DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 05 January 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 have been 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 February 2026 has been entered.
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 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 storage 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; and
considering the added model of the item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated into the physical storage system.
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, and based on the added model of the item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated within the physical storage system, 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, a digital model, the digital model, the digital twin, and the digital model.
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, a digital model, the digital model, the digital twin, and the digital model, recited in independent claim 1 is 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 use 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire, J., et al. (PGP No. US 2024/0193708 A1), in view of Uusitalo, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0361011 A1), and Varis Doggett, E., et al. (Patent No. US 12,475,656 B2).
Claim 1-
Beaurepaire discloses a processor-implemented method for managing a physical storage system of a user (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0034] disclosing “system 100” and paragraph [0107] disclosing “services such as storage services for physically storing objects 111”), the method comprising:
recording real-time sensor data from sensors deployed within a plurality of storage areas comprising the physical storage system (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0059] disclosing “the sensor data module 201 uses a sensor 109 to capture sensor data 115 of an environment (e.g., the available space 103”; and paragraph [0111] disclosing “the system 100 can learn across people and homes/spaces 103 the typical usage patterns to be expected”);
creating, a digital twin, comprising a virtual representation representing the physical storage system (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0197] disclosing “scanning of the environment, change detection, and object recognitions” and “compute a corresponding spatial cost 121 and/or spatial budget 119 for a room 1105 visible through the glasses 1101 [i.e., digital twin of the physical storage]. A representation of the object 1103 and the spatial cost 1105 of the object 1103 can be presented in the AR UI of the glasses 1101”);
identifying a physical item that the user has selected for acquisition (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0048] disclosing “during an acquisition of an object”; and paragraph [0191] disclosing “compute an object spatial budget…for purchases or perspective purchases” and “determining…an object”);
selecting one or more of the plurality of storage areas to store the item in based on a category associated with the item (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0096] disclosing “perform vectorization of the objects” and “Type of object 101 (e.g., furniture, book, musical instrument, electronic devices, etc.)”; and paragraph [0107] disclosing “corresponding services (e.g., storing the object 101 in a selected storage service 123 where the service module 211 automatically recommends or initiates a service reservation or request with the storage service 123)”; and paragraph [0109] disclosing “at home or other available space 103”; and see: paragraph [0111] disclosing “the system 100 can learn across people and homes/spaces 103 the typical usage patterns to be expected”);
determining an amount of storage space required to store the item based on dimensions of the item (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0156] disclosing “the spatial volume of the object 101, dimensions from the spatial volume can be computed”; and see: paragraph [0177] disclosing “computing an object spatial budget 119”, also see the equation provided.; and see: paragraph [0190] disclosing “output module 209 can determine whether the spatial budget 119 and/or spatial cost 121 of an object 101 permits it to be placed within the available space”);
comparing the determined amount of storage space against a current amount of free storage space within the one or more selected storage areas based on the digital twin (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0055] disclosing “the object spatial cost 121 for an object can be computed relative to the space 103 available for storing or replacing the object”; and see: paragraph [0190] disclosing “output module 209 can determine whether the spatial budget 119 and/or spatial cost 121 of an object 101 permits it to be placed within the available space”; and paragraph [0197] disclosing “compute a corresponding spatial cost 121 and/or spatial budget 119 for a room 1105 visible through the glasses 1101 [i.e., digital twin of the physical storage]”);
responsive to identifying that the item can fit into the one or more selected storage areas based on the comparing, adding a digital model of the item to the digital twin (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0190] disclosing “output module 209 can determine whether the spatial budget 119 and/or spatial cost 121 of an object 101 permits it to be placed within the available space 103”; and paragraph [0197] disclosing “compute a corresponding spatial cost 121 and/or spatial budget 119 for a room 1105 visible through the glasses 1101 [i.e., digital twin of the physical storage]. A representation of the object 1103 [i.e., digital model of the item] and the spatial cost 1105 of the object 1103 can be presented in the AR UI of the glasses 1101”); and
considering the added digital model of the item when determining whether items may be accommodated into the physical storage system (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0048] disclosing “during an acquisition of an object”; and paragraph [0190] disclosing “output module 209 can determine whether the spatial budget 119 and/or spatial cost 121 of an object 101 permits it to be placed within the available space 103” and “output module 209 can take into account user preferences, spatial cost factors discussed…properties of the object 101, properties of the available space 103, and/or the like to recommend a location for placing or storing the object”; and paragraph [0191] disclosing “compute an object spatial budget…for purchases or perspective purchases” and “determining…an object”; and paragraph [0192] disclosing “links every purchase of objects [i.e., items may be accommodated] 101made in a shop to the location where this item will be stored or placed in the available space 103”; and see; paragraph [0197] disclosing “A representation of the object 1103 and the spatial cost 1105 of the object 1103 can be presented”; Also see paragraph [0215] describing that every object that the user has selected can be displayed within the space with overlaid information of each spatial cost for each item, along with spatial budgets of the space.).
Although Beaurepaire discloses a virtual representation of the space that is scanned by a sensor, Beaurepaire does not specifically disclose that the virtual representation of the space is a model, and does not disclose that the scanning of the storage area space from sensors, are sensors that are IoT sensors. Beaurepaire does not disclose:
data from IoT sensors of areas;
digital twin comprises a virtual model;
continuously updating the digital twin with the sensor data in real time;
Uusitalo, however, does teach:
data from IoT sensors of areas (Uusitalo, see: paragraph [0058] teaching “model solution” and “a solution related to a digital twin of a physical layout of a harbor environment is provided” and “an example embodiment, the models may include a physical 3D layout of the harbor area 60” and “a current 3D model of the physical layout of the harbor operation area”; and see: [0106] teaching “new container may send explicit signaling (e.g., IoT) to BS 14”);
digital twin comprises a virtual model (Uusitalo, see: paragraph [0058] teaching “model solution” and “a solution related to a digital twin of a physical layout of a harbor environment is provided” and “an example embodiment, the models may include a physical 3D layout of the harbor area 60” and “a current 3D model of the physical layout of the harbor operation area”);
continuously updating the digital twin with the sensor data in real time (Uusitalo, see: paragraph [0043] teaching “digital twin may have a connection between the physical model and the corresponding virtual model or virtual counterpart. The connection may be established by generating real time data using or received from sensors” and “may learn and update itself from multiple sources of physical assets to represent…real-time status”).
This step of Uusitalo is applicable to the method of Beaurepaire, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed solutions related to physical spaces in physical areas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beaurepaire, to include the features of data from IoT sensors of areas and digital twin comprises a virtual model, and continuously updating the digital twin with the sensor data in real time, as taught by Uusitalo. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Beaurepaire, to gain improvements in controlling physical areas and assets with using virtual models that are monitored (Uusitalo, see: at least paragraph [0044]).
Further, although Beaurepaire does disclose that the virtual representation of the space can determine if a plurality of objects can be stored in the physical storage space, such as considering all purchased objects from a retailer and if they can fit in the space according to the available spatial budget and the spatial cost of a virtual item within the space, Beaurepaire does not specifically state that the other items are subsequently selected. Beaurepaire does not disclose:
determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated into the physical storage;
Varis Doggett, however, does teach:
determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated into the physical storage (Varis Doggett, see: Col. 3, ln. 66-67 and Col. 4, ln. 1-6 teaching “initial calibration step, the user may be prompted to place a virtual character on a table and size it appropriately” and “so that subsequent virtual objects (e.g., the same or different type as the initial virtual object) may be placed on the same table with the same” and “subsequent virtual objects may be placed automatically”).
This step of Varis Doggett is applicable to the method of Beaurepaire, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed determining if a virtual object can be placed into a real-world environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beaurepaire, to include the features of determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated into the physical storage, as taught by Doggett. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Beaurepaire, to improve a user experience when determining if a virtual object will fit within a real-world environment (Varis Doggett, see: Col. 1, ln. 6-32).
Claim 3-
Beaurepaire in view of Uusitalo, and Varis Doggett teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Beaurepaire discloses further comprising:
responsive to identifying that the determined amount of storage space exceeds the current amount of free space based on the comparing, identifying one or more reorganizations of one or more currently stored objects within the one or more selected storage areas that would enable the one or more selected storage areas to accommodate the item (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0114] disclosing “objects 101 that users could…move to a different location”; and see: paragraph [0169] disclosing “the first object 723 on the plane surface 721 may require relocating the second object 725 to another plane surface…because there would not be enough space”);.
Claim 4-
Beaurepaire in view of Uusitalo, and Varis Doggett teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Beaurepaire discloses further comprising:
utilizing mixed-reality to display to the user the selected item within the selected one or more storage areas (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0197] disclosing “the output module 209 presents the output of the system 100 in a user interface (UI) of an augmented reality (AR) device” and “scanning of the environment” Also see: FIG. 11).
Claim 5-
Beaurepaire in view of Uusitalo, and Varis Doggett teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Beaurepaire discloses wherein the determining further comprises:
determining an amount of storage space required to store the item in an unpackaged or reconfigured state (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0114] disclosing “objects 101 that users could…move to a different location”; and see: paragraph [0169] disclosing “determines an opportunity cost of the object based on an area of a plane surface” and “the first object 723 on the plane surface 721 may require relocating the second object 725 to another plane surface of at least 80x80 area because there would not be enough space”)
Claim 6-
Beaurepaire in view of Uusitalo, and Varis Doggett teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Beaurepaire discloses wherein the adding further comprises:
generating the digital model of the item based on the dimensions (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0197] disclosing “output module 209 presents the output of the system 100 in a user interface (UI) of an augmented reality (AR) device” and “A representation of the object 1103 [i.e., digital model of the item] and the spatial cost 1105 of the object 1103 can be presented in the AR UI of the glasses 1101”; Also see: FIG. 11); and
modeling the digital model of the item within a digital twin of the selected one or more storage areas (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0197] disclosing “scanning of the environment, change detection, and object recognitions” and “scan for a newly acquired object 1103 and then automatically select the object 1103 to compute a corresponding spatial cost 121 and/or spatial budget 119 for a room 1105 visible through the glasses 1101 [i.e., digital twin of the selected one or more storage areas]. A representation of the object 1103 [i.e., digital model of the item] and the spatial cost 1105 of the object 1103 can be presented in the AR UI of the glasses 1101”).
Claim 7-
Beaurepaire in view of Uusitalo, and Varis Doggett teach the method of claim 6, as described above.
Beaurepaire discloses
wherein the digital twin comprises one or more other items previously selected for acquisition by the user (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “determining how much space (e.g., plane surfaces) is available in a home [i.e., one or more storage areas]…and establish a list of all the objects 101 at home in order to get the full visibility of what is present” and see: paragraph [0197] disclosing “scanning of the environment, change detection, and object recognitions” Also see FIG. 11 that depicts not only the object 1103, but also other objects that are already in the space.).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a system. Claim 8 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that Claim 8 includes the features 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, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0006] disclosing “computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer”). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a system. Claim 10 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3 which is directed towards a method. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a system. Claim 11 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4 which is directed towards a method. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a system. Claim 12 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5 which is directed towards a method. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a system. Claim 13 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 6 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that Claim 13 recites generating the digital twin, disclosed by Beaurepaire (see paragraph [0197]). Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a system. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 7 which is directed towards a method. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a product of manufacture. Claim 15 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that Claim 15 includes the features of one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0006] disclosing “computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer”). Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a product of manufacture. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3 which is directed towards a method. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a product of manufacture. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4 which is directed towards a method. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a product of manufacture. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5 which is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20 claim 20 is directed to a product of manufacture. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 13 which is directed towards a system. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 13.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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., and Hiranandani, G., et al. (PGP No. US 2018/0260843 A1).
Claim 2-
Beaurepaire in view of Uusitalo, and Varis Doggett teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Beaurepaire discloses:
responsive to identifying that the determined amount of storage space exceeds the current amount of free space based on the comparing, wherein includes a recommendation to not purchase the item, a recommendation to purchase a smaller sized item, or a recommendation to purchase an alternate item of dimensions accommodated by the amount of free storage space within the one or more selected storage areas or the physical storage system (Beaurepaire, see: paragraph [0209] disclosing “can provide…recommendations” and paragraph [0210] disclosing “determines and presents to the user…a suggested area or plane surface in the available space 103 where such an object 101 would fit. If there is not such a space…can suggest another object 101 that could be swapped against this ‘about-to-be-purchased item’” and paragraphs [0212]-[0214] “Not to buy the object”, “Buy the suggest object”; and “Swap the prospective object”).
Beaurepaire does not disclose:
generating an alert to the user;
the alert;
Hiranandani, however, does teach:
generating an alert to the user (Hiranandani, see: paragraph [0163] teaching “AR analysis platform…creates each of the recommendation messages” and “create the product recommends 1000a-1002d” and “sends a digital message comprising each of the product recommendations…by sending…a text…to a client device”),
the alert (Hiranandani, see: paragraph [0163] teaching “AR analysis platform…creates each of the recommendation messages” and “create the product recommends 1000a-1002d” and “sends a digital message comprising each of the product recommendations…by sending…a text…to a client device”).
This step of Hiranandani is applicable to the method of Beaurepaire, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing recommendations to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beaurepaire, to include the feature of generating an alert to the user and the alert, as taught by Hiranandani. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Beaurepaire, to improve generating targeted content for a user to acquire, by utilizing the user’s physical environment or features using AR (Hiranandani, see: paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a system. Claim 9 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2 which is directed towards a method. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a product of manufacture. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2 which is directed towards a method. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 January 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 9-10 of the remarks stating “Applicant’s independent claims as amended cannot be said to recite the abstract idea of sales activities,” and “The Applicant respectfully submits that ‘managing a physical storage system for a user’ is not, on its face, an abstract idea, because it does not fall within any of the enumerated sub-groupings,” and on page 11 stating “that the respective functionalities of IoT sensors and digital twins, and, for example, the specific steps of continuously updating a digital twin with sensor data in real time from IoT sensors deployed within a plurality of storage areas, creating a digital twin, and adding a digital model of an item to a digital twin, cannot be practically performed in the human mind even with an aid of pen and paper,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, and based on the added model of the item when determining whether a subsequently selected item may be accommodated within the physical storage system. 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, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 January 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, Applicant’s arguments are moot and new grounds of rejection have been applied. The Examiner is relying on Varis Doggett to teach the amended limitations. The new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maschmeyer, R., et al. (PGP No. US 2024/0046329 A1), describes a computer-implemented and includes obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a first real-world environment; identifying a real-world object of interest in a second real-world environment, the first real-world environment different from the second real-world environment; determining a first position in the 3D representation of the first real-world environment corresponding to the real-world object of interest; and generating an augmented reality (AR) version of the first real-world environment for presentation in the second real-world environment using the 3D representation of the first real-world environment and based on positioning the real-world object of interest in the first position in the AR version of the first real-world environment.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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