GENESISTEMS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020006650 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/112,003 07/15/2016 Eric Richard MUENCH 2971.009B 9217
23405 7590 06/01/2021
HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC
5 COLUMBIA CIRCLE
ALBANY, NY 12203
EXAMINER
NELSON, FREDA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC RICHARD MUENCH and JAMES DAVID PALLADINO

Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5,
7–13, and 15–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “[T]he real party in interest is
Genesistems, Inc.” (Appeal Br. 3.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

2

THE APPELLANT’S INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention relates to a “method for determining the
optimum placement of shelves, and plants on shelves, to fill the
transportation racks used to transport plants.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
By way of background, “when an order is placed for a plant delivery”
(Id. ¶ 4), a vendor in the “wholesale plant industry” transports its plant
products “by truck” from a “field” location to a “retail” location (id. ¶ 3).
More specifically, the plant products are loaded “on rolling racks sized to fit
efficiently in a truck.” (Id.) Each rack is provided with “adjustable shelves
for variable heights between shelves to allow various height plants to be
placed on the shelves.” (Id.) A “loaded rack” is shown in the drawing
below. (Id. ¶ 81.)

Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

3

(Fig. 6d.) The above drawing shows a rack having five shelves configured
to provide rows of different heights, and plant products of corresponding
dimensions placed on the respective shelves. The shelves are configured,
and the plant products are placed, so that there are no “empty spaces” and,
therefore, this is an “optimized arrangement.” (Id. ¶ 10.)
The above rack can be viewed as forming an overall shelf/product
space; the plant products can be viewed as occupying certain row portions of
this space; and the shelves can be viewed as situated and sequenced to form
rows to accommodate this occupation.
The Appellant calls the rack’s available shelf/product space an “array”
and calls each row portion of occupied space a “buffer” element.” (Id. ¶ 66,
see also Fig. 4.) By modeling the most optimal positioning of the plant
products (i.e., buffer elements) on the array, shelves can be accordingly
assigned and sequenced. (See Spec. ¶ 60.)
When loading a given order of plant products onto a specific rack for
transport to a retail location, one would need to know certain information.
(Id. ¶¶ 56–59.) Specifically, one would need to obtain “plant” information
(i.e., how much space, shelf strength, and shade must be provided for each
of the plant products in the order) and one would need to obtain “rack”
information (i.e., overall shelf/product space, shelf options, shelf loading
space, and shelf loading strength). Other factors could also come into play,
such as locating “similar items together to ease unloading” in the interest of
the “overall efficiency of the resulting order for transport.” (Spec. ¶ 62.)
Apparently, “[u]sing present methods, when an order is placed for
plant delivery, the number of racks needed to accommodate the order is
estimated” and “space in the racks is not used efficiently.” (Id. ¶ 4.) In
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

4

other words, although the shelving configuration of a rack is based upon
plant information and rack information, it is “just an estimate” and extra
space must be reserved on a truck “to account for possible loading issues.”
(Id. ¶ 5.)
In the Appellant’s computer-implemented method, an array is
generated, buffer elements are built for modeling, optimum positioning of
the buffer elements in the array is simulated, and shelves are assigned
accordingly. (See id. ¶ 66, Figs. 4, 8.) Directions are then generated and
displayed so that they can be followed when loading the order onto the
shelves. (See Spec. ¶¶ 10, 25, 53, 76–77, Figs. 4, 6A–6E, 8.)
According to the Appellant, its method would allow a wholesale
vendor of plant products to “sell additional products.” (Spec. ¶ 5.) Thus,
obtaining, coordinating, and communicating information pertaining to the
shipment of plant products to a retail location is a beneficial business
practice.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
(bolding added and bracketed text inserted)
1. A method of minimizing a number of trips required to
transport an order comprising plant products in a vehicle from a
first location to a second location, comprising:
[(a)] obtaining, by a processor, information describing at
least one rack, wherein the rack comprises one or more shelves,
wherein the at least one rack is placed inside the vehicle to
transport the order from the first location to the second location;
[(b)] determining, by the processor, based on the
information describing the at least one rack, load parameters
related to the at least one rack;
[(c)] obtaining, by the processor, order information
comprising data describing the plant products that comprise the
order, wherein the processor obtains at least a portion of the
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

5

data from a memory resource, wherein the data comprises a
height of each of the plant products;
[(d)] generating, by the processor, an array and storing
the array in the memory resource;
[(e)] automatically dynamically building, by the
processor, based on the order information, buffer elements,
wherein each buffer element of the buffer elements represents a
portion of the plant products comprising the order, wherein the
portion comprises a quantity of plant products that can fit on a
shelf of the one or more shelves, and wherein the dynamically
building comprises:
simulating, by the processor, in a digital model, a
placement process to optimize positioning of the portion
on the at least one rack to minimize a number of trips
required to transport, in the vehicle, the order from the
first location to the second location; and
determining, by the processor, from the height of
each of the plant products, a maximum height of a plant
product in the portion;
storing the one or more buffer elements in the
array;
[(f)] based on the load parameters, analyzing, by the
processor, each shelf of the one or more shelves and assigning a
shelf type variable to each shelf, wherein for each individual
shelf of the one or more shelves, the shelf type variable
represents an amount of plant products that can fit on the
individual shelf and positioning requirements for the individual
shelf when placed on the at least one rack, wherein the
processor determines the amount of plant products that can fit
on the individual shelf based on whether any plant products are
on the individual shelf;
[(g)] based on the shelf type variable, retrieving, by the
processor, from the array, the one or more buffer elements, and
assigning, based on the maximum height, by the processor, at
least one shelf of the one or more shelves to each buffer
element of the one or more buffer elements, where the
assigning comprises determining, by the processor, a
placement for each shelf of the one or more shelves on the at
least one rack based on the maximum height, and wherein the
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

6

assigning comprises selecting and implementing a sorting
order, wherein the sorting order is one of a group of sorting
orders saved on the memory resource;
[(h)] based on the assigning, generating, by the
processor, a file comprising directions for loading the plant
products into the vehicle, wherein the file comprises a number
representing a quantity of racks for shelving the plant products,
data describing each rack of the quantity of racks, and data
describing a sequence of shelves for each rack of the quantity of
racks; and
[(i)] transmitting, by the processor, the at least one file
over a network to a client, wherein the transmitting activates an
application executing on the client to make data comprising the
file accessible for display via an output device communicatively
coupled to the client such that the client can view data
comprising the file while following the sequence of shelves for
each rack of the quantity of racks and loading the order onto the
shelves in the vehicle at the first location for transport to the
second location.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Final
Action 10.) To wit, the Examiner concludes that the claims on appeal do not
satisfy the Alice framework for patentability.
The Alice Framework
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme
Court imparted a two-step framework to detect when an attempt is being
made to patent an abstract idea in isolation. (Id. at 217–18.) In the first step
of the Alice framework, a determination is made as to whether the claim at
issue is “directed to” an abstract idea. (Id. at 218.) In the second step of the
Alice framework, a determination is made as to whether “additional
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

7

elements” in the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination,
contribute “significantly more” than the abstract idea. (Id.)
The 2019 § 101 Guidance
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019
§ 101 Guidance”) provides specific steps for discerning whether a claim
satisfies the Alice framework for patent eligibility. (See 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).)3 These
steps are “[i]n accordance with judicial precedent” and consist of a
two-pronged Step 2A and a Step 2B. (Id. at 52.)
In the first prong of Step 2A (Prong One), a determination is made as
to whether the claim “recites” an abstract idea. (2019 § 101 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) The Guidance “extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas,” and these concepts include
“fundamental economic principles or practices.” (Id. at 52.) For example,
obtaining, coordinating, and communicating information about the “delivery
or pickup of a good or service at a stop location” is a “fundamental business
practice.” (Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958
F.3d 1178, 1180–81 (Fed. Cir. 2020).)
In the second prong of Step 2A (Prong Two), a determination is made
as to whether the claim contains additional elements that “integrate” the
abstract idea “into a practical application.” (See 2019 § 101 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 53.) “[A]dditional elements” are “claim features,
limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified

3 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates
this revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed.
Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

8

judicial exception.” (Id. at 55, n. 24.) “A claim that integrates a judicial
exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial
exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception.” (Id. at 53.) When the additional elements are computer
components, and the claim “merely includes instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform
an abstract idea,” this is not enough to integrate an abstract idea into a
practical application. (Id. at 55.)
If a claim recites an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A, and
fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Prong
Two of Step 2A, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under the first
step of the Alice framework. (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.)
In Step 2B, a determination is made as to whether the additional
elements recited in the claim, individually or in combination, amount to
“significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56.) If the additional elements consist of a conventional
arrangement of well-understood, routine, conventional computer
components, they will not amount to significantly more under the second
step of the Alice framework. (See id.)
If a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A, and its
additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” under Step 2B,
the claim does not comply with the Alice framework for patent eligibility.
(2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.)
Analysis
As for Prong One of Step 2A, we agree with the Examiner that
independent claim 1 recites “a business solution to a business problem” and
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

9

thus is a method of organizing human activity that constitutes an abstract
idea. (Answer 14.)
Independent claim 1 sets forth a method comprising steps involving
an “order” of “plant products,” a “rack” that is “placed inside [a] vehicle to
transport the order,” and “shelves” for the rack. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
In steps (a)–(c) and (f)–(i), information about the order, the plant products,
the rack, and the shelves is obtained, determined, generated, analyzed,
retrieved, assigned, selected, implemented, and transmitted so as to
provide “directions for loading the plant products into the vehicle.” (Id.)
And these directions are followed when “loading the order onto the shelves
in the vehicle at [a] first location for transport to [a] second location.” (Id.)
Thus, independent claim 1 recites obtaining, coordinating, and
communicating information about the delivery or pickup of plant products
which is a fundamental economic business practice and, therefore, an
abstract idea.
To be sure, independent claim 1 contains many details about the
information obtained, coordinated, and communicated during steps (a)–(c)
and (f)–(i). For example, the information about the plant products includes
“a height of each of the plant products,” the information about the rack
includes “load parameters,” and the information about the shelf includes
“shelf type variable[s].” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Also, the loading
directions take into consideration a “sorting order,” and they include “a
number representing a quantity of racks for shelving the plant products,” a
description of “a sequence of shelves for each rack of the quantity of racks.”
(Id.) However, as discussed above, this information is commonplace when
shipping plant products from a wholesale location of a retail location.
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

10

Independent claim 1 recites, in steps (d) and (e), an “array” and
“buffer elements” that can be stored in the array. (Id.) Each “buffer
element” represents “a portion of the plant products comprising the order”
which “can fit on a shelf” of the rack. (Id.) The array participates in the
modeling of potential shelf configurations for the rack to enable “a
placement process to optimize positioning” of a buffer element (i.e., the
relevant portion of the order’s plant products). Thus, in steps (d) and (e),
further thought is given as to how an order’s plant products should be loaded
onto the rack by exploring a plurality of possible loading scenarios. Insofar
as this further thought was not given in the past, this is “an improvement to a
business solution.” (Answer 10.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner, that under Prong One of Step 2A,
independent claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity that
constitutes an abstract idea.
As for Prong Two of Step 2A, we agree with the Examiner that the
additional elements in independent claim 1 do “not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application” because they are “generic” computer
components. (Final Action 13.)
Independent claim 1 requires the information-handling functions
recited in steps (a)–(i) to be performed “by a processor.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Claim 1 requires data listed in steps (c), (d), and (g) (i.e.,
“order information,” “array,” and “sorting order”) to be associated with a
“memory resource.” (Id.) Claim 1 requires the loading directions in in
step (h) to be a contained in a “file” that is transmitted “over a network to a
client.” (Id.) And claim 1 requires “an application executing on the client”
to make the transmitted file “accessible for display via an output device” so
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

11

that “the client can view data comprising the file.” (Id.) These additional
elements (i.e., a processor, a memory resource, a file, client, a network, an
application, and an output device) are generic computer components
performing generic computer functions which amount to instructions to use
a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea.
That being said, it is possible for a claimed “combination” of
additional elements to “provide the practical application.” (2019 § 101
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.) Indeed, in Bascom Global Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the
Federal Circuit elucidated that it is sometimes possible for “an inventive
concept” to reside in “the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces,” such as “a set of generic computer
components.” Here, however, there is no claimed non-conventional or non-
generic arrangement of the processor and the memory resource, the
application “executing” on the client, and output device “communicatively
coupled” to the client. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1 recites an
abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A, and fails to integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A, and, therefore,
is “directed to” an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice framework.
(2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.)
As for Step 2B, we agree with the Examiner that independent
claim 1’s additional elements, individually and in ordered combination, do
not amount to “significantly more than the judicial exception.” (Final
Action 14.)
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

12

The Specification describes a “computing environment 100”
comprising “a computer system 110” and “one or more terminals
120a–120e.” (Spec. ¶ 27, see also Fig. 1.) The “technical architecture” of
the computer system 110 and/or the terminals 120 is described as including
“circuitry 370,” a “microprocessor 354,” a “memory 355,” and “program
logic 330.” (Spec. ¶ 33, see also Fig. 2.) A “client application 140” is
“comprised of computer readable program code.” (Spec. ¶ 29.) Input/output
devices can comprise “keyboards, displays, pointing devices, DASD, tape,
CDs, DVDs, thumb drives and other memory media.” (Id. ¶ 53.) Thus, the
Specification describes independent claim 1’s additional elements,
individually, as conventional.
As for the ordered combination of independent claim 1’s additional
elements, the Specification likewise describes their interaction, coordination,
and arrangement as conventional. “The terminals access the one or more
resources of the computer system 110 via a network connection 130” (id.
¶ 27) and the computer system 110 “contains one or more servers” (e.g., web
or application servers) “that serve content to the terminals 120a–120e over
the network connection 130” (id. ¶ 28). The program logic 330 includes
“code 333 that may be loaded into the memory 355 and executed by the
microprocessor 356 or circuitry 370.” (Id. ¶ 33.) The terminals 120a–120e
“interact with a client application 140.” (Id. ¶ 29.) And the input/output
devices “can be coupled to the system either directly or through intervening
I/O controllers.” (Id. ¶ 53.)
Thus, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under
Step 2A, and its additional elements do not amount to significantly more
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

13

under Step 2B. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1
does not satisfy the Alice framework for patent eligibility.
The Appellant’s Arguments
The Appellant argues that “optimizing placement of plants on a shelf
for transport” does not constitute one of the “certain method[s] of organizing
human activity” listed in the Guidance. (Appeal Br. 15.) However, the
Specification conveys that the Appellant’s shipping-related objective
translates into a beneficial business practice. (See Spec. ¶ 5.) And
controlling case law establishes that such a shipping-related objective is a
“fundamental business practice.” (Elec. Commc’n Techs., 958 F.3d
at 1180–81.)
The Appellant argues that the “array” and “buffer” limitations in
independent claim 1 “demonstrate” that it is “not directed to managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” (Reply
Br. 3.) However, as discussed above, the claimed “array” corresponds to the
rack’s available shelf/product space, and the claimed “buffer elements”
correspond to spaces occupied by plant products. (See Spec. ¶ 66, Fig. 4.)
This dimensional data would be taken into consideration, at least
tangentially, whenever someone was loading plant products onto the shelves
of a rack for transport to a retail location.
The Appellant argues that the claimed functions which enable visually
providing “instant feedback” to the client” somehow push independent
claim 1 into patent-eligible territory. (Appeal Br. 18; see also id. at 19.)
However, “displaying the results” of an abstract idea is “an ancillary part” of
the abstract idea itself. (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As for this feedback being instant, “claiming
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

14

the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on
a computer” does not meaningfully limit claim scope for the purposes of
patent eligibility. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
The Appellant argues that independent claim 1 is “not directed to
abstract manipulations of data” because “a tangible activity is completed.”
(Appeal Br. 16.) Claim 1 recites that “the client can view data comprising
the file while following the sequence of shelves for each rack of the quantity
of racks and loading the order onto the shelves in the vehicle at the first
location for transport to the second location.” (Id., Claims App.) Insofar as
claim 1 requires the client to load the order onto the shelves, and insofar as
this loading is not itself part of the abstract idea, such a physical step would
constitute insignificant post-solution activity. And “the prohibition against
patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by adding insignificant
post-solution activity.” (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242
(Fed. Cir. 2016).)
The Appellant argues that “selecting and implementing a sorting
order” (which is “one of a group of sorting orders saved on the memory
resource”) is “unconventional.” (Appeal Br. 17.) However, as discussed
above, sorting orders are just another factor taken into account when looking
at the “overall efficiency of the resulting order for transport.” (Spec. ¶ 62.)
This selection and implementation would occur whenever someone was
loading plant products onto the shelves of a rack for transport to a retail
location.
The Appellant argues that “the particularity of various aspects to a
given environment can render a claim not abstract (and therefore patentable),
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

15

based on its practicality.” (Appeal Br. 14.) The Appellant asserts that the
“field of endeavor” of independent claim 1 is limited to one in which an
order of plant products is transported from a first location to a second
location. (Reply Br. 5.) And the Appellant quotes steps (a)–(i), verbatim, as
“limitations that confine the judicial exception to a particular practical
application.” (Id.) But the quoted limitations are either functions embedded
in the fundamental economic practice (i.e., the abstract idea), or generic
computer components which perform these abstract-idea-embedded
functions in a generic manner.
The Appellant advances arguments premised upon the Examiner
having not “adjudged the claims patentable over any relevant art.” (Appeal
Br. 17; see also id. at 18; Reply Br. 3–5.) However, a novel and/or
nonobvious (or even “brilliant”) improvement in a fundamental economic
practice (e.g., a shipping-related method) is “not enough for eligibility.”
(Elec. Commc’ns Tech., 958 F.3d at 1182.) Even taking as true that
independent claim 1 “is ‘unique,’ that alone is insufficient to confer patent
eligibility.” (Id. at 1183.) Thus, the lack of prior art rejections in the record
is not “further evidence” of patent eligibility. (See Appeal Br. 17.)
Consequently, after careful consideration of the Appellant’s
arguments, we still agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1 does
not pass muster under the Alice framework for patent eligibility.
Summary
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Appellant argues claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–22 as a
Appeal 2020-006650
Application 15/112,003

16

group (see Appeal Br. 14–19), and so the rest of the claims on appeal fall
with independent claim 1.4
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–5,
7–13, 15–22
101 Eligibility 1–5,
7–13, 15–22

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

4 “When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued
as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim
from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of
rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected
claim alone.” (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).)