DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 05/11/2026.
Claims 1, 7-8, 13-14 and 18-19 have been amended.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 05/11/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 15-27.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the generate, convert, determine, calculate, command, transport, compare, transport, perform logic, modify steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto.
The Applicant contends that claims 1, 14 and 19 are directed to a technological improvement involving SKU processing, automated guide vehicles (AGVs), and interfacing with multiple external systems. However, when considered as a whole, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of inventory management and product handling using generic computer implementation.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 14 and 19 recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The claims recite generating SKU lists, determining product locations, comparing identifiers, assessing discrepancies, modifying identifiers, and routing products for scrapping or price conversion. These are commercial and logistical activities that could be performed manually by warehouse personnel using conventional records and inventory procedures. The claimed “logic steps” for assessing SKU discrepancies also encompass observation, evaluation, and decision-making processes capable of performance in the human mind.
The recited AGV-related limitations merely use existing machinery as tools to carry out the abstract inventory-management process. The claim does not recite any specific improvement in AGV hardware, navigation techniques, route optimization algorithms, collision avoidance, control architecture, or communication protocols. Instead, the claim generically states that the external system “calculate[s] an optimal combination of automated guide vehicles (AGVs) and transport paths” and commands the AGVs accordingly. Merely invoking generic optimization and automation technology to perform an abstract business process does not render the claim patent eligible. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information using generic computers remains abstract).
Similarly, the recitation that the interface converts requests into formats associated with different external systems does not improve computer technology itself. The claims merely describe generic middleware or protocol-conversion functionality that enables communication between systems. Data formatting, message translation, and interoperability between systems are routine computer networking functions that do not amount to a technological improvement. The claims do not recite any specific data structure, protocol improvement, or unconventional communication mechanism.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited “memory,” “processor,” “interface,” “user device,” and “external system” are generic computing components recited at a high level of generality. These elements merely automate the underlying abstract business process of warehouse inventory management and SKU verification. Automating a longstanding manual process using generic computer technology does not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
The claims also fail to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. The focus of the claims are not on improving computer performance, reducing network latency, improving database operation, or enhancing AGV technology, but instead on using conventional computer systems and warehouse equipment as tools to manage products and inventory decisions more efficiently. Any alleged efficiency improvement arises from the abstract business workflow itself rather than from a technological improvement to the computer components.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Generic processors and memory performing data processing functions, interfaces transmitting and converting requests, external systems determining locations, user devices comparing identifiers, and AGVs transporting products were all conventional activities at the time of filing.
Further, the ordered combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims merely arrange conventional computer components in their ordinary capacities to implement the inventory-management process. The mere delegation of location determination and AGV coordination to an external system does not supply an inventive concept because distributing abstract processing tasks across networked systems is itself conventional.
The claims lack any specific technological mechanism or improvement comparable to those found eligible in cases such as McRO or Enfish. Unlike Enfish, the present claims do not recite a specific improvement to database structure or computer operation. Unlike McRO, the claims do not recite a specific rules-based technological process that improves machine functionality. Instead, the claim broadly recites desired results — such as determining locations, calculating optimal combinations, and converting request formats — without reciting a specific technological means for achieving those results.
Accordingly, claims 1, 14 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above arguments.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC§ 103 rejection of claims 1-22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The reason to withdraw the prior art rejection of claims 1-22 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination of any prior art without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 and 21-22 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 14-18 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 19-20 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 14 and 19 recite the abstract idea of product scrapping and product processing, see specification [001].
1) These claims recite limitations that describe managing inventory; identifying products; determining locations of products; comparing identifiers; assessing discrepancies; and routing products for scrapping or price conversion. These limitations constitute commercial or business interaction involving inventory management and product processing, and steps of following rules or instructions to manage inventory, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
2) Additionally, the steps of comparing a registered SKU identifier with a physical SKU identifier, assessing discrepancies, and modifying identifiers according to logic steps can be practically performed in human mind or with pen and paper and therefore also recite mental process. For example: the limitations of “generate a list of stock keeping units (SKUs)”, “determine a location identifier associated with each SKU”, “compare … the registered SKU identifier with a physical SKU identifier”, “perform logic steps to assess the corresponding SKU”, and “modify the registered SKU identifier according to results of the performed logic steps” describes collecting, analyzing, comparing, and updating inventory information, which is abstract idea. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: computer-implemented system, a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, interface, an external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), at least one terminal a user device associated with the at least one terminal,
Claim 14: computer, system, interface, external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), at least one terminal a user device associated with the at least one terminal,
Claim 19: computer-implemented system, a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, interface, external system, at least one automated guided vehicle (AGV), least one terminal, user device associated with the at least one terminal, data structure,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations are described at a high level of generality and perform activities such as storing data, transmitting requests, converting formats, receiving information, and issuing commands. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, networking technology, AGV control technology, or interface technology. Instead, the computer components are used merely as tools to implement the abstract inventory-management process.
Claims 1, 14 and 19: recitation of
1) “command the AGVs to retrieve each SKU based on the calculated optimal combination and transport paths,”. The additional recitation of AGVs retrieving and transporting SKUs also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims merely invoke AGVs as generic machinery instructed to carry out the inventory-management decisions. The claims do not recite any specific technological improvement to AGV operation, navigation, routing algorithms, or machine control. Rather, the AGVs are used as conventional tools to execute the abstract business logic.
2) “the interface is configured to convert the request into a format associated with any of the plurality of types of external systems” merely describes generic data formatting or protocol translation, which is a routine computer networking function and does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Likewise, offloading “location management” to an external system merely allocates the abstract processing among generic computer systems and does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount only to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. Using generic processors, interfaces, external systems, and user devices to collect, process, compare, and transmit inventory information represents routine computer implementation of an abstract idea. Similarly, using AGVs to retrieve and transport products according to generated instructions constitutes conventional automation of warehouse operations. see: Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Accordingly, Claims 1, 14 and 19, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and conventional warehouse automation technology. Therefore, claims 1, 14 and 19 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-18 and 20 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 19 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-13, 15-18 and 20 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 19 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 10: computer-implemented system,
Claim 5: computer-implemented system, external system, user device associated with the at least one terminal,
Claim 6: computer-implemented system, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, mobile receptacle,
Claim 7: at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, the AGV,
Claim 8: computer-implemented system, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, mobile receptacle, the AGV,
Claim 9: computer-implemented system, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions,
Claim 11: computer-implemented system, user device,
Claim 12: computer-implemented system, mobile receptacle, external system,
Claim 13: computer-implemented system, the AGV, external system,
Claims 15, 16, 17: computer,
Claim 18: computer, mobile receptacle, the AGV,
Claim 20: external system,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of product scrapping and product processing, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-22, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 05/11/2026. The claims 1-22, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in any prior art. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections above in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-22 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights