element fall within the available space. 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 ((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 2, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein a model of a first, a second and a third element is 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."); ((, ¶38) "The user may select to return to another module as part of the interactive optimization process.")
Regarding claim 3, Devarajan 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, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein after changing the available interior space due to a change in the dimensions of the frame or the layout element, the dimensions of the layout element or the frame, respectively, change automatically. Dimensions of the container are set by the user which affect the usable space, per Figure 5. The setting of the dimensions of the container filters out available racks with set dimensions ((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. ")
Regarding claim 5, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein the different steps of the method are repeated. The process is described as being executed for an initial configuration and then repeated as part of an iterative process ((Devarajan, ¶56-57) " The methodology advances to block 205 and the initial configuration of the component part in the rack is selected. The user may define the initial configuration, in accordance with the considerations described elsewhere herein. Alternatively, the initial configuration may be determined using automatically using the software program which may select a preferred configuration for a particular category of part based upon historically and/or programmed information, as shown at 74 in FIG. 9, and at 87 in FIG. 14. The methodology advances to block 210 where, in the initial step of an iterative process, the minimum distance d between the first and second component part models is determined. "); ((Devarajan, ¶94) " It should be appreciated that the above-described methodology is executable in an iterative manner. "); ((Devarajan, Claim 11) " with the component part models in the intermediate configuration, repeating the iterative process until at least one of the two conditions is not met and; and ")
Regarding claim 8, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan discloses further wherein one or more constraints, such as an orientation of the components, is imposed on the optimization of the arrangement of the components. The orientation of the parts are set as configuration parameters for the optimizer ((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. ")
Regarding claim 9, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein a cost calculation of the designed logistics load carrier is made. 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. ")
Regarding claim 10, Devarajan 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, additional metadata is entered, which is used as a constraint when selecting the first and second element. The model of the component part is selected for analysis and subsequently other parameters and characteristics are selected regarding the component part ((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 component part imparts constraints on packing and shipping, wherein it would be understood that the packing characterizes the rack selection by which items are packed and the shipping characterizes the container by which shipment occurs ((Devarajan, ¶46-47) " 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. For example, the minimum allowable inter-part clearance may be known for a particular category of part and/or a particular type of packing/dunnage to be used. This minimum allowable inter-part clearance may be based upon the sensitivity of that part category to damage or marring during packing, shipping, and/or unpacking of the parts. For example, parts that will be visible when in use by a consumer are, in general, more highly sensitive to even a small amount of cosmetic damage than parts that are strictly functional. Hence, such visible parts will generally be packed with a greater minimum allowable distance to reduce the likelihood of any cosmetic marring of the part. 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. "); ((Devarajan, ¶94) " 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. ")
Regarding claim 11, Devarajan 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, Devarajan 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 13, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, a stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein based on previous designs of logistics load carriers and after adding the 3D model of the third element, all other steps of the method are automatically carried out. The method relies on information stored in a database, wherein the database contains information regarding configurations for a particular component, thereby indicating that the method is based on prior designs ((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. "). The user places the part model into the container space for an initial orientation ((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 initial configuration is further described as being based on historical information ((Devarajan, ¶56) "Alternatively, the initial configuration may be determined using automatically using the software program which may select a preferred configuration for a particular category of part based upon historically and/or programmed information, as shown at 74 in FIG. 9, and at 87 in FIG. 14. "). Figure 4 depicts the steps of the optimization and results being generated after the initial setup. The method is described as being performed automatically ((Devarajan, ¶12) " Thus, there is a need in the art for a system and method of automatically approximating the shipping density of component parts within a container, and quantifying the financial effect of part shipping density for the product. ")
Regarding claim 14, Devarajan discloses A computer system for carrying out the computer-implemented method ((Devarajan, ¶20) " The system 8 includes a remotely located computer system 10. The remotely located computer system 10 includes a server having a processor, and a memory. The remotely located computer system 10 is in communication with a user computer system 22, to be described, using a communications network 20 "); ((Devarajan, ¶29) "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. ") Devarajan discloses according to claim 1. as stated previously.
Regarding claim 18, Devarajan discloses The computer system according to claim 14, as stated previously. Devarajan further discloses wherein the computer system is linked to an 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 19, Devarajan discloses A computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, performs the computer-implemented method according to claim 1. ((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. ")
Regarding claim 20, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan discloses further wherein the layout is a compartmentalization of the available interior space, and wherein forms of the compartmentalization match forms of the components. In figure 5, the rack enables the compartmentalization of the interior space to contain two rows of parts. Furthermore, per figure 5, the geometry of the rack enables the packing of the component parts, thereby indicating that the forms of the rack is compatible with the form of the component part so as to contain all parts within the container.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devarajan 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 particular disclose; however Arambulo discloses wherein, based on the 3D model of the designed logistics load carrier, 2D detail drawings are generated. 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 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 particular 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.")
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devarajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 7, Devarajan discloses The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Devarajan discloses further (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein the 3D model of the designed logistics carrier is displayed in [[augmented]] reality. ((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.").
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.
Claim 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devarajan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cella et al (US 2022/0197306 A1), hereinafter referred to Cella.
Regarding claim 15, Devarajan discloses The computer system of claim 14, as stated previously. Devarajan does not disclose linking the computer system to a CRM system; however Cella discloses wherein the computer system is linked to a CRM system. A neural network approach is leveraged to create an intelligent system for a value chain network so as to integrate multiple subsystems relevant to supply chain logistics into a singular centralized computing system, to include a CRM application. ((Cella, ¶312) "Neural networks may be used with demand applications, such as a demand planning application, a demand prediction application, a sales application, a future demand aggregation application, a marketing application, an advertising application, an e-commerce application, a marketing analytics application, a customer relationship management application, a search engine optimization application, a sales management application, an advertising network application, a behavioral tracking application, a marketing analytics application, a location-based product or service-targeting application, a collaborative filtering application, a recommendation engine for a product or service, and the like. Neural networks may also be used with supply chain applications such as a goods timing management application, a goods quantity management application, a logistics management application, a shipping application, a delivery application, an order for goods management application, an order for components management application, and the like. Neural networks may provide coordinated intelligence by processing data that is available in any of a plurality of value chain data sources for the category of goods including without limitation processes, bill of materials, weather, traffic, design specification, customer complaint logs, customer reviews, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP System, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System, Customer Experience Management (CEM) System, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) System, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) System, and the like. ")
Cella is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor of automating and improving processes relevant to value chain networks. 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 linked the CRM system to the design system disclosed by Devarajan because combining known elements would yield predictable results. Incorporating the inclusion of a CRM system to the design system enables the ability to share knowledge between the designer/optimizer of the shipping container and the customers who leverage the optimized design.
Regarding claim 16, Devarajan discloses The computer system according to claim 14, as stated previously. Devarajan does not disclose linking the computer system to a PLM system; however Cella discloses wherein the computer system is linked to a PLM system. A neural network approach is leveraged to create an intelligent system for a value chain network so as to integrate multiple subsystems relevant to supply chain logistics into a singular centralized computing system, to include a CRM application. ((Cella, ¶312) "Neural networks may be used with demand applications, such as a demand planning application, a demand prediction application, a sales application, a future demand aggregation application, a marketing application, an advertising application, an e-commerce application, a marketing analytics application, a customer relationship management application, a search engine optimization application, a sales management application, an advertising network application, a behavioral tracking application, a marketing analytics application, a location-based product or service-targeting application, a collaborative filtering application, a recommendation engine for a product or service, and the like. Neural networks may also be used with supply chain applications such as a goods timing management application, a goods quantity management application, a logistics management application, a shipping application, a delivery application, an order for goods management application, an order for components management application, and the like. Neural networks may provide coordinated intelligence by processing data that is available in any of a plurality of value chain data sources for the category of goods including without limitation processes, bill of materials, weather, traffic, design specification, customer complaint logs, customer reviews, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP System, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System, Customer Experience Management (CEM) System, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) System, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) System, and the like. ")
Cella is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor of automating and improving processes relevant to value chain networks. 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 linked the PLM system to the design system disclosed by Devarajan because combining known elements would yield predictable results. Incorporating the inclusion of a PLM system to the design system enables the ability to share knowledge between the designer/optimizer of the shipping container and a system which monitors the lifecycle of the product being transported by the optimized carrier design.
Regarding claim 17, Devarajan discloses The computer system according to claim 14, as stated previously. Devarajan does not disclose linking the computer system to an ERP system; however Cella discloses wherein the computer system is linked to an ERP system. A neural network approach is leveraged to create an intelligent system for a value chain network so as to integrate multiple subsystems relevant to supply chain logistics into a singular centralized computing system, to include a CRM application. ((Cella, ¶312) "Neural networks may be used with demand applications, such as a demand planning application, a demand prediction application, a sales application, a future demand aggregation application, a marketing application, an advertising application, an e-commerce application, a marketing analytics application, a customer relationship management application, a search engine optimization application, a sales management application, an advertising network application, a behavioral tracking application, a marketing analytics application, a location-based product or service-targeting application, a collaborative filtering application, a recommendation engine for a product or service, and the like. Neural networks may also be used with supply chain applications such as a goods timing management application, a goods quantity management application, a logistics management application, a shipping application, a delivery application, an order for goods management application, an order for components management application, and the like. Neural networks may provide coordinated intelligence by processing data that is available in any of a plurality of value chain data sources for the category of goods including without limitation processes, bill of materials, weather, traffic, design specification, customer complaint logs, customer reviews, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP System, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System, Customer Experience Management (CEM) System, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) System, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) System, and the like. ")
Cella is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor of automating and improving processes relevant to value chain networks. 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 linked the ERP system to the design system disclosed by Devarajan because combining known elements would yield predictable results. Incorporating the inclusion of an ERP system to the design system enables the ability to share knowledge between the designer/optimizer of the shipping container and the system which centralizes a company’s core processes which may include supply chain and logistics information to include the optimized carrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siklar (Siklar, U., “Web-based 3D Visualization System for Road Freight Operations”, April 2020, Tampere University) discloses a visualization system with 3D visuals for freight operations. Further, the importance of inter-organizational information and communication technologies is described.
Vermeulen (BE 1028577 A1) appears to be a foreign application equivalent to the instant application which contains a search report relevant to the instant claims.
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