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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12 & 14, addition of claims 18-20 filed 01/26/2026.
35 USC 101 Rejection
After reviewing claim limitations, 35 USC 101 Alice guidance and applicant arguments, examiner disagrees.
Applicant submits amendments remove mental calculations. In response, examiner submits overall claim scope is determining positions by moving one object relative to a reference point and checking boundary overlap. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this scope is evaluation/judgment that can be conceptualized with a spatial model, graph paper or other manual technique. Examiner further submits that processor recitation and virtual environment does not preclude the overall claim from abstract classification. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits claim is now is in the form of a specific simulation method that can only be effectively executed in a computerized environment. In response, examiner submits MPEP 2106.04(d) states that claims are not integrated into a practical application when they merely use a computer as a tool or merely link the idea to a technological environment. Examiner submits claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality, an improvement to graphics processing, or any other technical field improvement.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a patent eligible process. In response, examiner submits claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality, an improvement to graphics processing, or any other technical field improvement. The claims as currently constructed recite processor/server computing where objects should be placed in a modeled space. Examiner resubmits using a computer as a tool unless the claim reflects a particular technological solution rather than a desired result. Examiner submits integration until a practical application must be tied to improved computer function, improved technical field, particular machine integral to the claim or transformation.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits similar claims have been deemed eligible. In response, examiner submits without detail that claims remain ineligible where they currently stand.
As to claims 9 & 18 being sufficient for same reasons as claim 1, examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, examiner submits similar arguments for claim 1 apply to claim 9. Claim 18 however does not recite the amended “plurality of unit grids in a 3D virtual environment”, generating cubes “based on the unit grids”, iteratively moving by a unit distance until overlap with the load space boundary, detecting overlap of the second cube with the first cube at each unit movement. Examiner submits claim 1 does not establish eligibility for claim 18.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
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 as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9 & 18
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claims 1 & 18 – “Method” is a process.
Claim 9 - “Server” is a machine.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “implementing a load space as the 3D load space comprising a plurality of unit grids in a 3D virtual environment; generating a first cube including a shape of the first object and a second cube including a shape of the second object by representing shapes of the first object and the second object in the 3D load space based on the unit grids; determining a first object position by iteratively moving the first object is by a unit distance of the unit grids toward a reference point until a boundary of the first cube overlaps with a boundary of the 3D load space; and determining a second object position such that the second object is positioned closest to the reference point without overlapping the first object by detecting whether a boundary of the second cube overlaps with a boundary of the first cube at each unit distance movement.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors; storage device; program” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors; storage device; program” language, “implementing, generating, determining” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites three additional element – using a “one or more processors; storage device; program” to perform “implementing, generating, determining” steps. The “one or more processors; storage device; program” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “implementing a load space as the 3D load space comprising a plurality of unit grids in a 3D virtual environment; generating a first cube including a shape of the first object and a second cube including a shape of the second object by representing shapes of the first object and the second object in the 3D load space based on the unit grids; determining a first object position by iteratively moving the first object is by a unit distance of the unit grids toward a reference point until a boundary of the first cube overlaps with a boundary of the 3D load space; and determining a second object position such that the second object is positioned closest to the reference point without overlapping the first object by detecting whether a boundary of the second cube overlaps with a boundary of the first cube at each unit distance movement.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “implementing, generating, determining” to perform “implementing, generating, determining “steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“user terminal; processor”), mental process (“computing distance to the reference point; compute “first/second adjustment position” by adjusting those distances”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“receiving a first input position; a second input position”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“whether the first object is movable; overlap tests boundary overlaps with; iterative stepwise movement “moved by a unit distance…from an n-th position; loop/index”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“time comparison; compute first/second adjustment position; non-overlap constraint for the second; compute target positions by further “adjusting” to be closer”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“reliance on timestamps embedded in received inputs”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“movability decision from the adjustment position; overlap tests; unit-distance step and loop/index (m, m+1)”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“generate/evaluate “a plurality of orders” (permutations) and compute under order”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“define/compute “first position”/”second position” as closest to the reference point with non-crossing constraints”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“compute load rate per order; select order with lowest load rate”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processor; storage; program; user terminal”), mental process (“compute first/second adjustment positions by adjusting distance to the reference point”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“receiving first/second input positions”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processors; storage; program”), mental process (“movability decision; overlap tests; unit distance step; loop index”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 12, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processor; storage; program”), mental process (“time ordering of inputs; compute first/second adjustment positions with closest corner and non-overlap constraints”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“using input timestamps”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 13, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processor; storage; program”), mental process (“compute target positions by adjusting positions closer to the reference point”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 14, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; storage; program”), mental process (“movability decision from adjustment position; overlap test; unit-distance step; loop/index logic”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 15, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processors; storage; program”), mental process (“determine/evaluate plurality of orders and compute positions accordingly”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 16, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processors; storage; program”), mental process (“define/compute first/second positions as nearest to the reference point with non-crossing constraints.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 17, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“server; processors; storage; program”), mental process (“compute load rate for each order; select the lowest”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 19, this claim is directed to mental process (“process within abstract space”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 20, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“user terminal”), mental process (“compute load rate for each order; select the lowest”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“receiving input position from a user terminal”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 1-20 in their current form.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675