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 non-final action in response to application filed on 01/06/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 01/06/2025, 03/24/2025, 05/29/2025 have been considered.
Claim Objection
Claim 2, 10, 16 are objected because “determining that the fresh product is not the target fresh product when the type of the fresh product is classified as a frozen product” would never occur because their respective independent claims already require fresh product being determined as a target product. This appears to be a drafting oversight and these should be deleted.
Claims 3, 11, 17 are objected because these claims involves 3 temperature where one needs to be higher than another while the other side is not explicitly bounded based on claim language. However, the naming of “refrigerated”, “frozen”, and “room temperature” mean these temperature needs to be bounded on the other side as well. After all, it wouldn’t make sense to call a container kept at 31-degree Fahrenheit as frozen while a container kept at 32-degree Fahrenheit as room temperature. However, current claim language suggest this naming convention is acceptable. This appears to be a drafting oversight.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 15-20 are “computer program”, which does not fall into any one of the four statutory categories. Examiner notes while these 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 15-20 are treated as non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for the remainder of this office action.
Claims 1-14 all passes step 1.
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. 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.
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 2-8 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 9-20 (noting claims 15-20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (US 20180058739) in view of Mize (Mize, Jim, “Get Expert Tips on Packing Perishables For A Multi-Day Trip”, https://rethinkrural.raydientrural.com/blog/packing-perishables-for-a-multi-day-trip#:~:text=You%20can%20do%20a%20lot%20by%20combining,safely%20if%20you%20follow%20these%20basics%20rules:, published April, 2024).
As per claim 1, Zou discloses A packaging management method performed by a computing device, comprising:
receiving an order of a customer including fresh products and non-fresh products (see at least Zou, 0030, center fulfil order);
determining a type of fresh product packagable together with the non-fresh product among the fresh products as a target fresh product based on a result of classifying types of the fresh products according to a temperature (see at least Zou, 0016, both perishable item and non-perishable item can be put into same frame due to inclusion of refrigeration unit 35); and
automatically determining whether or not to package the target fresh product and the non-fresh product in the same
While Zou discloses mixing both perishable and non-perishable items into the same container, these containers are not described to be used for shipping item beyond moving the items from one location within the handling facility to another location. Mize, however, teaches it is known before the filing date of the present invention to pack both perishable and non-perishable food into the same package container for the purpose of reducing empty space and increasing transport efficiency (Mize, section “The Importance of Ice When Packing Perishables”, “For his coolant, he likes to use frozen water bottles. This way, none of the space in the cooler is wasted since the bottles provide cold temperatures up until the day that the cooler is opened. Then, you also have drinking water as a side benefit of keeping the food cold.” Examiner notes water is non-perishable and its purpose is to serve as drinking water once arrived).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Zou’s packing method with Mize’s shipping container for the purpose of reducing empty spaces inside shipping container (Mize, section “The Importance of Ice When Packing Perishables”)
As per claim 2, Zou further discloses the packaging management method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the type of fresh product packagable together with the non-fresh product among the fresh products as the target fresh product includes and determining that the fresh product is the target fresh product when the type of the fresh product is classified as either a refrigerated product or a room temperature product (Zou, 0023, items with similar temperature requirement can be put on the same bin or shelf. Examiner notes a perishable room temperature item would then be able to put on the same location).
As per claim 3, Zou further discloses the packaging management method of claim 2,
wherein the frozen product is a product of which an internal temperature of a packaging container is maintained as a first temperature (0068),
the refrigerated product is a product of which an internal temperature of a packaging container is maintained as a second temperature higher than the first temperature (0018), and
the room temperature product is a product of which an internal temperature of a packaging container is maintained as a third temperature higher than the second temperature (0018, room temperature is used to distinguished whether item is refridgerated).
As per claim 5, Zou does not but Mize teaches the packaging management method of claim 1,
wherein the automatic determining of whether or not to package the target fresh product and the non-fresh product in the same packaging container includes determining that the target fresh product and the non-fresh product are packaged in the same packaging container when an increase amount in unit per parcel (UPP) in a case where the target fresh product and the non-fresh product are packaged in the same packaging container compared to a case where the target fresh product and the non-fresh product are not packaged in the same packaging container is a preset threshold value or more, and the UPP refers to the number of products per unit package (Mize, section “The Importance of Ice When Packing Perishables”, “For his coolant, he likes to use frozen water bottles. This way, none of the space in the cooler is wasted since the bottles provide cold temperatures up until the day that the cooler is opened. Then, you also have drinking water as a side benefit of keeping the food cold.” Examiner notes packing water bottle would increase UPP compared to using cold pack).
As per claim 7, Zou further discloses the packaging management method of claim 1, wherein the automatic determining of whether or not to package the target fresh product and the non-fresh product in the same packaging container includes determining that the target fresh product and the non-fresh product are not packaged in the same packaging container when it is determined in advance that the non-fresh product is not packagable together with the fresh product (0068, cross-contamination rule can prevent two same category food being packed together).
Claims 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 all contain limitations substantially similar to claims 1-3, or 5 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above
Please Note:
Prior art that are pertinent but not relied upon for rejection is listed below.
Di Cosola (US 20220169401): Di Cosola teaches mixing both perishable and non-perishable inside the same container and includes a GUI regarding status (Fig. 5b). Di Cosola, however, does not disclose using UPP as a metric.
Yu (20230176588): Yu teaches an order containing perishable and non-perishable item (0149-0150); however, these items are loaded onto different compartments inside delivery vehicle.
Doshi (9098822): Doshi teaches optimization for package container size but specifically to find the smallest box size for the order (6:49-63)
Conclusion
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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