DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 filed May 14, 2024 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-13 are directed to a method, claim 14 is directed to a system, and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-15 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recite an abstract idea of automated self-storage management.
The independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… storing instructions for managing user storage requests, generating metadata, conducting item analysis for storage suitability, allocating storage locations, managing disposition requests, and optimizing storage facility layout;
… for communicating with users and facilitating data exchange between… and external sources;
receiving… a request from a user for self-storage services;
determining… whether the request comprises metadata comprising size, weight, description, and eligibility for storage;
upon determining the request is rejected, directing… the request to a pending requests pool for additional analysis;
upon determining the request is accepted, dispatching… the request to a dispatch coordinator for processing;
if the dispatch coordinator accepts the request, forwarding… the request to a storage facility close to the provided address or alternatively to an address selected by the user;
analyzing… the metadata associated with the accepted request for determining a suggested location for storage within the selected storage facility;
allocating… the item to a storage shelf within the storage facility based on the suggested location;
identifying… the request as a disposition request if the item is not suitable for storage;
conducting… internal warehouse functions comprising selling the item or coordinating value-added services;
wherein the method further comprises utilizing… to optimize item placement and streamline fulfillment of user requests based on historical request data, seasonality fluctuations, and identification of commonly requested item combinations;
and wherein the method further includes reconfiguring… the storage layout within the storage facility based on predictive analysis from… to accommodate future incoming requests and seasonality changes.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, automated self-storage management falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites automated self-storage management with generally recited computer elements such as a memory, processor, network interface device, machine learning algorithm, server, and network, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for automated self-storage management. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory, processor, network interface device, machine learning algorithm, server, and network to perform these 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 6, these claim merely narrow the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claim 5, although this claim recites a generally recited processor, server, network, user interface, scanning device, and user’s electronic device application, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 7 and 13, although these claim recite a generally recited processor, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claim 8, although this claim recites a generally recited processor, user interface, server, and network, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claim 9, although this claim recites a generally recited processor, user’s electronic device, network interface device, and machine learning algorithm, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claim 10, although this claim recites a generally recited processor and network, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Regarding dependent claim 11, although this claim recites a generally recited artificial intelligence (AI) system, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Regarding dependent claim 12, although this claim recites a generally recited artificial intelligence (AI) system and multilayer perceptron neural network, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of automated self-storage management, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
19. Claims 1-15 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The Examiner suggests clarifying the difference between the AI system and the machine learning algorithm, and how they are uniquely trained/re-trained. The Examiner suggests incorporating claims 5, 8-10, and 12 (dependent on 11) together into the independent claims. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
20. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Schuthe et al (US 2025/01484147), Sikander et al (US 2025/0061396), Hinojosa et al (US 2024/0417175), Malhotra et al (US 2022/0315338), Luecht et al (US 2022/0234830), High et al (US 2019/0172006), and Evers et al (US 2017/0046654). Schuthe et al (US 2025/0148417) is directed to digitally representing a warehouse and/or a material storage facility. Sikander et al (US 2025/0061396) is directed to a computer-automated slotting system. Hinojosa et al (US 2024/0417175) is directed to pre-sorting in order fulfillment facilities. Malhotra et al (US 2022/0315338) is directed to a hybrid storage facility. Luecht et al (US 2022/0234830) is directed to managing temporary storage in warehouses. High et al (US 2019/0172006) is directed to managing an inventory of products purchased by customers from a retailer. Evers et al (US 2017/0046654) is directed to free location item and storage retrieval. Unknown (IEEE Approved Draft Standard for Logistics Operation Process in a Smart Factory, NPL), which is directed to a logistics operation process in a smart factory, was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
21. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
Identifying, by the processor, the request as a disposition request if the item is not suitable for storage;
conducting, by the processor, internal warehouse functions comprising selling the item or coordinating value-added services;
wherein the method further comprises utilizing a machine learning algorithm to optimize item placement and streamline fulfillment of user requests based on historical request data, seasonality fluctuations, and identification of commonly requested item combinations;
and wherein the method further includes reconfiguring, by the processor, the storage layout within the storage facility based on predictive analysis from the machine learning algorithm to accommodate future incoming requests and seasonality changes.
22. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Unknown (IEEE Approved Draft Standard for Logistics Operation Process in a Smart Factory, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
25. 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.
26. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
27. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627