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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in application 18/646,468.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-8 are directed toward a process (method). Claims 9-14 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 15-20 are directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of optimization of container packing arrangements (bin packing) and logistics scheduling, which are mathematical/computational operations.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 15, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A computerized method comprising:
accessing, by a processor, container data comprising a number of container slots for a vehicle and a type of container supported by the vehicle, and package data comprising at least package dimensions for packages to be transported by the vehicle; (Data gathering - insignificant pre-solution activity)
determining, by a processor, a number of containers to pack using the packages; (A mathematical calculation (finding the optimal number of containers))
generating, by a processor, a series of sub-optimization problems based on at least a portion of the container data or the package data; (A mathematical concept (dividing a large problem into smaller ones))
applying, by a processor, constraints and objectives asynchronously to each sub-optimization problem of the series; (A mathematical method and a method of organizing human activity (managing workflow))
invoking, by a processor, a quantum annealer (model) to anneal each sub-optimization problem to generate a solution for each sub-optimization problem; (Use of a mathematical/computational model.)
generating, by a processor, a combined solution identifying an optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers including a location of each package relative to the containers or other packages specified by coordinates; and (Mathematical optimization result.)
automatically placing, by the processor, the packages within the containers by sending a signal (Data Transmission)
that communicates the generated combined solution to an autonomous system that automatically places each package within one of the containers at the location specified by the coordinates based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers (This element is considered a statement of intended use, which does not impart patentable weight.).
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (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)).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 9, and 15 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 9 and 15.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, a “processor”, a “computer storage media”, a “autonomous system”, and a “quantum annealer”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The presence of a quantum annealer or computer implementations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The quantum annealer and computer limitations claimed herein are simply used as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the underlying abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that the additional limitations of quantum annealing and computer processing do not result in computer functionality or technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The quantum annealer and the computer limitation simply process the data through inputting and outputting data. Processing data is mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed.Cir. 2017); or speeding up a loan application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, Lending Tree, LLLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(non-precedential). Thus, the additional limitations of machine learning algorithm and computer limitations do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-20 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, a “processor”, a “computer storage media”, a “autonomous system”, and a “quantum annealer”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9 and 15 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9 and 15; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nayak et al. (Naya et al., “Quantum Approach to Optimize Aircraft Cargo Loading,” 2022 International Conference on Trends in Quantum Computing and Emerging Business Technologies (TQCEBT), Pune, India, 2022, pp. 1-6) in view of Lisso (US 2020/0030985 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 9, and 15, Nayak discloses a computerized method (system/ one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions thereon that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations) (See at least Abstract, Pgs.1-6) comprising:
accessing, by a processor, container data comprising a number of container slots for a vehicle and a type of container supported by the vehicle, and package data comprising at least package dimensions for packages to be transported by the vehicle (See at least Pgs.2-4 – Constraints/ Parameters); determining, by a processor, a number of containers to pack using the packages (See at least Pgs.2-4); generating, by a processor, a series of sub-optimization problems based on at least a portion of the container data or the package data (See at least Pgs.3-5); applying, by a processor, constraints and objectives asynchronously to each sub-optimization problem of the series (See at least Pgs.2-5); invoking, by a processor, a quantum annealer to anneal each sub-optimization problem to generate a solution for each sub-optimization problem (See at least Pgs.3-6); generating, by a processor, a combined solution identifying an optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers (See at least Pg.3, “The input and time limit (optional) are fed into the Solver, front-end (in blue) which invokes one or more threads of heuristic solvers (in green) which run on CPUs and GPUs to explore good quality solutions. The quantum module (QM) formulates quantum queries and sends them to the QPU. The response from the QPU is used to guide the heuristic module to improve existing solutions. Each heuristic module before the time limits sends its best solutions to the front-end and then best results are forwarded by the front-end to the user.” See also Pgs.4-6); and
automatically placing, by the processor, the packages within the containers (simulated) by sending a signal that communicates the generated combined solution to an autonomous system (See at least Pg.1, Autonomous System, “In this paper we have used Boeing 747-8F aircraft, one of the largest cargo carriers, for our experiment. The model was built to manage 2D/3D stacking of containers with and without racks. We executed the model using both classical solver pyomo/ GLPK/ CPLEX on CPU (16GB RAM) and quantum solver D-Wave CQM through D-Wave LEAP.”; Pgs.3-6, Experimentation on Boeing 747-8F – 2D and 3D variants; Pgs.4-6, Figs. 3-8, Results of optimized payload distribution sent to display/ virtualization of modeled solution (D-Wave Leap quantum cloud service and the Constrained Quadratic Model (CQM) hybrid solver within it. The CQM hybrid solver, which was available in Leap in 2022, supported binary, integer, and real-valued variables, allowing users to define, solve, and visualize constrained optimization problems, Applicant’s discloses the use of the D-wave system in Para 0078 of Applicant’s specification)
[that automatically places each package within one of the containers at the location specified by the coordinates based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers] (Intended Use of Communicated Data/ Sent Signal - The element is considered a statement of intended use, which does not impart patentable weight. To make this limitation strictly structural, it would need to define the specific hardware components of the autonomous system (e.g., robotic arms, Para 0065 and 0071 of Applicant’s Spec) and their physical arrangement, rather than just the action they perform).
*Applicant’s Specification 0071, “As noted, the output may be a consumable format identifying the package locations within the vehicles, and which may be provided to a three-dimensional model generator, virtual or augmented reality display, or to robotic arms or autonomous systems for automatic placement in the containers, or another like output.”
Please note:
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“For”
See e.g. In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266, 267 (CCPA 1968)(where the court interpreted the claimed phrase “a connector member for engaging shield means” and held that the shield means was not a positive element of the claim since “[t]here is no positive inclusion of ‘shield means’ in what is apparently intended to be a claim to structure consisting of a combination of elements.”
b. “-Able”
See e.g. In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266, 267-68 (CCPA 1968)(where the court interpreted the claimed phrase “said ferrule-forming member being crimpable onto said shield means” and held that the shield means was not a positive element of the claim since “[t]here is no positive inclusion of ‘shield means’ in what is apparently intended to be a claim to structure consisting of a combination of elements.... “[t]he ferrule or connector member is crimpable but not required, structurally, to be crimped .... These cannot be regarded as structural limitations and therefore not as positive limitations in a claim directed to structure. They cannot therefore be relied on to distinguish from the prior art.”)
Functional recitation(s) have been considered but given less patentable weight because they fail to add any steps and are thereby regarded as intended use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where the language in a method claim states only a purpose and intended result, the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.).
While the element does include technical components ("processor," "signal," "autonomous system," "containers"), the core phrase—automatically placing... the packages... by sending a signal that communicates...—describes what the invention does (its purpose or intended use) rather than what the invention is.
Intended Use Definition: Intended use relates to the purpose or goal of the invention. In this case, the purpose is "automatically placing... packages".
Apparatus vs. Method: For the apparatus claims, the phrase "automatically placing..." is generally considered a statement of intended use that does not differentiate the claim from prior art that can perform the same function.
Functional Language: The language "sending a signal that communicates..." is functional.
"Configured To": While not explicitly using "configured to," the structure of the phrase is similar to "configured to..." which is interpreted by the Examiner as intended use rather than a specific structural limitation.
Nayak fails to expressly disclose “automatically places each package within one of the containers at the location specified by the coordinates based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers.” As discussed above, the use of autonomous system to “automatically places each package within one of the containers at the location specified by the coordinates based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers,” is a recitation of intended use of the method/ system. In order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner has examined the element as if it was structurally claimed.
However, the analogous art (Autonomous cargo loading systems) of Lisso discloses automatically placing packages within one of the containers at the location specified by the coordinates based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers (See at least Para 0034, “As described further below, a control system sends control commands to the robotic system 300, and receives feedback from the robotic system 300, to accomplish the dense packing of the parcels 120 from the conveyor 400 in the truck 200 (e.g., utilizing unique optimization and patterning software). …”; Para 0046, “Still referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, in some example embodiments the control system(s) 550 can determine where in the cargo area of the truck 200 to position individual parcels 120 on an entire load basis. That is, the control system(s) 550, knowing in advance the intended full contents of the truck 200, can determine in advance an optimum packing arrangement of all of the parcels 120 that are to be loaded into the freight carrier 540 (e.g., the truck 200). In some such embodiments, the sortation system 520 can be used to sequence the parcels 120 such that the parcels 120 are presented to the robotic system 300/530 in a manner that facilitates the determined optimum packing arrangement of entirely all of the parcels 120 to be loaded into the truck 200. The sortation system 520 can, in some embodiments, sort the parcels 120 in the precise sequential order in which the robotic system 300/530 can optimally load the truck 200. …”.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included automatically placing each package within one of the containers at the location specified by the coordinates based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers, as disclosed by Lisso in the system disclosed by Nayak, for the advantage of providing a method/ system of optimal packing of containers using enhanced quantum annealing methods (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claim 2, Nayak and Lisso disclose outputting the combined solution as a three-dimensional visualization of the containers illustrating the packages packed within the containers according to the optimal packing arrangement identified in the combined solution (Nayak: See at least Pgs.4-6, 2D/3D Modeling, Multiple decks visualized).
As per Claim 3, Nayak and Lisso disclose communicating the combined solution to be consumed by an industrial robot arm, an augmented reality device, or an inventory management solutions (Nayak: See at least Pgs.1-6, Modeling System).
As per Claims 4, 10, and 16, Nayak and Lisso disclose wherein the at least a portion of the container data or the package data used to generate the series of sub-optimization problems comprises common destinations for the packages (Nayak: See at least Pgs.4-5).
As per Claims 5, 11, and 17, Nayak and Lisso disclose wherein the at least a portion of the container data or the package data used to generate the series of sub-optimization problems comprises an average container volume (Nayak: See at least Pgs.4-5).
As per Claims 6, 12, and 18, Nayak and Lisso disclose wherein the at least a portion of the container data or the package data used to generate the series of sub-optimization problems a number of container slots (Nayak: See at least Pgs.4-5).
As per Claims 7, 13, and 19, Nayak and Lisso disclose wherein the sub-optimization problems are further generated based on a threshold number of constraints for the quantum annealer (Nayak: See at least Pgs.1-5, System limited to predetermined constraints).
As per Claims 8, 14, and 20, Nayak and Lisso disclose wherein the quantum annealer asynchronously anneals each of the sub-optimization problems (Nayak: See at least Pgs.3-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/10/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection Claims 1-20, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/10/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection of Claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot, based on the new grounds of rejection. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
The Applicant makes the argument that “As amended, claims 1, 9, and 15 generate a combined solution identifying an optimal packing arrangement for placing the packages within containers to solve optimization problems and achieve desired logistical outcomes.8 See Specification, ¶ [0141]. The claims automatically use an autonomous system such as robot arms or unmanned delivery system to place the packages in containers based on the generated combined solution. See Specification, ¶ [0090].”
However, while the Applicant's claims are directed to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter (Step 1), the claims fail to recite limitations that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Step 2a-2b).
The claim limitations (under their broadest reasonable interpretation) recite Certain methods of organizing human activity and/or Mathematical concepts as defined in the guidance set forth in the 2019 Memorandum. This is so because the claimed limitations recite steps that involve the mathematical determination of optimized container packing ("bin packing" problem in logistics). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception of a Mathematical concepts and/or Certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, having determined that claims recite a judicial exception, analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See Memorandum (Step 2A, prong 2), see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application within the meaning defined in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, Examiner notes the following. While the computer technology does make the steps more easily performed, in principle, the steps can be performed without such computer and the notion of ‘practicality’ is not evidenced. ‘Practicality’ is based on whether the invention demonstrates:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The claims are simply directed to an abstract idea (searching, correlating, and transmitting/ displaying data based on saved rules and characteristics) with additional generic computer elements, because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The examination then proceeds to evaluating whether the claims add specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum (Step 2B). The claims do not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Furthermore, as explained above, the corrective action (automatically place the packages within the containers based on the identified optimal packing arrangement of the packages within the containers) is simply a recitation of intended used of the communicated data; and communicating the data to an autonomous system is a limitation that is merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections.
To overcome the current 101 rejection, the Examiner suggest that the Applicant functionally claim the corrective active, to include functional integration of specific technology used to implement the solution. Proposed claim language for claim element:
… automatically placing, by the processor, the packages within the containers by sending a signal that communicates the generated combined solution to a package placement subsystem autonomous system comprising; the package placement autonomous system comprising: a digital processor configured to generate a packing signal representing computed coordinates of packages; and autonomous robotic arms physically communicatively coupled to the digital processor, wherein the robotic arms are equipped with an end-effector positioned at coordinates received from the packing signal to physically insert each package into a corresponding container based on the generated packing signal."
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 6, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629