DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending. 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
Applicant’s amendment date 01/29/2026, amended claims 1, 11, and 16; canceled claim 20; and added new claim 21.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 01/29/2026 has been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues that "The claims are instead directed to a technical process including a technical method of use of a data structure for enhancing the performance of a computer and the physical packing of a plurality of item instances in a plurality of container instances, both of which are significantly more than any abstract idea.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claim 11, are the recitations of “generating, multiple sets of questions, each set of questions being specific to a corresponding insight area of a plurality of insight areas and according to a plurality of data models, each data model comprising attributes specific to one of the plurality of insight areas, and each data model further comprising valid output types of the attributes; applying insight area specific guardrails, a user to provide answers to the sets of questions, the applying of guardrails comprising displaying an off-topic tag for answers not associated with the corresponding insight area; collecting the provided answers as text strings in a plurality of data models; provided answers in the plurality of data models and further using stored data associated with the user, a strategy insight report for the user; and outputting, using the tabular format, the strategy insight report to the user are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 11, and 16 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 11, and 16 include “storing item characteristics for a plurality of item types, wherein the item characteristics comprise an item type volume and an item type weight; storing container characteristics for a plurality of container types, wherein the container characteristics comprise a container type volume capacity and a container type weight capacity; generating a plurality of data structures corresponding to each of a plurality of item instances, each data structure of the plurality of data structures comprising a set of candidate container instances of one or more container types of the plurality of container types for placing a corresponding item instance of the plurality of item instances; in a particular item placement iteration of an interruptible item placement process: assigning a particular item instance of the plurality of item instances to a first candidate container instance of the set of candidate container instances for the particular item instance; wherein the particular item instance has a particular item type of the plurality of item types; wherein the first candidate container instance has a particular container type of the one or more container types; updating an aggregate weight and an aggregate volume consumed in the first candidate container instance based at least in part on: a particular container type volume capacity for the particular container type, a particular container type weight capacity for the particular container type, a particular item type volume for the particular item type, and a particular item type weight for the particular item type; modifying at least one of the plurality of data structures to enforce one or more logical constraints of a plurality of logical constraints; wherein the one or more logical constraints remove, for one or more item instances of the plurality of item instances, candidate container instances of at least one container type from the set of candidate container instances of the one or more container types; wherein the plurality of logical constraints comprise a weight constraint, a volume constraint, and one or more other constraints; in one or more subsequent iterations of the interruptible item placement process,
repeating the assigning, the updating, and the modifying with one or more other item instances as the particular item instance of the plurality of item instances, wherein the modifying and the repeating the modifying remove a plurality of candidate container instances of the set of candidate container instances from one or more data structures of one or more item instances not yet assigned to a container instance of the set of candidate container instances; wherein, in at least one of the one or more subsequent iterations of the interruptible item placement process, modifying at least one data structure of the plurality of data structures to enforce one or more logical constraints of the plurality of logical constraints results in an non-sequential assignment of a second item instance to a second candidate container instance of a second container type as an only non-empty remaining candidate container instance for the second item instance even though the second item instance was not sequentially included as the particular item instance for the assigning in any iteration of the particular item placement iteration or the one or more subsequent iterations; wherein, after the one or more other iterations, the plurality of item instances is assigned to a plurality of container instances of the one or more container types of the plurality of container types; adjusting a container type of at least one container instance of the plurality of container instances to reduce a cost of the plurality of container instances even though no logical constraints of the at least one container instance have been violated; generating a container packing blueprint comprising assignments of the plurality of item instances to the plurality of container instances; transmitting, to consumer the container packing a blueprint; wherein, manages the container packing blueprint to cause a packer machine to consume the container packing blueprint to physically pack the plurality of item instances in the plurality of container instances according to the container packing blueprint”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for adjusting a container type. As a result, claims 1, 11, and 16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-19 and 21 further describe the process for adjusting a container type. As a result, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-19 and 21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 16 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 16 include data structures, device, a non-transitory machine-readable storage media, and one or more processors. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16. As a result, claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16.
Claims 10 and 21 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 10 and 21 include a device, a display device, and a management computer system. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 10 and 21 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 11, and 16 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 16 include data structures, device, a non-transitory machine-readable storage media, and one or more processors. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16. As a result, claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16.
Claims 10 and 21 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 10 and 21 include a device, a display device, and a management computer system. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 10 and 21 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
03/16/2026