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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “receive a stacking solution generation request identifying a base element and a set of item containers; generate a plurality of bundles, wherein each bundle of the plurality of bundles includes one or more of containers selected from the set of item containers; assign each bundle of the plurality of bundles to a position within a stacking window of the base element; and generate a stacking solution including a sequential pick order for each of item containers in the set of item containers based on the assignment of the plurality of bundles within the stacking window”.
Claim 10 recites “receiving a stacking solution generation request identifying a base element and a set of item containers; generating a plurality of bundles, wherein each bundle of the plurality of bundles includes one or more containers selected from the set of item containers; assigning each bundle of the plurality of bundles to a position within a stacking window of the base element; generating a stacking solution including a sequential pick order for each of item containers in the set of item containers based on the assignment of the plurality of bundles within the stacking window, wherein the stacking solution is configured to conform to one or more non-dimensional constraints”.
Claim 18 recites “receiving a stacking solution generation request identifying a base element and a set of item containers; generating a plurality of bundles, wherein each bundle of the plurality of bundles includes one or more containers selected from the set of item containers; assigning each bundle of the plurality of bundles to a position within a stacking window of the base element, wherein the stacking window comprises a plurality of vertical layers; generating a stacking solution including a sequential pick order for each of item containers in the set of item containers based on the assignment of the plurality of bundles within the stacking window, wherein the stacking solution includes sequential stacking of item containers assigned to sequential vertical layers”.
Since the claims recite receiving a request in order to determine how objects should be bundled into containers, the limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas -"concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion", see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) (III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “a non-transitory memory” (claim 1), “a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions” (claim 1), “computer-implemented” (claim 10), and “a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one device to perform operations” (claim 18) are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are recited at a high level of generality. Additionally, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to practice the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements are still mere instructions to implement the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole describe how to apply the concept of determining a stacking solution using “a non-transitory memory” (claim 1), “a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions” (claim 1), “computer-implemented” (claim 10), and “a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one device to perform operations” (claim 18), which are generic computer components, to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, the additional elements of are known and conventional computing elements as evidenced by the spec at para 0024-0025 and 0031-0036--describing these elements at a high level of generality. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 recite additional details that further narrow the
previously recited abstract idea. There are no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application; nor are there additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brust et al (US 2005/0125101).
As per claim 1, Brust et al discloses a system, comprising:
a non-transitory memory (0028-0037; 0081-0083);
a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions to:
receive a stacking solution generation request identifying a base element and a set of item containers (0028-0037; 0041-0042);
generate a plurality of bundles, wherein each bundle of the plurality of bundles includes one or more of containers selected from the set of item containers (0012; 0049-0053);
assign each bundle of the plurality of bundles to a position within a stacking window of the base element (0055-0061; Fig. 3-10);
generate a stacking solution including a sequential pick order for each of item containers in the set of item containers based on the assignment of the plurality of bundles within the stacking window. (0066-0067; 0076; Fig.2 and 20).
As per claims 2, 11, and 20, Brust et al further discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate the plurality of bundles by: selecting a first item container from the set of item containers; determining eligibility of the first item container for bundling with one or more additional item containers; when the first item container is not eligible for bundling, generating a single item bundle including the first container; when the first container is eligible for bundling, generating a multi-item bundle by selecting one or more additional items for bundling with the first container (0049-0053; 0051; 0038-0040; 0053-0053).
As per claims 3 and 12, Brust et al further discloses wherein a multi-item bundle is generated by applying at least one of a horizontal bundling logic or a vertical bundling logic (0012; 0049-0053).
As per claims 4 and 13, Brust et al further discloses wherein the horizontal bundling logic is configured to select additional bundle containers having a similar dimension value for a dimension corresponding to a Z-axis of the stacking window (0038-0040; 0052-0053; 0055-0058).
As per claims 5 and 14, Brust et al further discloses wherein the vertical bundling logic is configured to generate a plurality of bundle candidates each having one of a plurality of heights (0051-0054; 0055-0058).
As per claims 7 and 16, Brust et al further discloses wherein the stacking window comprises a plurality of vertical layers, and wherein the stacking solution includes sequential stacking of item containers assigned to sequential vertical layers (0058-0061; Fig. 5; 0066-0067).
As per claims 8 and 19, Brust et al further discloses wherein the stacking solution is configured to conform to one or more non-dimensional constraints (0033; 0044; 0058; 0044-0047).
As per claims 9 and 17, Brust et al further discloses wherein the one or more non-dimensional constraints include one or more of a maximum supportable load, a weight, a density, a temperature requirement, or a maximum height (0033; 0044; 0058; 0044-0047).
As per claim 10, Brust et al discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a stacking solution generation request identifying a base element and a set of item containers (0028-0037; 0041-0042);
generating a plurality of bundles, wherein each bundle of the plurality of bundles includes one or more of containers selected from the set of item containers (0012; 0049-0053);
assigning each bundle of the plurality of bundles to a position within a stacking window of the base element (0055-0061; Fig. 3-10);
generating a stacking solution including a sequential pick order for each of item containers in the set of item containers based on the assignment of the plurality of bundles within the stacking window (0066-0067; 0076; Fig.2 and 20), wherein the stacking solution is configured to conform to one or more non-dimensional constraints (0033; 0044; 0058).
As per claim 18, Brust et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one device to perform operations (0081-0083) comprising:
receiving a stacking solution generation request identifying a base element and a set of item containers (0028-0037; 0041-0042);
generating a plurality of bundles, wherein each bundle of the plurality of bundles includes one or more of containers selected from the set of item containers (0012; 0049-0053);
assigning each bundle of the plurality of bundles to a position within a stacking window of the base element, wherein the stacking window comprises a plurality of vertical layers (0055-0061; Fig. 3-10);
generating a stacking solution including a sequential pick order for each of item containers in the set of item containers based on the assignment of the plurality of bundles within the stacking window, wherein the stacking solution includes sequential stacking of item containers assigned to sequential vertical layers (0066-0067; 0076; Fig.2 and 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brust et al (US 2005/0125101) in view of Choi et al (US 2024/0005263).
As per claims 6 and 15, Brust et al discloses all the limitations of claims 5 and 14. While Brust et al discloses generating and testing multiple bundle/virtual-case candidates and selecting layer placements based on evaluated heights and templates, Brust et al does not disclose wherein the plurality of heights include a highest item container height, a mean item container height, a median item container height, and a most frequent item container height. However, Choi et al discloses computing and presenting statistical characteristics (minimum, maximum, average/mean, median, mode/most-frequent) of detected objects/attributes from video analytics (0100 and Fig. 3G). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Brust’s bundle candidate generation with representative candidate heights derived from Choi’s statistical measures (maximum, mean, median, mode) to improve selection efficiency, and to provide better automated decision signals for placement scoring. Using representative statistics (max, mean, median, mode) as candidate heights is a predictable, routine implementation of well-known statistical summary techniques to the problem of choosing representative layer heights.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628