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 .
Summary
This Final Office Action in response to the communication received on October 20, 2025.
Claim 7 has been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 7-11 are pending.
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is April 14, 2023, and claims priority to JP2020-175539 with filing date October 19, 2020.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claim 7 are acknowledged.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 7-11 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 7 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
a group of automated storages;
a plurality of load holders that hold loads;
a management device that manages storing of a load for the group of automated storages, the plurality of load holders each holding loads belonging to a same section as a section associated with the load holder, the management device comprising, as processing units that implement functionality by causing a processor to execute a program (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)):
a section obtainer that obtains, from an upper controller, a section to which the loads held by the load holder belong (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
a unit obtainer that obtains a unit of handling that refers to an upper limit of a total number of loads to be held by the load holder (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
an unfilled subsection determiner that determines an unfilled subsection in which a total number of loads belonging to a same section in each of the automated storages is neither the unit of handling nor a multiple of the unit of handling (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
a storage selector that, when there is an unfilled subsection corresponding to the section obtained by the section obtainer, selects, as a destination of the load, one of the automated storages which has the corresponding unfilled subsection (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 7 is directed to a series of steps for performing actions for selecting a storage destination, which is a mental process. The mere nominal recitation of automated storages, load holders, a management device comprising processing units that cause a processor to execute a program, a section obtainer, a unit obtainer, an unfilled subsection determiner, and a storage selector does not take the claim out of the mental process. Thus, Claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 7 is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: automated storages, load holders, a management device comprising processing units that cause a processor to execute a program, a section obtainer, a unit obtainer, an unfilled subsection determiner, and a storage selector that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) obtains a section, b) obtains a unit of handling, c) determines an unfilled subsection, and d) selects one of the automated storages, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2014/0343713 “Ziegler”, in view of US Pat Pub 2018/0346244 “Jiang”.
As per Claim 7, Ziegler discloses an automated storage system including:
a group of automated storages (Ziegler: [0017] FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of an automated storage and retrieval system in accordance with aspects of the disclosed embodiment.);
a plurality of load holders that hold loads (Ziegler: [0019] Referring still to FIG. 1, the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) 100 may be considered conceptually to generally comprise a storage space (or storage portion) 148, a transport system (otherwise referred to herein for description purposes as a storage and retrieval transport system 147) and a control portion or system 146. As may be realized, the storage space (which may be configured in any suitable manner is disposed to define storage locations where store units may be stored by the ASRS as will be described further herein. In one aspect of the exemplary embodiment, the storage space configuration may include structure that defines undeterministic support surfaces for the store units); and
a management device that manages storing of a load for the group of automated storages, the plurality of load holders each holding loads belonging to a same section as a section associated with the load holder (Ziegler: [0019] Referring still to FIG. 1, the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) 100 may be considered conceptually to generally comprise a storage space (or storage portion) 148, a transport system (otherwise referred to herein for description purposes as a storage and retrieval transport system 147) and a control portion or system 146. As may be realized, the storage space (which may be configured in any suitable manner is disposed to define storage locations where store units may be stored by the ASRS as will be described further herein. In one aspect of the exemplary embodiment, the storage space configuration may include structure that defines undeterministic support surfaces for the store units), the management device comprising, as processing units that implement functionality by causing a processor to execute a program (Ziegler: [0020], Referring still to FIG. 1, the control server 120 may include any suitable number of processors (e.g. controllers or control portions 120S, 120T) to effect planning and control of the storage and retrieval system and of the storage and retrieval engine 147. In accordance with an aspect of the exemplary embodiment, the control server processor(s) may be configured to provide separate controllers or control portions 120S, 120T respectively managing and controlling the storage and retrieval system and the storage and retrieval engine 147.):
a section obtainer that obtains, from an upper controller, a section to which the loads held by the load holder belong (Ziegler: [0029] The SRS control portion 120S may evaluate the optimization of each location to be filled or emptied, assigning it a value or score within the range 302, which has a corresponding meaning or interpretation 303 for further plan and control. The locations to fill and empty (e.g. store units to pick) within the storage space 148 may be evaluated using one or more suitable factors which may be referred to, for exemplary purposes as store and space factors. These store and space factors may be used for both storage location 130S (e.g. store location) allocation on inbound store units and storage location allocation on outbound store units (e.g. ordered store units).); and
a storage selector that, when there is an unfilled subsection corresponding to the section obtained by the section obtainer, selects, as a destination of the load, one of the automated storages which has the corresponding unfilled subsection (Ziegler: [0038] The high level control node 722 may thus proceed to select from the selectable location list, the storage location for each store unit (such as previously described by balancing the performance efficiency potential against the SRS optimization value) and generate corresponding tasks(s) for the control nodes (e.g. subordinate controllers or nodes) 724A, 724B that satisfy the transport objective associated with the store unit and selected storage location (e.g. pick certain stock keeping unit (SKU) from selected storage location and move to output cell and/or place certain SKU from input cell in selected storage location).).
Ziegler fails to disclose an automated storage system including:
a unit obtainer that obtains a unit of handling that refers to an upper limit of a total number of loads to be held by the load hauler; and
an unfilled subsection determiner that determines an unfilled subsection in which a total number of loads belonging to a same section in each of the automated
PNG
media_image1.png
8
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
storages is neither the unit of handling nor a multiple of the unit of handling.
Jiang teaches an automated storage system including:
a unit obtainer that obtains a unit of handling that refers to an upper limit of a total number of loads to be held by the load hauler (Jiang: [0053] The current storage space utilization information of the warehouse is obtained based on a warehouse storage space record of a warehouse system management platform. Most warehouse system management platforms maintain the data of an actual use status of a storage space in a warehouse, including a location, a parameter, whether goods are stored, related information of the stored goods, and the like of each storage space. Location and quantity information of a currently idle and available storage space, capacity and load information of the storage space, and the like can be accurately obtained from the data.); and
an unfilled subsection determiner that determines an unfilled subsection in which a total number of loads belonging to a same section in each of the automated storages is neither the unit of handling nor a multiple of the unit of handling (Jiang: [0053] Most warehouse system management platforms maintain the data of an actual use status of a storage space in a warehouse, including a location, a parameter, whether goods are stored, related information of the stored goods, and the like of each storage space. Location and quantity information of a currently idle and available storage space, capacity and load information of the storage space, and the like can be accurately obtained from the data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ziegler to include determining unfilled sections of storage as taught by Jiang, in the automated storage system as taught by Ziegler with the motivation of systematically utilize the storage capability of a storage space in a warehouse and flexibly and accurately plan a storage space for goods depending on the actual status of a warehouse goods (Jiang: [0009]).
As per Claim 8, Ziegler fails to disclose, but Jiang teaches an automated storage system, wherein, when there is no unfilled subsection corresponding to the section obtained by the section obtainer, the storage selector selects one of the automated storages which has fewest unfilled subsections (Jiang: [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ziegler to include determining unfilled sections of storage as taught by Jiang, in the automated storage system as taught by Ziegler with the motivation of systematically utilize the storage capability of a storage space in a warehouse and flexibly and accurately plan a storage space for goods depending on the actual status of a warehouse goods (Jiang: [0009]).
As per Claim 9, Ziegler discloses an automated storage system, wherein, when there is no unfilled subsection corresponding to the section obtained by the section obtainer, the storage selector selects one of the automated storages which has at most a predetermined unfilled-
PNG
media_image1.png
8
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
subsection threshold number of unfilled subsections (Ziegler: [0029]).
As per Claim 10, Ziegler discloses an automated storage system, wherein the storage selector:
obtains, for each section, priority data indicating priority of the automated storages into one of which the load is carried (Ziegler: [0029]); and
selects one of the automated storages having a high priority and at most a predetermined unfilled-subsection threshold number of unfilled subsections (Ziegler: [0029]-[0030]).
As per Claim 11, Ziegler discloses an automated storage system, wherein, in each of the sections, closeness of priority in the priority data and a distance to a corresponding one of the automated storages have a positive correlation (Ziegler: [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
First, Applicant argues that one or more elements of claim 7 are not capable of being performed in the human mind. While the claim does include a plurality of device, the only functions that are being performed are those that could be performed in a human mind, but are being automated using generic computing elements. These functions include obtaining a section to which the loads belong (look at a record or file), obtain a total number of loads to be held by the loader (look at capacity restrictions and make plans for where to store things), and selecting a destination of a load to an unfilled subsection (assigning a location to store an object).
Second, Applicant argues that the system incorporates specifics of at least automated storages, load holder, a management device for controlling the automated storages for storing loads from the load holder, and the management device includes specific processing units that implement specific functionalities by causing a processor to execute one or more programs, and the these components amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. However, the automated storages and load holders fail to perform any action. As claimed, they could merely amount to a design choice, as they are not functional in the actions of the claim. The management device that is implemented by processing units that are implemented by causing a processor to execute a program amount to a generic computer performing generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05 (A) - Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the combination of Ziegler and Jiang fail to teach or disclose “a management device that manages storing of a load for the group of automated storages, the plurality of load holders each holding loads belonging to a same section as a section associated with the load holder, the management device comprising, as processing units that implement functionality by causing a processor to execute a program:
a section obtainer that obtains, form an upper controller, a section to which the loads held by the load holder belong;
a unit obtainer that obtains a unit of handling the refers to an upper limit of a total number of loads to be held by the load holder,”
as recited by independent claim 7.
Ziegler teaches the management device that manages storing of a load for the group of automated storages…by “the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) 100 may be considered conceptually to generally comprise a storage space (or storage portion) 148, a transport system (otherwise referred to herein for description purposes as a storage and retrieval transport system 147) and a control portion or system 146. As may be realized, the storage space (which may be configured in any suitable manner is disposed to define storage locations where store units may be stored by the ASRS as will be described further herein. In one aspect of the exemplary embodiment, the storage space configuration may include structure that defines undeterministic support surfaces for the store units (Ziegler: [0019]).” Ziegler further teaches the management device comprising, as processing units that implement functionality by causing a processor to execute a program, by “the control server 120 may include any suitable number of processors (e.g. controllers or control portions 120S, 120T) to effect planning and control of the storage and retrieval system and of the storage and retrieval engine 147. In accordance with an aspect of the exemplary embodiment, the control server processor(s) may be configured to provide separate controllers or control portions 120S, 120T respectively managing and controlling the storage and retrieval system and the storage and retrieval engine 147.(Ziegler: [0020])”:
Ziegler teaches the system controller by “(t)he SRS control portion 120S may evaluate the optimization of each location to be filled or emptied, assigning it a value or score within the range 302, which has a corresponding meaning or interpretation 303 for further plan and control. The locations to fill and empty (e.g. store units to pick) within the storage space 148 may be evaluated using one or more suitable factors which may be referred to, for exemplary purposes as store and space factors. These store and space factors may be used for both storage location 130S (e.g. store location) allocation on inbound store units and storage location allocation on outbound store units (e.g. ordered store units)(Ziegler: [0029]).”
Jiang teaches an upper limit of a total number of loads to be held by the load holder by teaching storage space record of a warehouse system management platform (Jiang: [0053]). The storage space record includes capacity, dimensions, and current utilization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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://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 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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627