DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 04 June 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 now recite allowable subject matter, and the claims would be allowable if they were re-written or amended to overcome the current 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and claims 9-20 are directed to a product of manufacture. It is noted that claims 9-20 recite a computer program, which is described in the Applicant’s specification as comprising “A computer readable storage medium, that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” as indicated in paragraph [0029] of the Applicant’s specification, and therefore the computer program product is considered to be directed to a statutory category of invention.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of managing a physical storage system for a user. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
recording real-time data deployed within a plurality of storage areas comprising the physical storage system;
creating, a model representing the physical storage system;
continuously updating data in real-time;
identifying a physical item that the user has selected for acquisition;
selecting one or more of the plurality of storage areas to store the item in, based on a category associated with the item;
determining an amount of storage space required to store the item based on dimensions of the item;
comparing the determined amount of storage space against a current amount of free space within the one or more selected storage areas;
responsive to identifying that the item can fit into the one or more selected storage areas based on the comparing, adding a model of the item;
considering the added model of the item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated into the physical storage system; and
responsive to identifying that the determined amount of storage space exceeds the current amount of free space based on the comparing, transmitting an alert to a user.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of managing a physical storage system for a user, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “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).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claims 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims recite the steps of recording the data of storage areas in real-time, creating a model of the storage system, continuing to update the data in real-time, identifying an item that the user has selected for acquisition, selecting one or more of the plurality of storage areas to store the item in, based on a category associated with the item, determining an amount of storage space required to store the item based on dimensions of the item, comparing the determined amount of storage space against a current amount of free storage space within the one or more storage areas, responsive to identifying that the item can fit into the one or more selected storage areas based on the comparing step, adding a model of the item to the model of the storage system, based on the added model of the item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated within the physical storage system, and alerting user when the identifying that the determined amount of storage space exceeds the current amount of free space based on the comparison, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner additionally notes that that the steps of identifying a physical item that the user has selected for acquisition, selecting one or more of the plurality of storage areas to store the item in based on a category associated with the item, and determining an amount of storage space required store the item based on dimensions of the item, would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes. A mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the steps of identifying a physical item, would be considered a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, the step of selecting one or more storage areas would be considered a judgement, and the step of determining an amount of storage space required to store the item based on item dimensions would be considered a judgement. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea that also falls into the grouping of mental processes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations 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). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a processor, sensor data from IoT sensors, a digital twin, a virtual model, the digital twin with sensor data, the sensor data, a digital model, the digital model, the digital twin, the digital model, and a user device.
Although reciting such an additional element, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional element is described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., managing a physical storage space of a user) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional element is merely a generic element and the implementation of the element merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional element merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional element of a processor, sensor data from IoT sensors, a digital twin, a virtual model, the digital twin with sensor data, the sensor data, a digital model, the digital model, the digital twin, the digital model, and a user device, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination with other claimed features, the additional element of representative claim 1 does not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 8 includes the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, and independent claim 15 includes the additional element of a computer program product, and one or more computer-readable medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements in claims 8 and 15, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 8 and 15 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 8 and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 8 and 15, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 8 and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, depending from claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims includes the additional element of mixed-reality (claims 4, 11, & 18), modeling the digital model (claim 6), and modeling the digital model within the twin (claims 13 and 20). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 17, and 19 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
comparing the determined amount of storage space against a current amount of free space within the one or more selected storage areas based on the digital twin, and
responsive to identifying that the determined amount of storage space exceeds the current amount of free space based on the comparing, transmitting an alert to a user device
The most apposite prior art of record includes Beaurepaire, J., et al. (PGP No. US 2024/0193708 A1), in view of Uusitalo, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0361011 A1), Varis Doggett, E., et al. (Patent No. US 12,475,656 B2), and Hiranandani, G., et al. (PGP No. US 2018/0260843 A1), to teach a method for storage services for physical objects.
The reference Beaurepaire describes system for physically storing objects, where sensor data is collected from a sensor module in a specific environment, such as an available space for a user, in order to determine usage patterns of physical space in the environment (Beaurepaire, see: paragraphs [0034], [0059], [0107], and [0111]). The reference describes that the sensors can scan the physical environment and detect changes and recognize objects that are present within the environment, where the scanned environment can be computed for a spatial cost and a special budget, and where the physical environment can be presented via a pair of virtual glasses and visible to a user (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0197]). The system can also compute a spatial cost and budge for a specific item for potential purchase and determine what that item is (Beaurepaire, paragraphs [0048] and [0191]). Based on the type of object or item selected, the system of Beaurepaire can further automatically recommend a specific type of storage service to the user, and determine a personalized spatial budget and spatial cost that would permit that environment to hold the potential items (Beaurepaire, see: paragraphs [0096], [0107], [0109], [0111], [0156], [0177], [0190]). The determined spatial cost and budget of space is based on an output module that calculates the available space (Beaurepaire, see: paragraphs [0055], [0190]). The output module of Beaurepaire also can create a presentation, visible through the pair of virtual glasses, of the specific item displayed within the physical space (Beaurepaire, see: paragraphs [0190] and [0197]). The system includes allowing for a user to select a plurality of items within the allowed free space and provides links to purchase more items (Beaurepaire, paragraphs [0048], [0191]-[0192] and [0197]). Although Beaurepaire discloses the management of physical objects within a physical storage area, Beaurepaire does not specifically disclose the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Uusitalo is merely relied upon to teach features related to IoT sensors for creation of digital twins for physical layouts of a specific environment, where the model created is a 3D model of the area (Uusitalo, paragraphs [0058], [0106]), and where the system also allows the digital twin having a connection between the physical model of the physical environment and the corresponding virtual model or virtual counterpart, where the connection allows the receiving and transmitting of the real-time IoT sensor data (Uusitalo, paragraph [0043]). Although Uusitalo teaches the features related to creating a digital twin from IoT sensor data, Uusitalo does not teach or describe the allowable features indicated above.
Next, the reference of Varis Doggett is relied on to teach features related to determine if a virtual character and it’s calculated size, as well as subsequently selected characters, are appropriate for placement into a corresponding physical environment (Varis Doggett, see Col. 3, ln. 66-67, Col. 4, ln. 1-6). Although Varis Doggett does teach features for subsequently selecting items for a physical storage space based on a calculated size, Varis Doggett does not specifically mention any type of alert that would be sent to a user based on a comparison, and therefore the reference does not cure the deficiencies of the prior art.
Further, the reference of Hiranandani is relied upon to teach a feature of generating a digital message that comprises product recommendations for a user in an AR platform, or the platform may send the user a text to a client device (Hiranandani, paragraph [0163]). Although Hiranandani does describe the features related to the sending of an alert for recommending products to a user using an AR platform, Hiranandani does not specifically mention that the platform is for determining or managing physical storage options for a user and does not send the alert based on a comparison of the determined amount of storage space against a current amount of free space within the one or more selected storage areas based on the digital twin. The reference does not teach the allowable features indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Detection of Household Furniture Storage Space in Depth Images, published in sensors (2022). 22, 6774, documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Detection’, describes automatic storage volume detection and annotation within the 3D models that include physical objects, such as furniture, where the detection of the storage volume is based on dept images acquired by 3d camera sensor data. The methods described are to provide improvements in facilitating object detection and detecting empty or overly crowded storage space. Although ‘Detection’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 04 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 12-13 of the remarks stating The use of the digital twin is core to the claims, not insignificant post-solution activity,” and “not directed to abstract ideas; they are not performable in the human mind,” and “they are not methods of organizing human activity,” and further “the limitations do not pertain to sales activity,” and “do not recite the words ‘recommendation’ or ‘purchase’ and therefore cannot ‘set forth’ ‘providing a user with recommendations to either purchase or not purchase an item,” and “as amended are not directed to any abstract ideas,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First the examiner does note that the claims are not indicated to recite insignificant post-solution activity. However, under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, and even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea of managing a physical storage system for a user. The claims recite the activities of recording the data of storage areas in real-time, creating a model of the storage system, continuing to update the data in real-time, identifying an item that the user has selected for acquisition, selecting one or more of the plurality of storage areas to store the item in, based on a category associated with the item, determining an amount of storage space required to store the item based on dimensions of the item, comparing the determined amount of storage space against a current amount of free storage space within the one or more storage areas, responsive to identifying that the item can fit into the one or more selected storage areas based on the comparing step, adding a model of the item to the model of the storage system, based on the added model of the item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated within the physical storage system, and alerting the user if the storage space exceeds the current amount of free space. The abstract idea falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because these steps are related to sales activities or behaviors. Even though the steps do not specifically say that there is a recommendation or recommendation to purchase other items, the claims are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, and the claims specifically recite steps to manage the physical storage system that also includes identifying a physical item that the user has selected for acquisition, identifying if an item can fit into the one or more selected storage areas based on the comparisons of the storage space against a current amount of free storage space, and considering the added item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated into the physical storage space. The interpretation of the claims is consistent to what is described in the Applicant’s disclosure, such as paragraph [0027] of the specification, describing the system that may “comprise other items previously selected for acquisition by the user” and that the system “may be able to accurately assess whether and how items will fit within the storage system even when multiple items have been acquired during a single shopping session, and prevent the user from accidentally acquiring more items that can fit in the physical storage system during a single shopping session”. Therefore the Examiner maintains that the claims recite sales activities or behaviors. Further, the steps in at least representative claim 1, recite identifying a physical item that the user has selected for acquisition, selecting one or more of the plurality of storage areas to store the item in based on a category associated with the item, and determining an amount of storage space required store the item based on dimensions of the item, and fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes, as the identifying, selecting, and determining steps can be performed in the human mind, and are not recited in a manner that specifically state the IoT sensors are performing those steps. For example, the human mind can perform the steps of identifying as an observation, the step of selecting and determining as a judgements. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to the abstract idea, falling into the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, such as sales activities or behaviors, and also fall into mental processes grouping.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 10 of the remarks stating “the claims as amended recite a method of utilizing a digital twin and a plurality of sensors deployed within a physical storage system, and represents a practical implementation of a technical solution to a technical problem,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, and when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements recited, are still recited at a high-level, or are recited in a generic manner, where the additional elements are being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer and computing components. Further, the claims do not reflect any type of technical solution to a technical problem. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a processor, sensor data from IoT sensors, a digital twin, a virtual model, the digital twin with sensor data, the sensor data, a digital model, the digital model, the digital twin, the digital model, and a user device, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of managing a physical storage system for a user. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements in management of physical storage for items, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data (i.e., the sensor data) while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve the management of a physical storage for a user, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements for any type of technical problem, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 04 June 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter, and for at least the reasons stated above, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights