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 1-6 and 8-11 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated September 18, 2025. In Response, submitted November 25, 2025, claims 1, 5, and 6 were amended, and claims 12-17 were added. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-17 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 8 of the Response regarding the previous interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), have been fully considered and the interpretation remains as part of this Action for clarity of the record.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 8-10 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the Office has identified an abstract idea under Step 2A-Prong 1, the claimed subject matter as a whole is not ‘directed to’ this exception because the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application that provides a specific technical improvement to computer functionality in the field of logistics management. The claimed subject matter is not the abstract concept of optimizing space, but rather a specific, technical implementation that solves a data processing problem inherent in the art. This is achieved through the creation of a standardized, computer-executable data structure - the container-type system based on fractional divisions - and the specific process of actively converting and mapping a continuous residual volume into this predefined, discrete typology. This data normalization process transforms the computer system itself, enabling automated, real-time matching of disparate delivery payloads with available storage space across different users, a task that is infeasible for humans to perform at scale with the required speed and accuracy. This constitutes a concrete technical improvement, moving the claim beyond merely ‘applying’ an abstract idea on a generic computer.”
Examiner notes, that the argument sets forth that the claims allegedly provide improvement to the abstract idea of solving “a data processing problem” associated with “real-time matching of disparate delivery payloads with available storage space across different users”. This alleged improvement is accomplished through “the container-type system based on fractional divisions - and the specific process of actively converting and mapping a continuous residual volume into this predefined, discrete typology” which is a recitation of the abstract idea (noting that insofar as they are claimed, the “container-type system” appears to be referring to how the data is interpreted within the invention and not a physical system). That is to say, the improvement occurs entirely within the abstract idea, an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement the technology. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Specifically, while the claims utilize additional elements (such as a CPU, GPU, or a management server) to accomplish these abstract ideas, these additional elements are not themselves improved, only the abstract processes which they perform.
Examiner further notes, these abstract ideas being “infeasible for humans to perform at scale with the required speed and accuracy” is unhelpful in this case as, similar to the Court’s findings in FairWaringin IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., the increased speed and accuracy at scale comes solely from the capabilities of performing the abstract ideas on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)).
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “This practical application is directly analogous to the eligible examples provided in the USPTO's own guidance. Similar to Example 41, which uses a specific mathematical algorithm to practically apply the abstract idea of secret communication, the instant claims use a specific container-type conversion and mapping algorithm to practically apply the abstract idea of sharing storage space.”
Examiner notes, the mathematical algorithms are the limitations which led to Example 41 being determined to recite an abstract idea. The “secret communication”, though more specifically the digital cryptography, within the claims was the “practical application” which integrated the abstract mathematical algorithms. In the instant claims, the “specific container-type conversion and mapping algorithm” used in the context of “sharing storage space” are all recitations of the abstract idea, and do not bring the claims to eligibility.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “akin to Example 42, which uses format conversion to solve the technical problem of data incompatibility, the instant claims use volume-to-container-type conversion to solve the technical problem of incompatible and inefficient volume comparisons in logistics. The Office's characterization of the components as ‘generic’ overlooks how their ordered combination - a storage part maintaining a specific fractional-division data structure, a calculation part performing the conversion/mapping, and an extraction part applying rule-based filtering for cross- user consolidation - forms a specific, non-conventional arrangement that is narrowly tailored to a technical solution. Therefore, the claims are integrated into a practical application and are patent- eligible under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Examiner notes, that opposed to the technical problem of disparate computing systems being effectively unable to communicate due to data formatting incompatibility described in Example 42, the instant claims set forth employ an abstract idea of “volume-to-container-type conversion” to address abstract problem of “incompatible and inefficient volume comparisons”, i.e. alleged insufficiencies in data processing regarding volume data. As noted above, improvements to the abstract idea are not improvements to technology.
Examiner further notes, that while the additional elements are properly evaluated both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, “maintaining a specific fractional-division data structure, … performing the conversion/mapping, and … applying rule-based filtering for cross- user consolidation” are abstract ideas which are unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. As discussed in the detailed rejection below, the storage part, calculation part, and extraction part are interpreted as aspects of the server’s memory and functions of the server’s processors (control units) under 112(f). As such, they interpreted as generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant argues “In the alternative, even if the Court were to find the claims ‘directed to’ an abstract idea, they nonetheless provide an ‘inventive concept’ under Step 2B. The ordered combination of defining a container-type system based on fractional divisions, calculating residual space, actively converting that residual space into the container-type system, and applying rule-based filtering to extract cross-user consolidation targets imposes a meaningful limit that amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea itself. This specific, non-conventional series of steps is not a pre-emptive, fundamental practice but a discrete, technical solution that improves the functioning of the recited computer system. For these reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn. Dependent claims 2-4 and 8-11, depending inter alia from independent claim 1, and including further patentable features, is considered patentable at least for these features and/or the reason(s) advanced with respect to independent claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are now believed appropriate and is, therefore, respectfully requested.
Examiner notes, as discussed above and again further below in the detailed rejection, insofar as they are claimed “defining a container-type system based on fractional divisions, calculating residual space, actively converting that residual space into the container-type system, and applying rule-based filtering to extract cross-user consolidation targets” is a recitation of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Similar to the findings at Step 2A Prong Two, at Step 2B, the additional elements, when considered both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, amount to merely “apply it” and fail to amount to “significantly more”. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in light of the amended claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are: “a storage part configured to store (i) reference storage space volume information … and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information” (claims 1, 5), and “a consolidation target delivery extraction part … configured to” (i) extract consolidation target delivery information … (ii) apply rule-based filtering conditions … and, (iii) present the extracted consolidation target delivery information” (claim 5).
Claims 1, and 5 invoke means plus function interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the recitation of “a storage part configured to store (i) reference storage space volume information … and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information” (claims 1, 5), and “a consolidation target delivery extraction part … configured to” (i) extract consolidation target delivery information … (ii) apply rule-based filtering conditions … and, (iii) present the extracted consolidation target delivery information” (claim 5) with no corresponding recitation of structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function.
The “storage part” is defined in the specification as “At least …, a memory 11, a storage 12, … are provided in the management server 1 … The memory 11 comprises a main memory comprising a volatile storage device such as DRAM (dynamic random access memory), and an auxiliary memory comprising a non-volatile storage device such as flash memory or HDD (hard disk drive) … The storage 12 stores various programs such as application programs or the like. A database storing data used in each process may be constructed in the storage 12.” “the storage 12 includes various databases such as a user information storage part 121, a delivery payload information storage part 122, and a delivery information storage part 123.” in Para. 15-18, and 23.
The “consolidation target delivery extraction part” are defined in the specification as “the control part 10 is a computing device that controls the overall operation of the management server 1” “the functions implemented in the control part 10 of the management server 1 … data management part 120, … and a consolidation target delivery extraction part 152” in Para. 16 and 23.
Claims depending on the above are also invoked by way of their dependency.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 recites “the operator terminal” in limitation 9. It is unclear whether “the operator terminal refers to (i) “an operator terminal” in limitation 5, or (ii) “an operator terminal” in limitation 8. For examination purposes, the “an operator terminal” of limitation 8 will be interpreted as “the operator terminal”, thereby only providing a single instance of “an operator terminal” in limitation 5, which provides support for antecedent basis of the subsequent recitations of “the operator terminal”.
Similarly, claim 6 recites two instance of “an operator terminal” in limitations 4 and 6 with a recitation of “the operator terminal” in limitation 7. Similarly, for examination purposes the “an operator terminal” of limitation 6 will be interpreted as “the operator terminal”, thereby only providing a single instance of “an operator terminal” in limitation 4, which provides support for antecedent basis of the subsequent recitations of “the operator terminal”.
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 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, and 8-17 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claim 5 is directed to a server (i.e., a machine); and claim 6 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-6, and 8-17 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads for each user, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume;
(i) calculating residual space information indicating a remaining volume in the storage space by subtracting the delivery payload volume from the reference storage space volume,
(ii) converting the residual space into residual converted storage container type information by mapping the remaining volume to one or more predefined container types based on the fractional divisions, and
(iii) storing and transmitting the residual converted storage container type information; and
(i) extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user, by comparing the storage container type information of the first user with the residual converted storage container type information of the second user, (ii) applying rule-based filtering conditions including delivery type, weight, and consolidation acceptance status, and
(iii) presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery to an operator distinct from the first and second users, and determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation performed by the operator.
Independent claim 5 substantially recites storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads for each user, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume;
(i) calculating residual space information indicating a remaining volume in the storage space by subtracting from the reference storage space volume,
(ii) converting the residual space into residual converted storage container type information by mapping the remaining volume to one or more predefined container types based on the fractional divisions, and
(iii) storing and transmitting the residual converted storage container type information; and
extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user,
presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery information to an operator who is different from the first and second users, and
determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation.
Independent claim 6 substantially recites storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads associated with respective users, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume;
calculating residual space information indicating a remaining volume in the storage space by subtracting from the reference storage space volume,
converting the residual space into residual converted storage container type information by mapping the remaining volume to one or more predefined container types based on the fractional divisions, and
storing and transmit the residual converted storage container type information;
extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user;
presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery information to an operator who is different from the first and second users; and
determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of determining available storage space and consolidation of payloads. It is also noted that certain limitations stated under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “mathematical concepts” as well. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 5, and 6 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a residual space calculation part (claim 1), (ii) a consolidation target delivery extraction part (claims 1, 5), (iii) a storage part (claim 1, 5), (iv) an operator terminal (claim 1, 5, 6), (v) a CPU (claims 1, 5), (vi) a GPU (claims 1, 5), and (vii) a management server (claim 1).
The additional elements of (i) a residual space calculation part, (ii) a consolidation target delivery extraction part, (iii) a storage part, (iv) an operator terminal, (v) a CPU, (vi) a GPU, and (vii) a management server are recited at a high level of generality (See [0016 & 0034] of the Applicant’s specification discussing the residual space calculation part, [0016 & 0046] discussing the consolidation target delivery extraction part, [0018 and 0023] discussing the storage part, [0021] discussing the operator terminal, [0016] discussing the CPU and the GPU, and [0014] discussing the management server) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 showing all the additional elements (i) a residual space calculation part, (ii) a consolidation target delivery extraction part, (iii) a storage part, (iv) an operator terminal, (v) a CPU, (vi) a GPU, and (vii) a management server in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 5, and 6 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4, and 8-17 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4, and 8-17 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0158385 to Arunapuram et al (hereafter Arunapuram). Arunapuram discloses systems and methods for storing space related information regarding item volumes and storage volumes, determining residual space, determining if additional items may be included in a given residual space of a storage container.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0101470 to Nishimura et al (hereafter Nishimura). Nishimura discloses using shape and dimension information regarding a payload to determine transportation conditions.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0312991 to Baradwaj et al (hereafter Baradwaj). Baradwaj discloses determining the possible consolidation targets as a first user having delivery items that may be able to be consolidated with a second user who has delivery items.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0311751 to Delmerico et al (hereafter Delmerico). Delmerico discloses presenting consolidation information on an operator terminal and determining selection operations at the operator terminal, where the operator is neither the first nor second user.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0132715 to Marzouk et al (hereafter Marzouk). Marzouk discloses mapping the remaining volume to one or mor container types and storing/transmitting the data to an operator terminal.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Arunapuram in view of Nishimura and further in view Baradwaj and even further in view of Delmerico and even further in view of Marzouk does not explicitly disclose converting the residual space into container type information based on mapping the remaining volume to one or more predefined container types based on the factional divisions. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights