DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 14 September 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended.
The 112 (b) rejections for claims 2-9 have been overcome by amendments.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 June 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has made multiple amendments to the claims, that are not marked up appropriately. For example, claim 2 has been amended to state, “wherein a plurality of storage boxes have different sizes, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine a storage box in which the [[package is]] packages are stored from the plurality of storage boxes based on a shape of the package the shapes of the packages.” In addition, claim 6 has been amended to state: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine an appearance relevant to the storable weight based on [[a weight of the package]] the weights of the packages, and determines a size of a storage box for storing the [[package]] packages based on [[a shape of the package]] the shapes of the packages, and output an instruction to store [[the package]] packages in a storage box having the determined appearance and the determined size.” In this case, the bolded elements were amended into the claims, without actually marking them as amended in the claim set submitted 14 September 2025. The Examiner notes that this Office Action has attempted to identify the mistakes made in the Applicant’s markup in order to practice compact prosecution; however the Applicant is warned that this would be grounds for issuing a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment in the future, as appropriate markups are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 (and similarly claims 12 and 13) states, “wherein he plurality of storage boxes have an appearance capable of identifying the storable weight.” In this case, the Applicant has stated “he” instead of the appropriate “the.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 states, “wherein a plurality of storage boxes have different sizes, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a storage box in which the packages are stored from the plurality of storage boxes based on a shape of the package the shapes of the packages.” In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to state “the shapes of the packages,” however they have left the text stating “a shape of the package,” which should be deleted for clarity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 September 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 6 of their response, “The Examiner suggested Applicant focus on Example 0046 of the eligibility guidance as a possible approach to advance prosecution as to the 101 rejections. Applicant has accordingly amended the claims, and requests reconsideration of the present rejections.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Applicant has asserted that the claims have been amended to recite subject matter which aligns with the reasonings found in Example 46 of the 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples provided by the Office, however the Examiner finds this attempt to fail. In particular, the current claim 1 has been amended to state, “control a transport device so as to attach the sticker to the storage box so as to provide the determined appearance and to store the package in the determined storage box,” which the Examiner assumes the Applicant’s argument is referencing. With respect to this element, it is noted that attaching a sticker to a storage box, would equate to attaching a label to a package, which is extrasolution activity. In this case, unlike Example 46, the Applicant’s recitation does not improve another technology or technical field, and instead, merely invokes the element at a high level of generality. It is noted that the Office stated with regards to claim 2 of Example 46, “Limitation (d) specifies that the monitoring component automatically sends a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with the feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany. Thus, limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser. As explained in the specification, automatically identifying aberrant behavioral patterns and operating farm equipment based on such identification avoids the need for the farmer to evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis, and then manually take appropriate action for each animal exhibiting aberrant behaviors. Limitation (d) in combination with the feed dispenser enables the control of appropriate farm equipment based on the automatic detection of grass tetany, which goes beyond merely automating the abstract idea. Using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action such that the monitoring component is operable to control the feed dispenser in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall livestock management scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.” (Emphasis added). With respect to claim 3 of the Example, the Office stated, “Step (d) specifies that the processor automatically operates the sorting gate to route the animals in the herd based on the behavior of the animals. As explained previously, the BRI of this limitation encompasses three embodiments: a first embodiment in which step (d) routes animals exhibiting aberrant behavioral patterns into a holding pen; a second embodiment in which step (d) permits animals that are exhibiting normal behavior to freely pass through the gate; and a third embodiment in which step (d) requires that both actions take place (some animals are routed to the holding pen, and other animals are permitted to freely pass through the gate). In all of these embodiments, step (d) does not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern) to operate the gate control mechanism and route the animals, thus avoiding the need for the farmer to visually evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis. Additionally, the first and third embodiments (which automatically separate animals exhibiting aberrant behavior from the herd by routing them into a holding pen) also avoid the need for the farmer to manually separate each animal exhibiting aberrant behavior from the herd, and thus permit the farmer to devote more time to the care and treatment (if needed) of the separated animals. Thus, under any of the three embodiments, step (d) goes beyond merely automating the abstract ideas and instead actually uses the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action by operating the gate and routing the animals in a particular way. This is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall livestock management scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Example specifically identifies the additional elements in the claims, that add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification. Unlike this Example, the Applicant’s specification fails to set forth this requirement in the specification. Paragraph 85 states, “In the above example, an example in which the appearance is different for each storage box has been described in advance. For example, storage boxes having a plurality of sizes may be prepared in advance, and the appearance may be changed later according to the weight of the packages stored in the storage box. For example, it is conceivable to change the appearance with a sticker or the like. The plain white box may be later provided with a colored sticker or a patterned sticker. In such a case, the output control unit 203 may output an instruction to attach a sticker to the storage box so as to have the determined appearance. Alternatively, the output control unit 203 may issue a sticker attached to the storage box so as to have the determined appearance. Then, the operator or the transport robot may attach the sticker to the storage box according to the instruction.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Applicant’s specification states that it is conceivable to change an appearance of a box with a sticker, and that said sticker can be attached manually or by a robot. This recitation is recited at such a high level of generality, that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to satisfy 112a. Particularly, the generation of a sticker and attaching it to a box is a process that that lacks any steps or details explaining how it is accomplished, and the specification lacks any details or explanation of any technological improvements. As such, the Applicant has failed to amend their claims to be similar to those found in Example 46, and the Applicant has failed to show that their claims recite additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 September 2025 regarding determining an optimal shipping container have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response:
“As to Mishra, the office action relies upon column 2, lines 29-45; column 3, line 36, through column 4, line 14; column 4, line 56, through column 5, line 24; column 8, lines 32-64; column 10, lines 50-67; and column 13, lines 11-49, as to the originally recited “determine...” claim language.
The office action states that these aspects of Mishra describe determining an optimal shipping container to ship the items in, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of options with various volume, size, and weight capacities, and wherein the items shipped are being shipped to the same destination.
In order to standardize the packaging form and weight of storage boxes in a case of jointly delivering packages, the subject matter for which patent protection is intended to be sought determines a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages so that a number of storage boxes having the same weight and size increases based on shapes and weights of the packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages.
Mishra does not teach this, and Yokoyama fails to resolve this deficiency. Accordingly, the claims are patentable.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. Initially, it is noted that claim 1 (and similarly claims 12 and 13) have been amended to recite, “determine a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages so that a number of storage boxes having the same weight and size increases based on shapes and weights of the packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages, wherein a storable weight of a plurality of storage boxes is determined, and determining a storage box that stores the packages from the plurality of storage boxes based on the weights of the packages, wherein he plurality of storage boxes have an appearance capable of identifying the storable weight.” In this case the Applicant has asserted that the references do not disclose, “In order to standardize the packaging form and weight of storage boxes in a case of jointly delivering packages, the subject matter for which patent protection is intended to be sought determines a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages so that a number of storage boxes having the same weight and size increases based on shapes and weights of the packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages.” As shown here, the element the Applicant argues, under broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses storing packages in a particular size storage box of a plurality of sizes, which would increase the number of storage boxes based on the packages. Notably, the claimed element is directed towards determining a storage box having a predetermined size, and storing packages in it, while everything after the “so that,” encompasses intended use. With regards to Mishra, the reference states in column 4 line 56 through column 5 line 24, “A facility management system may in some embodiments include a container recommender configured to instruct or recommend the selection, from among available containers, of a container in which to place one or more items, or a portal or path through which to convey the items, during the receiving 180, storing in inventory 130, picking 140, sorting 150, packing 160, routing 165, or shipping 170 operations described above. For example, the system may be configured to recommend various boxes or other containers suitable for shipping one or more items or for storing or conveying one or more items in the materials handling facility, dependent on item dimension values and/or weight values currently associated with the items. In one embodiment, the system may recommend a particular box type and/or size suitable for shipping a group of items associated with a customer order based on item dimension values and/or weights provided by the vendor of each of the items in the group and the dimensions and weight limitations of the boxes available for shipping. In other embodiments, the system may recommend a particular box type and/or size suitable for shipping a group of items dependent on item dimension values and/or weights measured in the facility or learned by the facility management system through an automated process of successive approximation. In some embodiments, the selection of containers that are neither too small nor larger than they need to be may result in more efficient use of space in the facility for storage and other operations, and may also reduce costs associated with floor space, packing materials, or transportation (e.g., shipping). In some embodiments, the box recommender may be used to estimate corresponding dimensions of a container suitable for storing, transporting, or shipping the items that is space-efficient and/or cost effective. Note that costs associated with the selection of an inappropriate container for a group of items may include labor costs associated with rework, if they must be removed from one container and placed in one or more other containers.” (Emphasis added). Mishra continues in column 8 lines 45-64, “Inputs to a predictive router may in some embodiments include information specific to an item package, such as an identifier of a materials handling facility in which the item package is to be packed for shipping (e.g., a warehouse identifier), a list of items in the item package (including, e.g., item identifiers and a quantity of each item), and order information (e.g., an order identifier, a customer identifier, a unique serial number, an indication of any special handling instructions, such as gift wrapping or co-branding instructions, shipping preferences, specialized transportation services, etc.). Additional inputs to the predictive router, or to a container recommender configured to work in conjunction with the predictive router, may not be specific (or exclusively applied) to a given item package. In some embodiments, these inputs may include dimension, volume, and/or weight values associated with the items in the item package, shipping cost information, and a list of available box sizes. In some embodiments, these additional inputs may be obtained from one or more tables, databases, or other data structures accessible by the container recommender and/or predictive router.” (Emphasis added). Additionally, Mishra states in column 13 lines 11-49, “A container recommender may be configured to recommend a container, portal, or path for handling the item package based on the currently stored volume and/or dimensions of each of the items included in the item package. For example, in one embodiment, the container recommender may base its decision on item dimensions gathered through an automated dimensioning process (e.g., one employing a CubiScan.RTM. system), and may have a fairly high level of accuracy. In other embodiments, the stored item dimensions may be estimated based on information received from a manufacturer or supplier of the items, or based on a process of successive approximation as the items are handled within the facility. In some embodiments, the container recommender may calculate the overall dimensions of the item package based on the item dimensions of each of the items as well as dimensions of any required non-item contents (if any). In such cases, the container recommender may be configured to recommend a smallest available container in which the grouped items will fit, a portal through which they may pass, or a dimensionally-constrained path on which they may be conveyed based on the calculated overall dimensions. In other embodiments, the container recommender may to use a standard or custom bin-packing algorithm to determine, for each available container, whether or not the items will fit in the container. In some embodiments, the container recommender may begin its recommendation process by determining if the items will fit in the smallest available container, or through the smallest portal or path, and if not, repeating its determination for each other container, portal, or path in turn, from smallest to largest, until determining that the items will fit into one of the containers or through one of the portals or paths. In other embodiments, the identification of suitable containers, portals, or paths for handling the package may be performed in other manners. For example, the container recommender may track container, portal, or path types corresponding to those handling various groups of item contents, and may retrieve an indication of one or more appropriate container, portal, or path types for handling the current item contents based on a stored mapping for those contents.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, Mishra has disclosed a packing system recommending a particular box, of a plurality of types of boxes, which has a particular size and each of the plurality of box types have different sizes, and that the package is picked based on the weights and dimensions of the items being shipped in it to a destination. As such, Mishra has disclosed determining a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages in it, so that a number of storage boxes having the same weight and size increased based on the dimensions and weights of the packages with a same destination; particularly, as packages are assigned to containers, the number of containers increases. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
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 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring a shape of each of a plurality of packages from an image captured by an imaging device and a weight of each of the plurality of packages measured by a weight sensor; determining a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages so that a number of storage boxes having the same weight and size increases based on shapes and weights of the packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages, wherein a storable weight of a plurality of storage boxes is determined, and determining a storage box that stores the packages from the plurality of storage boxes based on the weights of the packages, wherein the plurality of storage boxes have an appearance capable of identifying the storable weight; issuing a sticker to be attached to the storage box so as to have the determined appearance, wherein the sticker includes a two-dimensional code that includes a destination, a weight of the storage box, and package identification information; and controlling a transport device so as to attach the sticker to the storage box so as to provide the determined appearance and to store the package in the determined storage box.
The limitations of acquiring a shape of packages from an image and a weight of the packages, determining a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages based on shapes and weights of the packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages, wherein a storable weight of a plurality of storage boxes is determined and determining a storage box is based on the weights of the packages, issuing a sticker to be attached to the storage box so as to have a determined appearance, and attaching the sticker to the storage box; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind, the management of commercial interactions (including business relations), and managing human relationships and behavior. That is, other that reciting the use of generic computer elements (processor, computer-readable medium, transport device, imaging device, weight sensor), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, acquiring a shape and a weight of each of a plurality of packages, determining a storage box having a predetermined size, and a storable weight of the box, and storing the package based on shapes and weights of packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages, and issuing a sticker to the storage box; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the elements acquiring a shape and a weight of each of a plurality of packages, determining a storage box having a predetermined size, and determining the storable weight of the box, storing the package based on shapes and weights of packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages, issuing sticker to the box with an identifier and shipping information, and attaching the sticker to the box; encompass the management of business relations of a logistic planner and shipper (planning shipments), and managing personal behavior (worker instructions to select items for shipment). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (processor, computer-readable medium, transport device, imaging device, weight sensor) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, controlling a transport device to attach the sticker to the storage box is deemed extrasolution activity. In addition, the appearance of a storage box, and the content of a of stick (i.e. two-dimensional code that includes content information), is deemed merely narrowing the field of use of the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, controlling a transport device to attach the sticker to the storage box is deemed extrasolution activity that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraph 85 of the Applicant’s original specification, which describes attaching a sticker to the box at such a high level of generality that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to satisfy 112a). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 9-11, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the packages having different sizes, and determining a storage box based on packages shape; which is deemed further reciting the abstract idea of selecting shipping boxes to use based on criteria, which can be done mentally and are managing human/business behavior; thus, the elements fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite determining. In addition, the claims further recite containers having an identifier for identifying their storable weight, which is deemed merely an application of “apply it,” as this is reciting the use of a generic piece of information on a container (i.e. a label) to convey information, thus this element does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite determining the appearance of relevant to the storable weight, determining the size of the container based on the shape, and outputting an instruction to store the packages in the container; which is deemed further reciting the abstract idea of selecting shipping boxes to use based on criteria and identifiers for the shipping boxes, which can be done mentally and are managing human/business behavior; thus, the elements fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite setting the appearance of the storage box, which is deemed directing a user to prepare a container for shipping, which is deemed the management of business relations of a logistic planner and shipper (planning shipments), and managing personal behavior (worker instructions to select items for shipment), thus, the element falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims recite displaying instructions on a user device, and notifying a transport device of instruction, which is deemed merely using a generic computer element (display, transport device), as a tool to carry out the abstract idea; and thus, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 10 and 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US8086344 B1) (hereinafter Mishra), in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2003/0113151 A1) (hereinafter Yokoyama), in view of Menassa (US 12428230 B1) (hereinafter Menassa), and further in view of Giordano et al. (US 2014/0104416 A1) (hereinafter Giordano).
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 13, Mishra teaches:
At least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a shape of each of a plurality of packages and a weight of each of the plurality of packages (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 4 line 56 through column 5 line 24, column 6 lines 31-45, column 8 lines 32-64, column 10 lines 50-67, column 13 lines 11-49, column 21 lines and 29-54 which describe acquiring from a database or measurements, the dimensions, weight, volume, and size of items order for delivery by a recipient).
Determine a storage box having a predetermined size and storing packages so that a number of storage boxes having the same weight and size increases based on shapes and weights of the packages with a same destination among the plurality of packages (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 8 lines 32-64, column 10 lines 50-67, and column 13 lines 11-49 which describe determining an optimal shipping container to ship the items in, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of options with various volume, size, and weight capacities, and wherein the items shipped are being shipped to the same destination).
Wherein a storable weight of a plurality of storage boxes is determined, and determining a storage box that stores the packages from the plurality of storage boxes based on the weights of the packages (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 8 lines 32-64, column 10 lines 50-67, and column 13 lines 11-49 which describe determining shipping container weight capacities, and determining a shipping container based on the weight of the items shipped).
Wherein he plurality of storage boxes have an appearance capable of identifying the storable weight (See at least column 11 line 1 through column 12 lie 48, column 14 line 36 through column 15 line 13, column 16 line 60 through column 17 line 55, column 21 line 55 through column 22 line 22 which describe shipping containers as including a package identifier on them, wherein the identifier identifies the type of package, it’s size, and shipping lanes to use to process the package of the size).
Mishra discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 as stated above. Mishra does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yokoyama teaches:
Issue a sticker to be attached to the storage box so as to have the determined appearance; Wherein the sticker includes a two-dimensional code that includes a destination and package identification information (See at least paragraphs 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 49, 77, and 81 which describe selecting a shipping container and printing a shipping label for the package, wherein the label includes that an indication of the storable weight, such as a weight limit, which could be surpassed, as well as a two dimensional code which stores shipping identifier information, destination information, and sensor information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying a recommended shipping container to use to ship a plurality of different sized items to a recipient, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of different options that include different capacity restrictions, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker to pack the items, and wherein the package includes identifiers signifying their capacity constraints of Mishra, with the system and method of selecting a shipping container and printing a shipping label for the package, wherein the label includes that an indication of the storable weight, such as a weight limit, which could be surpassed, as well as a two dimensional code which stores shipping identifier information, destination information, and sensor information of Yokoyama. By printing a label that will set the appearance signifying weight constraints of the package, a shipper will predictably be able to inform all parties of the weight restrictions of the package, thus ensuring the safety of workers and of the package itself. In addition, including a two-dimensional barcode on the label with shipping information encoded in it, will predictably allow for efficient processing during shipping.
The combination of Mishra and Yokoyama discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 as stated above. Mishra and Yokoyama do not explicitly disclose the following, however Menassa teaches:
Wherein the sticker includes a destination, a weight of the storage box, and package identification information; control a transport device so as to attach the sticker to the storage box so as to provide the determined appearance and to store the package in the determined storage box (See at least column 16 line 64 through column 17 line 9 which describe an automated packing system, which packs items into packages and places a label on the package, wherein the label includes information regarding the shipment including identity, order, destination, weight, size, shape, dimensions, etc.. The Examiner notes that “transport device” is not defined in the claims, or explicitly in the specification, and instead, paragraph 83 states that it “may” be a robot, which also means it may not. In this case the automated packing station is being interpreted at a “transport device” as its functions include moving items and packages in a material handling facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying a recommended shipping container to use to ship a plurality of different sized items to a recipient, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of different options that include different capacity restrictions, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker to pack the items, and wherein the package includes identifiers signifying their capacity constraints of Mishra, with the system and method of selecting a shipping container and printing a shipping label for the package, wherein the label includes that an indication of the storable weight, such as a weight limit, which could be surpassed, as well as a two dimensional code which stores shipping identifier information, destination information, and sensor information of Yokoyama, with the system and method of an automated packing system, which packs items into packages and places a label on the package, wherein the label includes information regarding the shipment including identity, order, destination, weight, size, shape, dimensions, etc. of Menassa. By having an automated system generate and attach a label to a package with contents being shipped, a shipping facility will predictably reduce the likelihood of human error, while also including information on a package that will allow it to be shipped in an efficient manner.
The combination of Mishra, Yokoyama, and Menassa discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 as stated above. Mishra, Yokoyama, and Menassa do not explicitly disclose the following, however Giordano teaches:
Acquire a shape of each of a plurality of packages from an image captured by an imaging device and a weight of each of the a plurality of packages measured by a weight sensor (See at least paragraphs 6-7 and 43-45 which describes shipping a plurality of items, wherein the individual items are imaged using an image device and weighed using a weight sensor, wherein the image is used to determine the package dimensions and shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying a recommended shipping container to use to ship a plurality of different sized items to a recipient, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of different options that include different capacity restrictions, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker to pack the items, and wherein the package includes identifiers signifying their capacity constraints of Mishra, with the system and method of selecting a shipping container and printing a shipping label for the package, wherein the label includes that an indication of the storable weight, such as a weight limit, which could be surpassed, as well as a two dimensional code which stores shipping identifier information, destination information, and sensor information of Yokoyama, with the system and method of an automated packing system, which packs items into packages and places a label on the package, wherein the label includes information regarding the shipment including identity, order, destination, weight, size, shape, dimensions, etc. of Menassa, with the system and method of shipping a plurality of items, wherein the individual items are imaged using an image device and weighed using a weight sensor, wherein the image is used to determine the package dimensions and shape of Giordano. By using an imaging device and weight sensor to measure the weight of items, a fulfillment center would predictably be able to accurately determine and record data used for identifying packages and shipping costs for the items.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Mishra, Yokoyama, Menassa, and Giordano discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Mishra teaches:
Wherein a plurality of storage boxes have different sizes, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a storage box in which the packages are stored from the plurality of storage boxes based on a shapes of the package (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 8 lines 32-64, column 10 lines 50-67, and column 13 lines 11-49 which describe determining an optimal shipping container to ship the items in, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of options with different sizes and different volume, size, and weight capacities, and wherein the container is selected based on the items sizes, shapes, weights, and volumes).
With respect to claim 5, Mishra/Yokoyama/Menassa/Giordano discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 as stated above. In addition, Mishra teaches:
Wherein the appearance is at least one of a color, a pattern, a mark, and a code relevant to the storable weight (See at least column 11 line 1 through column 12 lie 48, column 14 line 36 through column 15 line 13, column 16 line 60 through column 17 line 55, column 21 line 55 through column 22 line 22 which describe shipping containers as including a package identifier on them, wherein the identifier identifies the type of package, it’s size, and shipping lanes to use to process the package of the size, and wherein the identifier is in a barcode or label, which the Examiner notes would constitute a pattern, mark, or code).
With respect to claim 6, Mishra/Yokoyama/Menassa/Giordano discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, and 3-5 as stated above. In addition, Mishra teaches:
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine an appearance relevant to the storable weight based on a weights of the packages (See at least column 11 line 1 through column 12 lie 48, column 14 line 36 through column 15 line 13, column 16 line 60 through column 17 line 55, column 21 line 55 through column 22 line 22 which describe shipping containers as including a package identifier on them, wherein the identifier identifies the type of package, it’s size, and shipping lanes to use to process the package of the size. The Examiner notes that by selecting the package based on its size requirements, the system is determining the appearance, as they are tied together).
Determines a size of a storage box for storing the packages based on a shapes of the packages (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 8 lines 32-64, column 10 lines 50-67, and column 13 lines 11-49 which describe determining an optimal shipping container to ship the items in, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of options with different volume, size, and weight capacities, and wherein package is selected based on the items volumes, size, and weights).
Output an instruction to store the packages in a storage box having the determined appearance and the determined size (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 12 line 49 through column 13 line 10, column 13 line 50 through column 14 line 5, column 14 line 36 though column 15 line 13, and column 21 line 55 through column 22 line 37 which describe providing the recommendation to store the items in the single selected shipping container, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker’s device or station).
With respect to claim 9, Mishra/Yokoyama/Menassa/Giordano discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3-6 as stated above. In addition, Yokoyama teaches:
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output an instruction to set an appearance of a storage box having the determined size to the determined appearance (See at least paragraphs 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 49, 77, and 81 which describe selecting a shipping container and printing a shipping label for the package, wherein the label includes an indication of the storable weight, such as a weight limit, which could be surpassed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying a recommended shipping container to use to ship a plurality of different sized items to a recipient, wherein the container is selected from a plurality of different options that include different capacity restrictions, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker to pack the items, and wherein the package includes identifiers signifying their capacity constraints of Mishra, with the system and method of selecting a shipping container and printing a shipping label for the package, wherein the label includes an indication of the storable weight, such as a weight limit, which could be surpassed of Yokoyama, with the system and method of an automated packing system, which packs items into packages and places a label on the package, wherein the label includes information regarding the shipment including identity, order, destination, weight, size, shape, dimensions, etc. of Menassa, with the system and method of shipping a plurality of items, wherein the individual items are imaged using an image device and weighed using a weight sensor, wherein the image is used to determine the package dimensions and shape of Giordano. By printing a label that will set the appearance signifying weight constraints of the package, a shipper will predictably be able to inform all parties of the weight restrictions of the package, thus ensuring the safety of workers and of the package itself.
With respect to claim 10, Mishra discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Mishra teaches:
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display the instruction on a display device (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 12 line 49 through column 13 line 10, column 13 line 50 through column 14 line 5, column 14 line 36 though column 15 line 13, and column 21 line 55 through column 22 line 37 which describe providing the recommendation to store the items in the single selected shipping container, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker’s device or station).
With respect to claim 11, Mishra discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Mishra teaches:
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify a transport device of the instruction (See at least column 2 lines 29-45, column 3 line 36 through column 4 line 14, column 4 line 56 though column 5 line 24, column 12 line 49 through column 13 line 10, column 13 line 50 through column 14 line 5, column 14 line 36 though column 15 line 13, and column 21 line 55 through column 22 line 37 which describe providing the recommendation to store the items in the single selected shipping container, wherein the recommendation is provided to a worker’s device or station).
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 th