miner
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final office action in response to the communications received on October 10, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 29, 32, 35 and 37 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, 14 and 28 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15-27 and 29-37 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 29, 32, 35 and 37 have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103 rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejections have been considered, but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, the features in Claim 1 recite meaningful limitations.
Examiner’s Response: The claims recite limitations that under broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed in the human mind (observation/evaluation). However, not being able to perform something manually or in the human mind is not enough to confer eligibility or show an improvement to the computer or the technology. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed by computer elements. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Merely adding generic computer components to perform a method is not sufficient to take the claims out of a mental process and/or a method of organizing a human activity. Thus, the claims must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as a practical application or an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15-27 and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1, 32 and 35 the claims recite inventory management which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction). The limitations on receiving a product, capturing information about a product, indicating positions, detecting activity, initiating capture of images, associating information, receiving a request for a product and activating a visual indicator could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a camera, sensors, a controller, a processor and a memory nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination 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 computers to perform the receiving, capturing, indicating, detecting, initiating, associating and activating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There is no new technology or any technological improvement involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-13, 15-27, 29-31, 33-34 and 36-37, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-13, 15-27 and 29-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US PUB 2023/0140072 A1) in view of Philippe (US 2013/0076898A1).
Claim 1
Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
An inventory management cabinet comprising:
a housing defining a storage area, the storage area being configured to receive a product; (see at least paragraph 0127-The medical resource intelligence system may be configured to track a usage of one or more tools (ex: in a tool tray or a tool cabinet), detect what tools have been used or are being used).
a plurality of slots arranged within the housing, each of the slots being configured to receive a respective unit of the product; (see at least paragraph 0127-tool tray or tool cabinet used for inventory management).
at least one camera configured to capture information about the product; and (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128-tool usage may be detected based on one or more images or videos captured using a camera or imaging sensor).
at least one motion sensor or presence sensor (see at least paragraph 0075-motion recognition).
a controller operably coupled to the at least one camera and operably coupled to the at least one motion sensor or at least one presence sensor, the controller comprising a processor and a memory, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to: detect activity within the storage area of the housing; based on a signal from the at least one motion sensor or the at least one presence sensor (see at least paragraph 0075-The system may be able to identify individuals in the room based on the video frames and/or audio captured. For example, facial recognition, motion recognition, etc may be used to recognize individuals in the room. 0127-tool usage may be detected based on one or more images or videos captured using a camera or imaging sensor; the medical resource intelligence system may be configured to track usage of tools provided in an operating room (e.g. in a tool tray or cabinet); in other cases, tool usage may be detected using a radio-frequency identification tag associated with the one or more tools).
Hawkins discloses using cameras, motion recognition and RFID tags to track medical products. Hawkins does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Philippe does:
a plurality of visual indicators configured to indicate respective positions of the respective units of the product within the housing (see at least paragraphs 0103-activating a light on a particular storage compartment).
the activity being produced based on a user placing a unit of the product in one of the plurality of slots; (see at least paragraph 0089-the system knows which medical product was return to the storage compartment and 0057-0058).
control the at least one camera to initiate capture of one or more images of the product in response to detecting activity within the storage area of the housing to associate the unit of the product with the one of the plurality of slots that the unit has been placed; (see at least paragraphs 0062 and 0089-0090-the user activates and deactivates the imaging unit in response to detecting activity; the system knows which user picked each medical product).
receive a request from a user for the unit of the product; (see at least paragraphs 0093-determine user A is trying to initiate a particular activity such as picking a medical product).
and activate, in response to the request from the user, at least one of the visual indicators to indicate the slot where the unit of the product is located – (see at least paragraph 0103-the imaging unit may inform the user of the proper storage compartment by activating a light on a particular storage compartment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Hawkings and Philippe in order to provide a system that enables a user to be guided to a storage location where a particular medical item desired by the user is stored (Philippe paragraph 0103). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 2
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein activity within the storage area of the housing is detected using the at least one camera (see at least paragraph 0127).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the controller detects the activity within the storage area of the housing based on the signal from the at least one motion sensor, the at least one motion sensor being configured to detect presence of an object within the storage area of the housing. (see at least paragraphs 0075 and 0127).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the controller detects the activity within the storage area of the housing based on the signal from the at least one presence sensor, and the inventory management cabinet further comprises a plurality of the presence sensors configured to detect presence of a respective unit of the product in a respective one of the plurality of slots. (see at least paragraphs 0075 and 0127).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein each of the presence sensors comprises a light emitter and a photodetector. (see at least paragraphs 0044, 0112 and 0186).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to extract information from the one or more images of the product captured by the at least one camera (see at least paragraph 0128).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein extracting information from the one or more images of the product captured by the at least one camera comprises: receiving the one or more images of the product from the at least one camera; and analyzing the one or images of the product to extract respective product identifiers associated with respective units of the product. (see at least paragraph 0128).
Claim 10
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to inventory the product based, at least in part, on the extracted information (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
Claim 11
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein inventorying the product based, at least in part, on the extracted information comprises:
decoding the respective product identifiers associated with the respective units of the product; and using the respective product identifiers, associating the respective units of the product with the respective slots. (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
Claim 12
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein each of the respective product identifiers is a one-dimensional (1D) barcode, a two-dimensional (2D) barcode, a three-dimensional (3D) barcode, a universal product code (UPC), a stock keeping unit (SKU), text, or a graphic. (see at least paragraphs 0127- 0128).
Claim 13
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a plurality of cameras, each of the cameras being configured to capture information about the product located in a respective region of the storage area of the housing. (see at least paragraphs 0127- 0128).
Claim 15
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the housing comprises an external frame, and wherein at least one of the visual indicators is arranged on or adjacent to the external frame. (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
Claim 16
Furthermore, Philippe discloses the following limitations:
wherein a respective visual indicator is arranged on, within, or adjacent to each one of the respective slots. (see at least paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Hawkings and Philippe in order to provide a system that enables a user to be guided to a storage location where a particular medical item desired by the user is stored (Philippe paragraph 0103). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 17
Furthermore, Philippe discloses the following limitations:
wherein each of the visual indicators is at least one of a light emitter or a graphical display (see at least paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Hawkings and Philippe in order to provide a system that enables a user to be guided to a storage location where a particular medical item desired by the user is stored (Philippe paragraph 0103). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 18
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
further comprising an output device configured to provide a visual or audible alarm (see at least paragraphs 0006-0008, 0038 and 0070-0071).
Claim 19
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to generate an alarm signal and transmit the alarm signal to the output device. (see at least paragraph 0133).
Claim 20
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a human machine interface (HMI) configured to provide a communication interface between a user and the inventory management cabinet (see at least paragraphs 0029 and 0035).
Claim 21
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein each of the respective units of the product is a product package (see at least paragraph 0008).
Claim 22
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the product package includes a surgical implant. (see at least paragraph 0033).
Claim 23
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the surgical implant is an intraocular lens. (see at least paragraph 0033).
Claim 24
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the surgical implant is an orthopedic implant. (see at least paragraph 0033).
Claim 25
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the product package includes a surgical tool. (see at least paragraph 0033).
Claim 26
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to transmit an inventory of the product over a network to a remote system. (see at least paragraphs 0061 and 0126-0128).
Claim 27
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the remote system comprises a database. (see at least paragraphs 0066 and 0186).
Claim 29
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to:
transmit the request for the unit of the product over a network to a remote system; and receive a response from the remote system, the response including a slot where the unit of product is located. (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128 and 0131-0133).
Claim 30
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the remote system comprises a database. (see at least paragraphs 0066 and 0186).
Claim 31
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
A modular inventory management system comprising:
a first inventory management cabinet according to claim 1; (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
a second inventory management cabinet according to claim 1; and (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
a human machine interface (HMI) configured to provide a communication interface between a user and the first and second inventory management cabinets. (see at least paragraphs 0029 and 0035).
Claim 33
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inventory management cabinet is an inventory management cabinet according to claim 1. (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
Claim 34
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
further comprising providing the inventory management cabinet according to claim 1. (see at least paragraphs 0127-0128).
Claim 36
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one motion sensor is an infrared or microwave sensor (see at least paragraph 0075).
Claim 37
Furthermore, Hawkins discloses the following limitations:
wherein the activity that is detected within the storage area of the housing includes a presence of a user’s body part entering the storage area of the housing (see at least paragraph 0075 and 0127).
As per claims 32 and 35, claims 32 and 35 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15-27 and 29-37 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627