CTFR 18/216,221 CTFR 85075 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 03/31/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 10 and 12 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims. Claims 7-9 and 14-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an obtaining module”, “a generation module”, and “a selection module” in claim 10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6, 10-13 and 18-20 are allowed over prior art. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches the limitation: “generating, based on the first size information and the M candidate placement locations by using a first machine learning model, M first score values that are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M candidate placement locations, wherein the first machine learning model comprises a first submodel, and the M first score values are based on at least M second score values generated by the first submodel split into a feature extraction network extracting the first size information into first feature information represented by a state vector and a neural network connecting the first feature information to the M candidate placement locations”, as recited in claim 1. Claims 10 and 18-20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6, 10-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite method and apparatus for inventory location placement. Exemplary claim 10 recites in part, “obtain first size information and N pieces of second size information, wherein the first size information indicates a size of an unoccupied area in an accommodation space, N is an integer greater than or equal to 1, and the N pieces of second size information indicate sizes of corresponding N first objects; ( receiving first size and second size information ) generating M candidate placement locations based on the first size information and the N pieces of second size information, wherein one of the M candidate placement locations indicates one placement location of a target object in the unoccupied area, the target object is one object in the N first objects, and M is an integer greater than or equal to 1; ( determining candidate placement locations based on received information ) generating, based on the first size information and the M candidate placement locations by using a first machine learning model, M first score values that are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M candidate placement locations; and ( determining candidate placement location scores ) selecting a first placement location from the M candidate placement locations based on the M first score values. ( selecting a placement location ) The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data ( first and second size information ), 2) processing the received first and second size information ( determine candidate placement locations and placement location scores ), 3) selecting an outcome ( placement location ). The above steps describe an inventory location placement process. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (commercial or legal interaction – sales activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interaction – sales activities or behaviors, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (obtaining module, generation module and selection module) for implementing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The additional elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f) . Further, the additional element “wherein the first machine learning model comprises a first submodel, and the M first score values are based on at least M second score values generated by the first submodel split into a feature extraction network extracting the first size information into first feature information represented by a state vector and a neural network connecting the first feature information to the M candidate placement locations”, simply describes generation of the M first score values encompassed by the abstract idea, and does not impose any meaning limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (obtaining module, generation module and selection module), represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f) . Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 18-20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 10, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale. Dependent claims 2-6 and 11-13 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed controller is directed to “ software per se or program per se ” that does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 10 recites, a placement location obtaining apparatus comprising: “an obtaining module”, “a generation module”, and “a selection module”. Applicant’s published specification teaches that “[[a]]n embodiment of this application further provides a training device. FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram of a structure of a training device according to an embodiment of this application. The model training apparatus 1300 described in the embodiment corresponding to FIG. 13 may be deployed on the training device 1400, and the training device 1400 is configured to implement functions of the training device in the embodiments corresponding to FIG. 3 to FIG. 9… In an embodiment, the memory 1432 is a random access memory (RAM), may directly exchange data with the central processing unit 1422, is configured to load the data 1444 and the application program 1442 and/or an operating system 1441 for the central processing unit 1422 for directly running and use, and is usually used as a temporary data storage medium of the operating system or another running program. A program stored in the storage medium 1430 may include one or more modules (not shown in the figure), and each module may include a series of instruction operations for the training device. Further, the central processing unit 1422 may be configured to communicate with the storage medium 1430, and perform, on the training device 1400, the series of instruction operations in the storage medium 1430.” See paragraph 0173. Applicant’s published specification fails to define whether the recited “an obtaining module”, “a generation module”, and “a selection module” are hardware or software. “Software per se” or “Program per se” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claims 11-13 are rejected based on their dependence, directly or indirectly, on claim 10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 18 recites a “computer-readable storage medium comprising a program…” Applicant’s published specification teaches that “…FIG. 13 may be deployed on the training device 1400, and the training device 1400 is configured to implement functions of the training device in the embodiments corresponding to FIG. 3 to FIG. 9. For example, a great difference may be generated due to different configurations or performance of the training device 1400, and the training device 1400 may include one or more central processing units (CPUs) 1422 (for example, one or more processors), a memory 1432, and one or more storage media 1430 storing an application program 1442 or data 1444 (for example, one or more mass storage devices). The memory 1432 and the storage medium 1430 may be transient storage or persistent storage. In an embodiment, the memory 1432 is a random access memory (RAM), may directly exchange data with the central processing unit 1422, is configured to load the data 1444 and the application program 1442 and/or an operating system 1441 for the central processing unit 1422 for directly running and use, and is usually used as a temporary data storage medium of the operating system or another running program…” See paragraph 0173. Examiner notes that the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” may include transient-type media (e.g. carrier waves, signals), thus "computer-readable storage medium" causes the claim as a whole be drawn to non-statutory subject matter that would not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 recites “[[A]] computer program product, wherein the computer program product comprises instructions…” Applicant’s published specification teaches that “[[T]]he computer program product includes one or more computer instructions. When the computer program instructions are loaded and executed on a computer, the procedures or functions according to embodiments of this application are all or partially generated… The computer instructions may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium or may be transmitted from a computer-readable storage medium to another computer-readable storage medium...” See paragraph 0204. The claimed computer program product comprises only “instructions”. The instructions are interpreted as program/software code. “Software per se” or “Program per se” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 10-13 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention recites the steps of, 1) acquiring data ( first and second size information ), 2) processing the received first and second size information ( determine candidate placement locations and placement location scores ), 3) selecting an outcome ( placement location ). The claims recite method and apparatus for inventory location placement. The claimed invention uses computer technology to provide the business solution of product placement within a defined space. The recited machine learning models executed by the underlying computer technology provides for automating the logistics and warehousing process ( see Applicant’s filed specification, paragraphs 0003, 0004 ). The courts have held that “mere automation of manual processes” is insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST. 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 5712703324. 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. /OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 6 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 7 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 8 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 9 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 10 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 11 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 12 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 13 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/216,221 Page 14 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights