CTNF 18/834,301 CTNF 78253 jroDETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 13-18 are directed to a control method and claims 1-12 are directed to an arrangement control system comprising a memory and a processor. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of acquiring information related to a target object and a candidate storage space for said target object and then determining whether the target object can be arranged in the candidate storage space based on said information (claim 13). These steps can be grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) as the steps of acquiring information relating to an object and a space, determining whether a target object can be arranged in said space and then outputting the determination result can all be performed in the human mind. Indeed, the acquiring information step can be regarded as an observation and the determination step can be regarded as an evaluation/judgment—both common “mental processes” performed by the human mind. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III (describing a “mental process” as “thinking” that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” and include “observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions”). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea ( See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. , US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional elements of the claims such as the control elements comprising a memory storing instructions and a related processor (claims 1 and 7) merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, the control elements perform the steps of acquiring information and outputting a result of a determination. The use of a processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test ( See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional elements of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a processor to implement the abstract idea of acquiring and evaluating information. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor and related instructions performs the steps of acquiring and evaluating information. These steps/functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The use of a processor to merely implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 14-18 and related system claims 2-6 and 8-12 further describe the abstract idea of acquiring further types of target object information, e.g., pose or fragility of an object, including an arrangement condition. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea as the dependent claim simply involve more mental process steps, i.e., observations and evaluations. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. For these reasons, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 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. 07-30-02 The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112: 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 3-5, 9, 11, 15 and 17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 07-34-05 Claim 3, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 17 recite the limitation "it". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 1 0, 12-14, 16 and 18 are rejecte d under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as bein g anticip ated by Li et a l. ( “Li”)(US 2023/0286750 A1). Li (fig. 5 , 8) teaches an arrangement control system/apparatus comprising: (re: claims 1, 7) at least one memory storing instructions (fig. 8 and para. 6-7, 34-35, 237-240 teaching control element 820 with memory 810 with instructions for implementing control steps of intelligent warehousing system for real-time inspection of storage spaces prior to storage of target objects), and at least one processor (820) configured to execute the instructions to; acquire upper limit information indicating an arrangement space in a candidate arrangement location of a target object, target object information including size information indicating a size of the target object, and information regarding an occupied space of an arrangement object arranged in the candidate arrangement location detected by a sensing means (see generally fig. 5 for control steps; para. 146-148 teaching—control steps S502 and S503—sensing size of storage space as well as the size of the largest “vacant space” within said storage space, i.e., whether space is occupied; para. 149-151 teaching—control step S504—acquiring target object size information to establish an “upper limit” of storage space, i.e., “preset size”—"the sum of the height of the goods to be stored and the preset safety height”, wherein size information “may be acquired by means of the storage instruction” or “by the sensor of the robot”); and output a determination result obtained by determining whether the target object can be arranged in the candidate arrangement location based on the upper limit information, the target object information, and the information regarding the occupied space of the arrangement object (para. 154-160 teaching--control steps S505 and S506-determining whether the “vacant space” is greater than or equal to “preset size”, i.e., whether there is sufficient vacant storage space to place target object, and sending an “abnormity prompt”, storing the target object or—as taught by para. 165-189—removing a detected obstacle to allow storage of the target object); (re: claims 2, 8) wherein the at least one processor is configured to notify a signal including map information indicating whether the target object can be arranged with respect to the candidate arrangement location as information indicating the determination result (para. 157-166 teaching sending an insufficient storage space signal to control element and storing said information into memory; para. 106-115 teaching that storage information regarding each storage space-- as well as datum or positional information that create a map of storage space-- is stored that allows storage robots to be guided to specific target storage locations); (re: claims 4, 10) wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire the upper limit information in each of a plurality of the candidate arrangement locations in an area where a transport apparatus can transport the target object and the information regarding the occupied space of the arrangement object arranged in each of the candidate arrangement locations (para. 160-164 teaching that storage information including pose and spacing information is acquired and sent to control element, wherein control element uses storage information for additional operations, e.g., additional target object sorting), and determine, for each of the candidate arrangement locations, whether the target object can be arranged in each of the candidate arrangement locations based on the upper limit information, the target object information, and the information regarding the occupied space of the arrangement object (para. 154-160 as cited above); (re: claims 6, 12) wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire information regarding a pose of an arrangement object arranged in the candidate arrangement location (para. 161-163 teaching acquiring storage information that includes “a placement position, pose information and spacing between the goods to be stored and an adjacent object”); and determine whether the target object can be arranged on the arrangement object based on the upper limit information, the target object information, the information regarding the occupied space of the arrangement object, and the information regarding the pose of the arrangement object (para. 201-202 teaching that additional checking related to pose of adjacent object may be included in determination of whether target object can be arranged in storage space). (re: claims 13, 14, 16 and 18) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the system cited above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 17 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”)(US 2023/0286750 A1) in view of Putcha et al. (“Putcha”)(WO 2018/136394 A1). Li as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching (re: claims 3, 9, 15) wherein the target object information includes an arrangement condition that is an additional condition required for the candidate arrangement location in which it is determined that the target object can be arranged ; (re: claims 5, 11, 17) wherein the target object information includes an arrangement condition, and the at least one processor is configured to select a candidate arrangement location satisfying the arrangement condition from among one or more candidate arrangement locations in which it is determined that the target object can be arranged. Putcha, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated material handling/sorting arts to store an array of target object information--including an arrangement condition for a target object that is an additional condition, e.g., fragility or perishability, to optimize loading and transport of said target object (para. 27-28 teaching that control element stores target object information including dimensions, fragility, stability and perishability; para. 38 teaching that control element may use this additional information to arrange “fragile items at certain positions in the loading space 118 and/or next to certain types of merchandise items”, wherein Examiner interprets the control element selecting “certain positions” as the control element selecting a candidate arrangement from more than one candidate arrangement location). It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Li for the reasons set forth above. Conclusion Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805. Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov . Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”. Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ /JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 Jcr --- May 26, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 2 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 3 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 4 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 5 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 6 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 7 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 8 Art Unit: 3653 Application/Control Number: 18/834,301 Page 9 Art Unit: 3653
Prosecution Insights