Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 05/05/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-22 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that human cannot mentally calculate optimal volumetric fit across an entire sizes. Examiner respectfully disagree.
Here, claim only implies more than one sizes of boxes present because claim states to start with the smallest size. Therefore, a small number of items and small number of sizes of boxes would still fall into claimed scope. At a low number, such as 2 sizes, a person can certainly do that manually. For illustration, using Fig. 2’s categories as illustrations and expand that so that only one item fall into each product type and having 2 boxes to consider. This is clearly a problem that can be performed manually with physical aid (e.g., Fig. 2).
Applicant goes on to argue that the claimed invention improves technology in functioning of cold-chain infrastructure. Examiner respectfully disagree.
As shown above, all the improvement is part of the abstract idea (i.e., the determination, the iterative approach, which all can be performed mentally given the current claim language). This is an improvement in the abstract idea itself and therefore wouldn’t be an improvement that integrates the abstract idea into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) II. Examiner notes that even 0003 describes a cost improvement in the volume optimization, which would suggest this is a business problem as opposed to a technical problem.
Regarding further arguments, please refer to the argument above, particularly regarding the claimed scope covers a low number of box sizes.
Regarding Applicant’s argument directed to 103 rejection, the argument is persuasive.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-4, 6-12,14-18 and 20-22 are objected because the word “cause” in all independent claims appears to be typo of “caused”.
Claim 15-18, 20 are objected because “non-transitory” appears to be inserted in the incorrect place. See below 101 rejection for further detail. Examiner would recommend rewrite the entire preamble.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-22are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 15-18, 20, 22 are “non-transitory computer program”, which does not fall into any one of the four statutory categories as it is still being a particular type of computer program, which would still be software per se. Examiner notes the claimed language is likely a drafting error but analysis is still performed on the language currently written. Examiner notes while the claimed program are “stored in a computer-readable recording medium couple to a computing device” in the preamble, they’re merely describing the intended environment for the program and are not part of the scope. Examiner further notes “computer-readable recording medium” is also broad enough to encompass transitory signals per se, which would also fail at step 1 even if it’s considered part of the scope.
For the purpose of examination, claims 15-18, 20, 22 are treated as non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for the remainder of this office action. Examiner recommends rewriting the preamble to clarify the scope.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, the entire body of the claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, each and every step when viewed as a group, describe a series of steps to determine whether two item should bae packaged together. This falls into both following rules or creating business relationship (see 0003 that this is done in logistic setting), both of which falls into certain methods of organizing human activities. Further, these steps can also be completely performed in human mind by a person performing determination and judgement. For example, claim 1 can be accomplished by making determination on 3 items and 2 box sizes. A person can make such determination manually. for As such, they also fall under mental processes. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
As per claim 1, the additional element is computing device that’s used to perform the abstract idea. This is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer as well as mere generally linking the abstract idea on a generic computer. Therefore, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional element is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer as well as mere generally linking the abstract idea on a generic computer. This wouldn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application and claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner notes while “products” and “container” are used in the claim, the claim only involves planning on these products and container. The actual physical product or container are outside the scope of the claim. However, even if they’re considered as part of the scope as currently written, they’d at most be generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use and wouldn’t change the conclusion of the analysis. Further, although claim describes “block quality deterioration cause[d] by cooling agent”, this is being claimed in conclusory manner at most, which is claiming the result. Further, this limitation is also intended use language, which does not limit the scope of the claim. Lastly, this step is also being the result of determination step, which is part of the abstract idea and no additional element is related to this feature.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, the additional element, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer as well as mere generally linking the abstract idea on a generic computer. They wouldn’t provide significantly more either and therefore claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 merely further limit the abstract idea with similar additional element such as GUI that can be similarly analyzed as the additional element above. They would arrive at the same conclusion.
Claims 9-12, 14-18, 20-22 (noting claims 15-18, 20 have been modified for the purposed of examination) contains limitations that are substantially similar and would therefore similarly arrive at the same conclusion. These claims are not eligible either.
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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights