CTFR 18/276,822 CTFR 88378 DETAILED ACTION This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 1/22/2026 submission filed in Application 17/276,822. Claims 1-4, 6-11 are now presented. 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, files 1/22/2026 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn. 07-37 Applicant's remaining arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “The amended claims do not merely output results. Instead, the claims verifying compliance with physical loading constraints and suppressing an instruction when a violation is indicated. This is not insignificant extra-solution activity. It is central to the claimed container loading management and constitutes a meaningful limitation on the claim scope. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 is patent eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points the Applicant to the instant rejection of why the amendments remain directed to abstract ideas. Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “The combination of (i) to "verify whether the loading position received from the container loading planning device satisfies the one or more loading constraints", (ii) "output an evaluation value for loading the target container at the loading position received from the container loading planning device based on a result of the verifying," and (iii) "when the verifying indicates that the loading position violates at least one of the one or more loading constraints, suppress an instruction to load the target container at the loading position and output a reason for a violation," is not merely generic implementation or conventional post-solution activity. These features define an integrated control workflow that prevents issuance of improper loading instructions and thereby improves the operation of a container loading management system in a technical environment.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points the Applicant to the instant rejection of why the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-4, 6-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 9, 10, 11 have been amended to recite “when the verifying indicates that the loading position violates at least one of the one or more loading constraints, suppress an instruction to load the target container at the loading position and output a reason for a violation”. The Examiner is unable to find support for suppress an instruction to load the target container at the loading position and output a reason for a violation. The claims that depend from Claim 1 does not cure the deficiencies and is also rejected. 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 1-4, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept. In the Instant case Claims 1-5 are directed toward a container management device. Claims 6-8 are directed toward a container management system. Claim 9 is directed toward a container management method. Claim 10 is directed toward a container loading management method. Claim 11 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable information recording program storage medium storing a container management program. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that: To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) . This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: 1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) , subsection I); 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) , subsection II); and 3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) , subsection III). As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of container load management which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include: accept input of information on the a target container which is the container to be loaded next; transmit current loading state comprising positions of containers on one or more freight cars and one or more loading constraints comprising a balance constrain, and information on the target container to a container loading planning device, which replies to a loading position of the container in response to an inquiry, to inquire about the loading position of the target container; verify whether the loading position received from the container loading planning device satisfies the one or more loading constraints; determine an evaluation value for loading the target container at the loading position received from the container loading planning device based on a result of the verifying, such that the evaluation value is higher when the loading position satisfies the one or more loading constraints; and determine the evaluation value in time series order corresponding to the loading of the target container and, when the verifying indicates that the loading position violates at least one of the one or more loading constraints, suppress an instruction to load the target container at the loading position and output a reason for a violation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states: The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010. The instant claims are directed to container management by determining optimal loading positions of containers which is a business practice. The limitations of inquiring about loading positions and transmitting current loading conditions are directed to managing freight loading which is a business practice. The claims do not limit these data inquiries or transmittals to any particular technical environment. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states: The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions The claim recites mental processes including: inquire about the loading position of the target container and transmit current loading state and information on the target container which replies to a loading position of the container in response to an inquiry; determine an evaluation value for loading the target container at the loading position received from the container loading planning device based on a result of the verifying, such that the evaluation value is higher when the loading position satisfies the one or more loading constraints; and determine the evaluation value in time series order corresponding to the loading of the target container and, when the verifying indicates that the loading position violates at least one of the one or more loading constraints, suppress an instruction to load the target container at the loading position and output a reason for a violation. Nothing precludes the above limitations from being performed mentally. Further, the claims do not state how the instruction is suppressed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can observe that a load is in violation and suppress loading of a container in the planned position. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states: Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) ; • Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) ; • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b) ; • Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c) ; and • 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) ; • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) ; and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) . In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: A container management device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform the recited abstract idea; output the result of an analysis However, the processors configured to execute the instructions to perform the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the enterprise health data store that contains electronic records amounts to generic data storage. That is because merely storing data in a data store does not meaningfully limit the process of calculating a health score. The fact that the records are encrypted does not save the claim. The claims do not positively recite how the data is encrypted, or describe a particular way that the data is encrypted. The claims merely require that previously encrypted data is stored in a data store which amounts to insignificant data storage. Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states: An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. In the instant case, the output of the result of an analysis is not integrated into the claim as a whole. Further, MPEP 2106.05 also states Examiner should evaluate whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. In this case, the broadly recited output of information is well known. When viewing the recited data output in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the 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. In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the recited computer elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the output of information is anything other than conventional. The Examiner takes official notice that outputting of the result of an analysis is well-known and conventional. When viewing the generic output in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. Further Claims 2-5 further limit the mental processes and abstract business processes rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the additional elements of outputting information recited in claims amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well known and conventional output. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-5 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claims 1-5 otherwise styled as a method, computer program product or system, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 6-11 are also rejected. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30. 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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. /DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 8 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/276,822 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights