DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a non-final. Claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-24 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 01/29/2026, amended claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-19 and 21; canceled claims 1, 11, 16, and 20; and added new claims 22-24.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-19 and 21, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 06/22/2026 has been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues that "the claims include additional elements which incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
Under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claims 22-24, are the recitations of “initiating a packing operation within a packer machine to physically pack the plurality of item instances in the assigned container instances according to the container packing blueprint 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 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
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 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-24 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 22-24 recite an abstract idea. Claims 22-24 include “generating a plurality of data structures corresponding to a plurality of item instances, each data structure of the plurality of data structures comprising a plurality of candidate container instances of one or more container types; assigning a first item instance of the plurality of item instances to a first candidate container instance of the plurality of candidate container instances from a first data structure of the first item instance, wherein the first candidate container instance is assigned based on a sequential order of the plurality of candidate container instances within the first data structure of the first item instance; modifying a second data structure of a second item instance to remove a candidate container instance from the plurality of candidate container instances of the second data structure of the second item instance based on a logical constraint comprising a weight constraint, a volume constraint, or an item-specific constraint; determining that the second data structure contains only one remaining non-empty candidate container instance; interrupting an assigning for a third item instance to assign the remaining non-empty candidate container instance for the second item instance; modifying a container type of the remaining non-empty candidate container instance; generating a container packing blueprint comprising assignments of the plurality of item instances to assigned container instances; and initiating a packing operation to physically pack the plurality of item instances in the assigned 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 22-24 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21 further describe the process for adjusting a container type. As a result, claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 22-24.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 22-24 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 22-24 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 22-24 include a packer machine, 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 22-24 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 22-24. 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 22-24.
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 22-24 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 22-24 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 22-24 include a packer machine, 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 22-24 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 22-24. 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 22-24.
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 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US. Pub. No. 2023/0177432; US. Pub. No. 2024/0070472; US. ub. No. 2019/0188291; Thanh-Hung Nguyen (Space Splitting and Merging Technique for Online 3-D Bin Packing) *Mathematics 2023, 11, 1912. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11081912 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics; and De Castro Silva, J.L.; Soma, N.Y.; Maculan, N. A greedy search for the three-dimensional bin packing problem: The packing static stability case. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2003, 10, 141–153).
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 on 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
08/10/2026
Prosecution Insights