DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of prior-filed application is acknowledged under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to a 371 of PCT/US/2020/049553, filed 04 September 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 October 2025, 10 May 2024, and 28 March 2023 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 03 March 2023 are accepted.
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 8, 9 and 15 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 8 recites the limitation "the rotation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8. Applicant may amend the claim such that the claim discloses dependency on claim 7 rather than claim 1. The Examiner will proceed under the assumption that claim 8 is intended to dependent on claim 7.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the fitness measure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Applicant may amend this claim such that the claim discloses dependency on claim 14 rather than claim 13. The Examiner will proceed under the assumption that claim 8 is intended to dependent on claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 is directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 10-12 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-15 are directed to a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10, and 13 recite the abstract idea of determining a packing of a plurality of objects with a genetic procedure, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of “determining, for each of a plurality of objects, an initial orientation corresponding to a minimum bounding box;” in claim 1 covers mathematical concept including generating a minimum bounding box through rotations in which the output is the initial orientation. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental process including drawing a minimum bounding box to determine the initial orientation, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation “determining a packing of the plurality of objects using the initial orientations with a genetic procedure” in claim 1 covers mathematical concepts including utilizing an algorithm to result in packing arrangement data. Examiner notes that a genetic procedure is computational procedure (See [0011]) and a packing is information that specifies an arrangement of objects in a build volume (See [0007]). Alternatively, the limitation covers mental process including following a series of steps to result in a packing arrangement that can displayed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitations of “determine a chromosome based on a set of minimum bounding boxes corresponding to a set of objects” in claim 10 and “code to cause the processor to determine initial chromosomes based on orientations of the set of objects in the minimum bounding boxes” in claim 13 cover mathematical concepts including utilizing an algorithm to generate packing data from the orientation data. Examiner notes that a chromosome is data that pertains to the packing of objects (See [0014]). Alternatively, the limitations cover mental process including utilizing a series of steps to generate packing data from the orientation data, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitations of “select a packing of the set of objects based on the genetic procedure” in claim 10 and “code to cause the processor to select a chromosome from the subsequent generation of chromosomes to determine a packing” in claim 13 cover mathematical concepts including utilizing an algorithm to choose the optimal packing arrangement. Alternatively, the limitations cover mental process including after performing the series of steps, selecting the most optimal packing arrangement. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, and 14-15 further narrow the abstract ideas identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of “execute a genetic procedure based on the chromosome” in claim 10 and “code to cause the processor to perform a genetic procedure based on the initial chromosomes to produce a subsequent generation of chromosomes” in claim 13 merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitation of “execute a genetic procedure based on the chromosome” in claim 10 and “code to cause the processor to perform a genetic procedure based on the initial chromosomes to produce a subsequent generation of chromosomes” in claim 13, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on packing data, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, and 14-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 10, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “execute a genetic procedure based on the chromosome” in claim 10 and “code to cause the processor to perform a genetic procedure based on the initial chromosomes to produce a subsequent generation of chromosomes” in claim 13 merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitation of “execute a genetic procedure based on the chromosome” in claim 10 and “code to cause the processor to perform a genetic procedure based on the initial chromosomes to produce a subsequent generation of chromosomes” in claim 13, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on packing data, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further generating packing data based on the initial orientations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further using a computer or other machinery to perform the genetic procedure to perform the abstract idea, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to MPEP2106.05(f) or alternatively MPEP2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the packing data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the bounding box, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further updating the genetic procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claims 7 is directed to further defining the mutation to the genetic procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 is directed to further defining the rotation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining the genetic procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining the bounding boxes of the objects, further defining the mutation to the genetic procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the packing data, further defining the mutation to the genetic procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further defining the fitness measure, further defining the mutation to the genetic procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes”.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2020/0027003 A1, hereafter W.
Regarding Claim 1: W discloses a method, comprising:
determining, for each of a plurality of objects, an initial orientation corresponding to a minimum bounding box;
W [0030] “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, which respectively illustrate the flow chart, the bounding body and the voxel model of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. In the embodiment, the dismantled part packaging method of the invention includes: (1) Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition … Step S16: the processor 20 calculating packaging data P of each dismantled part 10 contained in each packaging box 40 by a genetic algorithm”
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
and determining a packing of the plurality of objects using the initial orientations with a genetic procedure.
W [0030] “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, which respectively illustrate the flow chart, the bounding body and the voxel model of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. In the embodiment, the dismantled part packaging method of the invention includes: (1) Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition … Step S16: the processor 20 calculating packaging data P of each dismantled part 10 contained in each packaging box 40 by a genetic algorithm”. Examiner notes that a genetic procedure is computational procedure (See [0011]) and a packing is information that specifies an arrangement of objects in a build volume (See [0007]).
Regarding Claim 2: W discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a chromosome based on the initial orientations corresponding to the minimum bounding boxes.
W [0033] “Step S26: the computation element 27 computes a second adaptation value of each position chromosome according to the position coordinates and the orientation codes of each voxel model M. “
W [0030] “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, which respectively illustrate the flow chart, the bounding body and the voxel model of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. In the embodiment, the dismantled part packaging method of the invention includes: (1) Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition.” Examiner notes that a chromosome is data that pertains to the packing of objects (See [0014]).
Regarding Claim 3: W discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising executing the genetic procedure based on the chromosome.
W [0032-0033] Referring to FIG. 5, which illustrates the flow chart of the genetic algorithm of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the processor 20 calculates the packaging data P by a genetic algorithm with the following steps: … Step S26: the computation element 27 computes a second adaptation value of each position chromosome according to the position coordinates and the orientation codes of each voxel model M.”
Regarding Claim 4: W discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the chromosome comprises a set of object identifiers with the initial orientations for the plurality of objects.
W [0032-0033]: “Step S21: the simulation element 26 sets each permutation number as a first corresponding section of a coding chromosome and each first corresponding section respectively having a corresponding permutation number … Step S26: the computation element 27 computes a second adaptation value of each position chromosome according to the position coordinates and the orientation codes of each voxel model M.”
Regarding Claim 5: W discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the minimum bounding box is misaligned relative to a canonical axis.
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
Regarding Claim 6: W discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a mutation in the genetic procedure based on a first initial orientation of the initial orientations.
W [0036] “Step S28A: the simulation element 26 mates and mutates each position chromosome to obtain a plurality of varying position chromosomes and the computation element 27 computes a second varying adaptation value of each varying position chromosome, wherein the position coordinates and the orientation codes corresponding to the plurality of varying position chromosomes are different from that of the position chromosomes.”
Regarding Claim 7: W discloses the method of claim 6, wherein performing the mutation comprises performing a rotation of the first initial orientation.
W [0030] “Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition.”
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
Regarding Claim 8: W discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rotation maintains a minimum bounding box volume from the first initial orientation.
W [0030] “Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition.”
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
Regarding Claim 10: W discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a memory;
a processor coupled to the memory,
W [0057] “In this application, including the definitions below, the term “module” or the term “controller” may be replaced with the term “circuit.” The term “module” may refer to, be part of, or include: an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC); a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital discrete circuit; a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital integrated circuit; a combinational logic circuit; a field programmable gate array (FPGA); a processor circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code; a memory circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor circuit; other suitable hardware components that provide the described functionality; or a combination of some or all of the above, such as in a system-on-chip.”
wherein the processor is to: determine a chromosome based on a set of minimum bounding boxes corresponding to a set of objects;
execute a genetic procedure based on the chromosome;
W [0030] “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, which respectively illustrate the flow chart, the bounding body and the voxel model of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. In the embodiment, the dismantled part packaging method of the invention includes: (1) Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition.”
W [0032-0033] Referring to FIG. 5, which illustrates the flow chart of the genetic algorithm of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the processor 20 calculates the packaging data P by a genetic algorithm with the following steps: … Step S26: the computation element 27 computes a second adaptation value of each position chromosome according to the position coordinates and the orientation codes of each voxel model M.”
select a packing of the set of objects based on the genetic procedure.
W [0033] “Step S24: the arranging element 24 arranges each first adaptation value and each first varying adaptation value in order, and the selecting element 25 selects a plurality of first superior chromosomes according to a first selecting condition.”
Regarding Claim 11: W discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is to rotate a pose of an object of the chromosome in the genetic procedure.
W [0030] “Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition.”
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
Regarding Claim 12: W discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is to determine the set of minimum bounding boxes corresponding to the set of objects.
W [0030] “Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition. The processor 20 then produces the bounding body O of each dismantled part 10.”
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
Regarding Claim 13: W discloses a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing executable code, comprising:
code to cause a processor to determine minimum bounding boxes of a set of objects;
W [0030] “Step S14: the voxel element 21 combines each voxel-line-bunch of each of the bounding bodies O as a voxel model M such that each dismantled part 10 respectively corresponds to the voxel model M to which each dismantled part 10 belongs, wherein each voxel model M has the position coordinates and the orientation codes. The voxel model M is obtained according to the model of the voxel-line-bunch in coordination with the coordinates and there are 24 types of the voxel-line-bunches. (5) Step S15: the coding element 23 codes each dismantled part 10 such that each dismantled part 10 has a permutation number.”
W [Figure 3] displays the dismantled part 10 being rotated from the canonical axis such that the bounding box is minimized.
code to cause the processor to determine initial chromosomes based on orientations of the set of objects in the minimum bounding boxes;
W [0033] “Step S26: the computation element 27 computes a second adaptation value of each position chromosome according to the position coordinates and the orientation codes of each voxel model M. “
W [0030] “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, which respectively illustrate the flow chart, the bounding body and the voxel model of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. In the embodiment, the dismantled part packaging method of the invention includes: (1) Step S11: the processor 20, as shown in FIG. 3, flips each dismantled part 10 until each dismantled part 10 is located with a proper orientation according to the coordinate of the dismantled parts 10 and a packaging condition.”
code to cause the processor to perform a genetic procedure based on the initial chromosomes to produce a subsequent generation of chromosomes;
W [0032-0033] Referring to FIG. 5, which illustrates the flow chart of the genetic algorithm of the first embodiment of the radioactive dismantled part packaging method of the invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the processor 20 calculates the packaging data P by a genetic algorithm with the following steps: … Step S26: the computation element 27 computes a second adaptation value of each position chromosome according to the position coordinates and the orientation codes of each voxel model M … Step S27: the simulation element 26 mates and mutates each position chromosome to obtain a plurality of varying position chromosomes and the computation element 27 computes a second varying adaptation value of each varying position chromosome, wherein the position coordinates and the orientation codes corresponding to the plurality of varying position chromosomes are different from that of the plurality of position chromosomes.”
and code to cause the processor to select a chromosome from the subsequent generation of chromosomes to determine a packing.
W [0033] “Step S28: the arranging element 24 arranges each second adaptation value and each second varying adaptation value in order, and the selecting element 25 selects a plurality of second superior chromosomes according to a second selecting condition. (ix) Step S29: the selecting element 25 integrates the position coordinate, the orientation code and the permutation number corresponding to each second superior chromosome as the packaging data P.”
Regarding Claim 14: W discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the code to cause the processor to select the chromosome comprises code to cause the processor to select the chromosome based on an associated fitness measure.
W [0030] “The number of packaging boxes 40 is decided according to the permutation number, and each packaging box 40 contains the dismantled parts 10. It should be noted that the remaining dismantled parts 10 will be loaded into other packaging boxes 40 when the present packaging box 40 cannot contain additional dismantled parts 10 due to exceeding weight, volume or dose rate … Through the voxel model M in coordination with the genetic algorithm, the packaging of the dismantled parts 10 is optimized. The dismantled parts 10 are loaded into the corresponding packaging boxes 40 according to the packaging data P to minimize the number of the used packaging boxes 40.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 9 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2020/0027003 A1, hereafter W in view of NPL: A GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR TWO DIMENSIONAL STRIP PACKING PROBLEMS (2009), hereafter M.
Regarding Claim 9: W discloses the method of claim 8.
W does not disclose wherein the rotation comprises a multiple of 90 degrees on an axis or axes.
However, M discloses wherein the rotation comprises a multiple of 90 degrees on an axis or axes.
M [Page 147: Section 2] “Given n items of small rectangles each having width w-i and height hi, and one large rectangular strip with constant width W and infinite height, the objective is to minimise the packing height H of the strip such that all items can be packed into the strip without overlap. The small rectangular items can be rotated by [Symbol font/0xB0]90.
W and M are analogous because they both pertain to using a genetic algorithm to simulate the packing of objects,
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because the genetic algorithm of M optimizes the packing of packing of objects by minimizing the strip height without overlapping the objects (See M [Page 146: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 15: W discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 13.
W does not disclose wherein the fitness measure comprises a packing height.
However, M discloses wherein the fitness measure comprises a packing height.
M [Page 147: Section 2] “Given n items of small rectangles each having width w-i and height hi, and one large rectangular strip with constant width W and infinite height, the objective is to minimise the packing height H of the strip such that all items can be packed into the strip without overlap. The small rectangular items can be rotated by [Symbol font/0xB0]90.
W and M are analogous because they both pertain to using a genetic algorithm to simulate the packing of objects,
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because the genetic algorithm of M optimizes the packing of packing of objects by minimizing the strip height without overlapping the objects (See M [Page 146: Introduction]).
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made record of and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application 2014/0320490 A1
This reference discloses a method for manipulating 3D modeled objects through the organization of bounding boxes.
C.N. Patent Application 109447311 A
This reference discloses a method through a genetic algorithm of generating an optimal packing solution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-8533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00-4:00.
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://uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiner’s fax phone number (571) 272-8533.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published a applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
STT
/SCOTT THANH BINH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights