DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 8/19/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 18 and 20 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 7-12 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 8/19/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
Regarding pages 18-20, the optimized stacking configuration determination using mathematics is seen as abstract ideas, including mental processes, mathematics, and business practices including inventorying. Any benefits such as decreased energy consumption and prolonged service live of a device is said to be gleaned from the application of the abstract ideas to a broadly claimed device used in its ordinary capacity. Applying high level device/technology to implement said abstract idea is not a practical application/significantly more than said abstract idea(s). Further, optimizing processes for operation on a broadly claimed computing device is not seen as improving the functioning of said device. Rather, it is improving the claimed processes. Then, it follows that any improvements present are seen in the abstract ideas.
Regarding pages 21, the added limitations of determining a stacking order and generating stacking instruction are seen as abstract ideas. Sending the instruction to a device is seen as sending and receiving data, and is not significantly more or a practical application of said ideas, as the MPEP states that this is a typical function of a general-purpose computing device. Controlling the device is seen as using general purpose technology in its ordinary capacity to perform said abstract ideas, and is further seen as applying said ideas to a particular environment.
Claim Interpretation
For Claim 1, it is seen that target priority is actual order of containers, and that simulative stacking position is a simulative order, in para. 98 of the specification.
Also, a pickup feature is seen in para. 83 of the specification, and includes metadata such as cargo type, pickup company, shipping company, expedited status, average delay, on-time rate, etc. Therefore, it is interpreted as such.
Claim 12 is interpreted as determining the order of stacking based on priority based on metadata of containers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 7-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: determining a pickup priority of a planned pickup order for storage yard containers; determining a target priority based on said pickup priority order corresponding to a to-be stacked container, where the target priority corresponds to the to-be-stacked container and is a planned pickup order that corresponds to each container to-be-stacked in the storage yard, and the target priority corresponds to an actual order for container fetching; performing a stacking simulation on said container to obtain a stacking state comprising a position of container; selecting a target position that meets a target flipping condition according to the target priority, where determining priority comprises determining, from pickup priority, the target priority; and determining pickup priority comprising determining said priority in response to stack request sent by user; and after selecting target stacking state meeting flipping condition, determining a stacking order according to the simulative stacking position, and generating a stacking instruction in sequence according to the stacking order and simulative stacking position. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including order fulfillment and inventory management. They further cover mental processes, including observation, evaluation and/or judgement.
Further, the claims recite: determining target priority further comprises extracting a pickup feature of the container from pickup information referring to transportation information related to container, determining a pickup probability of the feature at the pickup priority, determining a maximum pickup probability as the target priority, determining pickup probability comprises determining a pick-up priority probability corresponding to at least one pickup priority, expressed as P(pick-up priority), determining a pick-up feature probability corresponding to the pick-up feature, which is expressed as P(pick-up feature), determining a likelihood probability, which is a probability of a certain pick-up feature occurring given a certain pick-up priority is determined, expressed as P(pick-up feature|pick-up priority), inputting said probabilities into a Naïve Bayes formula, and calculating a posterior probability as the pickup probability. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical processes.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements:
an apparatus for processing in communication connection with a user equipment (interpreted as a computer), a user equipment for sending and receiving data and outputting data, one processor and a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor, and the instruction is executed by the at least one processor to enable the processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer instruction stored thereon, wherein the computer instruction is used to enable a computer to execute the claimed steps, acquiring the at least one to be stacked container, sending a stacking instruction to a stacking device, and controlling the device to place the container in accordance with the target stacking state to obtain the at least one to-be-stacked container after being stacked, wherein the device is configured to place the at least one container in sequence, in response to the instruction, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims are seen as sending and receiving data and displaying data on a high-level recited “user equipment”, which is interpreted to include using computer technology in its ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea. They further use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s); and the stacking device being controlled to stack in accordance with instructions is seen as claimed broadly, and is not seen as a particular machine. Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (inventory management), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 19 recite determining pickup priority comprising acquiring historical pickup container order and determining said priority based on said historical data. Claim 3 recites said determining pickup priority comprises basing the decision on performing clustering processing on historical data to obtain information category, which comprises historical data meeting a pickup similarity condition. The data analysis of claims 2-3 and 19 are seen as part of said abstract idea of independent claims.
Claim 7 recites determining pick-up feature probability comprises determining historical pickup information, extracting historical pickup feature, determining a feature number of historical pickup features the same as the pickup feature, and calculating a ratio of the feature number to a total number of historical pickup features to determine the feature probability.
Claim 8 recites extracting pickup features comprises acquiring target factor, which is transportation information in the pick-up information, affecting determination of target priority, determining feature data of container at target factor according to pick up information, determining pickup feature from feature combination of feature data of target factor, where determining feature data comprises converting target factor in the pick-up information into corresponding feature data.
Claim 9 recites selecting target stacking sate meeting target flipping condition comprises performing a stacking state analysis on the stacking state to obtain a state analysis where the result indicates whether the stacking state meets target flipping condition, and determining a stacking state meeting target flipping condition as target stacking state according to state analysis.
Claim 10 recites determining the stacking state meeting target flipping condition comprises traversing said stacking state to determine a current stacking state and a candidate stacking state determined from a previous result comparison; and performing a result comparison between state analysis of current state and analysis of candidate state to determine a new candidate stacking state meeting target flipping condition.
Claim 11 recites performing stacking state analysis comprises determining state analysis factor, determining simulative stacking position to container, extracting stat data of state analysis factor according to simulation position and target priority, determining said state analysis, where state analysis factor comprises inversion pair, inversion pair difference and a flipping parameter; and determining analysis order from high to low according to said pairs and parameter, extracting state analysis factor comprises determining a target inversion pair of the stacking state according to target priority; determining a number of inversion pairs in the target inversion pair; calculating a difference value between two target priorities in the inversion pair to obtain an inversion pair difference; obtain number of flippings corresponding to the stacking state at the flipping parameter, according to the stacking position, and a number of flippings required in simulation according to the target priority; and determining the number of inversion pairs, the inversion pair difference value, and the number of flippings as the state datas of the inversion pair, the inversion pair difference, and the flipping parameter, respectively.
Claim 12 recites performing comparison between current and candidate stacking state comprises determining first state data and second state data corresponding to current and candidate stacking state; determining current state analysis factor from analysis order; determining current state is smaller/greater/equal than candidate state; then set current/candidate/or both state(s) as new candidate state, respectively.
Claims 7-12 contain data analysis seen as part of the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites performing stacking simulation comprises classifying the container according to target priorities to obtain target containers; performing a stacking simulation on target containers to obtain a substate of the target priority, where the sub-state refers to one stacking state of the containers belonging to the same target priority; determining a target substate from said substate; and performing a state combination on the target substate to obtain the stacking state. Claim 17 contains data analysis seen as part of the abstract idea.
For all these reasons, the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Reasons why Claims Would be Allowable
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art or non-patent literature has been found that teaches the claimed limitations of the Naïve Bayes pickup probability calculations in amended independent claims, the traversal of stacking states to determine a candidate and current state from a previous result comparison in claim 10, the inversion pair, pair difference and flipping parameter in claim 11, and the sub-states of the simulations in claim 17.
The closest non-patent literature that reads on the Application is Stavrou, Optimizing Container Loading with Autonomous Robots. This paper describes using mathematics and time constraints to determine where to place containers using simulations. The closest prior art that reads on the claims are: Hance (US 2018/0068255), Osgouei (US 2022/0152832), and Lindeberg (US 2008/0319573). Hance and Osgouei teach simulating efficient container stacking methods based on parameters, but not simulating sub-stacks of containers. Lindeberg teaches rearranging container using optimization techniques concerning number of moves the container makes, and defining sub-sections, but not in the claimed manner. Neither reference alone or in combination teaches the claimed limitations. In summation, Applicant' s claims are distinct from the closest prior art and non-patent literature. For these reasons, the closest prior art does not apply to said claims.
The examiner notes the cited limitations above in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim(s) are found to be allowable over the prior art of record. Independent claims recite the quoted subject matter or substantially similar language. Accordingly, the claims and their dependent claims would be allowable over the prior art for the reasons identified, if no other objections/rejections are applied.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON N TUTOR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights