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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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; or
(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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yano et al. (“Yano”)(with text citations to English translation submitted as NPL #1 of 4/20/2023 titled “Optimal Storage System for Air Cargo”).
Yano arrangement specifying method for a computer to execute a process comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 8) acquiring a shape of a container that has a first surface and a second surface orthogonal to the first surface (fig. 10 and 11 showing rectangular container and p. 3-4 teaching that loadable space is calculated for different loading sequences of different cargos thus it is inherent that shape of container and of each article is acquired);
acquiring a shape of a plurality of articles (Id.); and
specifying an arrangement position and an arrangement posture of each of the plurality of articles when the plurality of articles is arranged in the container in an arrangement order, by using a bottom left algorithm (p. 3 teaching “Bottom Left Depth” (BLD) algorithm to determining loading arrangement of cargo within a container; see also fig. 10-11), wherein the specifying includes:
acquiring first gap information that indicates gap between a first article of the plurality of articles and a surroundings when the first article is arranged at a bottom left stability point regarding a first arrangement posture, for each of the plurality of articles (fig. 10-11 and p. 3-4 teaching that algorithm involves determining “loadable space” for each cargo to be loaded--including determining said space based on different loading sequences of the cargos and based on a rotation of each cargo in the XY direction),
acquiring second gap information that indicates gap between the first article and the surroundings when the first article is arranged at a bottom left stability point regarding a second arrangement posture obtained by rotating the first article within a plane parallel to the first surface (Id. teaching determining space after rotation as well),
acquiring a first solution by specifying one of the first arrangement posture and the second arrangement posture, according to comparison between the first gap information and the second gap information (Id. teaching that algorithm searches and analyzes different solutions including different cargo arrangement postures, i.e., different sequencing and positioning),
acquiring first filling density information of the plurality of articles arranged in the container when the first article is arranged at the bottom left stability point regarding the first arrangement posture (Id. teaching that algorithm searches for different solutions that satisfies the conditions of “loadable space”, “stacked loading constraint” and “constraint of loading direction”, wherein said conditions can be regarded as related to filling density related to a plurality of articles),
acquiring second filling density information of the plurality of articles arranged in the container when the first article is arranged at the bottom left stability point regarding the second arrangement posture (Id. teaching that different postures, i.e., sequencing or rotational positions are calculated when searching for loading solutions),
acquiring a second solution by specifying one of the first arrangement posture and the second arrangement posture, according to comparison between the first filling density information and the second filling density information (Id. teaching comparison of different arrangements/filling density when performing loading algorithm and analyzing different solutions), and
specifying the arrangement order and the arrangement posture of the plurality of articles, so that an evaluation result of an objective function regarding the first solution and the second solution satisfies a criterion (p. 2 at bottom teaching maximizing objective function and p. 3-4 teaching arrangement order and posture of plurality of articles);
(re: claim 10) wherein the surroundings is one selected from the second surface and a second article of the plurality of articles (Cf. fig. 10-11 and p. 4 teaching calculating loading/space constraints within container, wherein container surface can be regarded as second surface);
(re: claim 11) wherein the first filling density information and the second filling density information are a distance from a bottom of the bottom left algorithm to an end of the first article on a side opposite to the bottom (Cf. fig. 10-11 and p. 4 teaching calculating loading/space constraints, i.e., filling density, based on different arrangements of said articles within container, thus it is inherent that article dimensions are used in calculations);
(re: claim 13) wherein the first surface has a substantially rectangular shape, and the plurality of articles has a substantially rectangular shape in a planer view of the first surface (Cf. fig. 10 and 11).
(re: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 15 and 17-18) The claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an arrangement specifying program and information processing apparatus are regarded as inherent in the teachings of the system performing said algorithm to analyze different loading solutions.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano in view of Huang et al. (“Huang”)(US 2002/0106273); Zhang et al. (“Zhang”)(CN 104680237 A) and legal precedent.
Yano as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 2, 9, 16) wherein the first gap information and the second gap information are ratios between the gap and a length of the first article in a direction from the first article toward the surroundings;
(re: claims 5, 12) wherein the objective function includes a work time for arranging in the arrangement order of the first solution and the second solution, and a filling density of the plurality of articles arranged in the arrangement order of the first solution and the second solution;
(re: claims 7, 14) wherein the specifying includes using a genetic algorithm.
Huang, however, teaches that utilizing ratios, e.g., between article dimensions and gaps, allows comparison of dimensionless measurements and optimization of the filling density (fig. 45, 46 and para. 354-356, 404-409 teaching that ratio allows dimensionless evaluations, e.g., “Area Fill Ratio” or “Gap to Neighbor” that ensures “maximum dimensional filling to the boundary”; para. 416 teaching analysis of gap information—e.g., ratio of corner gap or gap between packages to package dimensions when performing loading stability calculations).
Zhang further teaches that is well-known in the automated material handling arts to optimize a loading algorithm under multiple constraint conditions by using a genetic algorithm (Abstract; para. 1, 7-14 teaching that algorithm reduces a work time when seeking a loading solution).
Indeed, the claimed features of ratios relating to gap information and of work time can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the automated material handling arts as taught above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yano for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
October 19, 2025