DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments filed 9/9/2025. Claims 1-4 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 7/52023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to perform the functional limitations of means for associating, assigning, designating, identifying, calculating, determining, indicating, specifying, defining, encoding, displaying, using reporting, ordering, and restoring lack.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 2 limitations means for associating, assigning, designating, identifying, calculating, determining, indicating, specifying, defining, encoding, displaying, using reporting, ordering, and restoring invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 and 4 are processes (methods), claim 3 is a manufacturing, and claim 2 are machines (systems or devices or apparatus).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claims 1-4 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Claim 1: A method for warehouse inventory replenishment, comprising:
providing a kanban card comprising multiple field areas;
associating the kanban card with an internal product line;
assigning a color representative of the internal product line to the kanban card;
designating a supplier for a part associated with the kanban card;
identifying a material type for the part on the kanban card;
calculating a lot size for the part based on lead time, part dimensions, rack clearance, and demand;
determining an appropriate number of kanban cards to support loading levels;
indicating a lead time for purchase orders for the part on the kanban card;
specifying a pallet type for the part on the kanban card;
defining warehouse locations for the part indicated on the kanban card as "pick" and "reserve";
encoding a barcode corresponding to the part number on the kanban card;
displaying a color coded loading level associated with the kanban card;
using the color coded loading level as a visual trigger for inventory shortages;
reporting inventory shortages indicated by the visual trigger to an enterprise resource planning analyst;
ordering additional parts associated with the inventory shortages; and
restoring supply to meet loading level requirements based on the ordered additional parts.
Claim 2: An apparatus for warehouse inventory replenishment, comprising:
a kanban card comprising multiple field areas;
means for associating the kanban card with an internal product line;
means for assigning a color representative of the internal product line to the kanban card;
means for designating a supplier for a part associated with the kanban card;
means for identifying a material type for the part on the kanban card;
means for calculating a lot size for the part based on lead time, part dimensions, rack clearance, and demand;
means for determining an appropriate number of kanban cards to support loading levels;
means for indicating a lead time for purchase orders for the part on the kanban card;
means for specifying a pallet type for the part on the kanban card;
means for defining warehouse locations for the part indicated on the kanban card as "pick" and "reserve";
means for encoding a barcode corresponding to the part number on the kanban card;
means for displaying a color coded loading level associated with the kanban card;
means for using the color coded loading level as a visual trigger for inventory shortages;
means for reporting inventory shortages indicated by the visual trigger to an enterprise resource planning analyst;
means for ordering additional parts associated with the inventory shortages; and means for restoring supply to meet loading level requirements based on the ordered additional parts.
Claim 3: A kanban card for warehouse inventory replenishment, comprising:
a first field area indicating an internal product line associated with the card;
a second field area indicating a supplier for a part associated with the card;
a third field area indicating a material type for the part;
a fourth field area indicating a calculated lot size for the part;
a fifth field area indicating an appropriate number of cards to support loading levels;
a sixth field area indicating a lead time for purchase orders for the part;
a seventh field area indicating a pallet type for the part;
an eighth field area indicating warehouse locations for the part as "pick" and "reserve";
a ninth field area providing a barcode corresponding to the part number;
a tenth field area displaying a color coded loading level associated with the card; and an eleventh field area showing a printed date of the card.
Claim 4: A method for identifying inventory shortages in a warehouse, comprising:
displaying a plurality of kanban cards, each card associated with a warehouse part;
indicating a color coded loading level on each kanban card;
using the color coded loading level as a visual trigger;
identifying a first loading level corresponding to a first color on a kanban card;
identifying a second loading level corresponding to a second color on a kanban card;
recognizing that the second loading level is lower than the first loading level;
reporting a shortage of parts associated with the second loading level to an enterprise resource planning analyst; and
ordering additional parts to restore supply and meet a first loading level requirement.
Claims 1-4 is directed to a series of steps for displaying inventory information on a card, which is a commercial/legal interaction and/or mental process using pen and paper. Thus, grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or mental processes. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the kanban is merely claiming the environment of use and the enterprise resource planning analyst is merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the kanban is merely claiming the environment of use and the enterprise resource planning analyst is amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1-4 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. 2023/0196281 herein referred to as Visagamani.
12. With regards to claims 11, Visagamani teaches the limitations of,
providing a kanban card comprising multiple field areas (See [0025] describing the kanban card.);
associating the kanban card with an internal product line;
assigning a color representative of the internal product line to the kanban card;
designating a supplier for a part associated with the kanban card;
identifying a material type for the part on the kanban card;
calculating a lot size for the part based on lead time, part dimensions, rack clearance, and demand (See [0027]-[0028] discussing the determining of demand based on factors.);
determining an appropriate number of kanban cards to support loading levels;
indicating a lead time for purchase orders for the part on the kanban card;
specifying a pallet type for the part on the kanban card;
defining warehouse locations for the part indicated on the kanban card as "pick" and "reserve";
encoding a barcode corresponding to the part number on the kanban card;
displaying a color coded loading level associated with the kanban card;
using the color coded loading level as a visual trigger for inventory shortages;
reporting inventory shortages indicated by the visual trigger to an enterprise resource planning analyst (See [0028] discussing the triggering of the replenishment.);
ordering additional parts associated with the inventory shortages (See [claim 1] discussing replenishment request.); and
restoring supply to meet loading level requirements based on the ordered additional parts (See [claim 1] discussing replenishment request.).
12. With regards to claim 2, Visagamani teaches the limitations of,
a kanban card comprising multiple field areas (See [0025] describing the kanban card.);
means for associating the kanban card with an internal product line;
means for assigning a color representative of the internal product line to the kanban card;
means for designating a supplier for a part associated with the kanban card;
means for identifying a material type for the part on the kanban card;
means for calculating a lot size for the part based on lead time, part dimensions, rack clearance, and demand;
means for determining an appropriate number of kanban cards to support loading levels;
means for indicating a lead time for purchase orders for the part on the kanban card;
means for specifying a pallet type for the part on the kanban card;
means for defining warehouse locations for the part indicated on the kanban card as "pick" and "reserve";
means for encoding a barcode corresponding to the part number on the kanban card;
means for displaying a color coded loading level associated with the kanban card;
means for using the color coded loading level as a visual trigger for inventory shortages;
means for reporting inventory shortages indicated by the visual trigger to an enterprise resource planning analyst (See [0028] discussing the triggering of the replenishment.);
means for ordering additional parts associated with the inventory shortages (See [claim 1] discussing replenishment request.); and
means for restoring supply to meet loading level requirements based on the ordered additional parts (See [claim 1] discussing replenishment request.).
Claim 3: A kanban card for warehouse inventory replenishment, comprising:
a first field area indicating an internal product line associated with the card (See [0025] describing the kanban card.);
a second field area indicating a supplier for a part associated with the card;
a third field area indicating a material type for the part;
a fourth field area indicating a calculated lot size for the part;
a fifth field area indicating an appropriate number of cards to support loading levels;
a sixth field area indicating a lead time for purchase orders for the part;
a seventh field area indicating a pallet type for the part;
an eighth field area indicating warehouse locations for the part as "pick" and "reserve";
a ninth field area providing a barcode corresponding to the part number;
a tenth field area displaying a color coded loading level associated with the card; and
an eleventh field area showing a printed date of the card.
Claim 4: A method for identifying inventory shortages in a warehouse, comprising:
displaying a plurality of kanban cards (See [0025] describing the kanban card.), each card associated with a warehouse part;
indicating a color coded loading level on each kanban card;
using the color coded loading level as a visual trigger;
identifying a first loading level corresponding to a first color on a kanban card;
identifying a second loading level corresponding to a second color on a kanban card;
recognizing that the second loading level is lower than the first loading level (See [0028] discussing recognizing inventory is running low.);
reporting a shortage of parts associated with the second loading level to an enterprise resource planning analyst (See [0028] discussing the triggering of the replenishment.); and
ordering additional parts to restore supply and meet a first loading level requirement (See [claim 1] discussing replenishment request.).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 8/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is sufficient structure for the 112a rejections. Examiner disagrees. Specifically stating that “For example, the kanban card's barcode and color-coded field areas provide the disclosed structure that performs the functions of ‘encoding,’ ‘displaying,’ and ‘indicating.’ The ERP system provides the structure for ‘reporting,’ ‘ordering,’ and ‘restoring supply.’” The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to perform the functional limitations of means for associating, assigning, designating, identifying, calculating, determining, indicating, specifying, defining, encoding, displaying, using reporting, ordering, and restoring lack. Using encoding for example, the kanban card is not structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function, it may be what is encoded on but not the means by which the encoding is happening. Applicant did not complete the argument for 112b as citations are missing.
Applicant argues under 101 that the claims extend beyond abstract concepts, claims are directed towards a technical improvement, and the inventive concept beyond routine computer implementations. Examiner disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 is directed to was an abstract idea claimed and not evaluation of the additional elements. Step 2A Prong 2 technical improvement is not realized. Applicant claims are improving the abstract idea and not the underlying technology. Color coding is not technical in nature but a way the human mind organizes and adding a barcode to a card is not technical either. The collection of data, analysis of data, and the outputting of data by a computer system is not beyond routine computer implementations.
Applicant argues that Visamani does not disclose three limitations. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has added language for example “closed-loop” to the argument of the claimed language without them being in the claims. Further, Applicant is arguing features determined to be printed matter. Examiner maintains position.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 MPEP §2111.05 states “These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” See Fig. 1 disclosing the data on a kanban card for human reader. Underlined text is viewed as being non-functional printed matter.
Prosecution Insights