DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 09/03/2025. Claims 1-5 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/06/2022.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
All of the units recited in claim 1, at lines 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, and 21. See also independent claim 5 (similar “step of . . .”). There are several units recited, that perform an associated function, and which are not at all tied to a specific structure to perform the function. Accordingly, these units invoke 112(f).
These units are
“a part delivery track record information acquisition unit”
“a simulation unit”
“a recording unit”
“an anomalous state detection unit”
“a part name determination information acquisition unit”
“a part number identifying unit”
“an approach calculation unit”
“a display unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 22 recites “the anomalous state.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as “an anomalous state” has not been recited prior to this, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-4 relate to machine claims; claim 5 is a process claim. These claims satisfy step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claim 1 (and similarly claim 5) recites the following abstract idea:
A part management system comprising:
a part delivery track record information acquisition unit configured to acquire part delivery track record information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Grp.);
a simulation unit configured to execute a simulation of a part storage space based on the acquired part delivery track record information (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) citing Digitech);
a recording unit configured to record stored-parts information of the part storage space based on the simulation (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) citing Digitech organizing and storing the data);
collecting data and detecting anomalous data (crowding out of the stored parts) by matching/comparing known and acquired data (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) can be practically performed in the human mind);
a part number identifying unit configured to identify a part number of each of the respective parts that are in the anomalous state by comparing the acquired part name determination information with the acquired stored-parts information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) can be practically performed in the human mind);
an approach calculation unit configured to acquire logistics operation information of the parts that have the respective part numbers identified by the part number identifying unit and have been detected as being in the anomalous state, and to calculate an approach to be taken for handling the parts that have been detected as being in the anomalous state (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)); and
a display unit configured to display the calculated approach to be taken in handling the parts that have been detected as being in the anomalous state (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Grp.).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination (as a whole), claim 1 (and similarly claim 5) is found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 1 (and 5) is not found to integrate the recited abstract idea with practical application. The additional limitations relate to the following:
“a part delivery track record information acquisition unit”
“a simulation unit”
“a recording unit”
“an anomalous state detection unit”
“a part name determination information acquisition unit”
“a part number identifying unit”
“an approach calculation unit”
“a display unit”
For (a) see “apply it” rationale at MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b) see MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering and outputting at (3) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. For (c) see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) mere data gathering and MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” rationale. For (d) see MPEP 2106.05(a) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. For (e), see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) mere data gathering and MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” rationale. For (f), see MPEP 2106.05(f) selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For (g), see MPEP 2106.05(g) mere data gathering and “apply it” rationale. For (h), see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018). When these additional limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination (as a whole) the examiner finds that claim 1 and 5 are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B - Claim 1 and 5 is not found to recite significantly more. The additional limitation analysis from Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applicable to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The following findings from the MPEP are relevant to the claim limitations of claim 1 and 5:
i. 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. 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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
When viewed in light of these Court-based WURC findings, the examiner maintains that the claims 1, 5 do not recite significantly more, and are directed to abstract idea.
Dependent claims – Claim 2 recites more abstract idea relating to the specifics of the label of the data. Claim 3 recites more abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Claim 4 recites more abstract idea, along with another unit that is recited in an apply it manner. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. 4/18/25); and, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0299995 to Ganapathi et al. (“Ganapathi”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0326658 to Swaroop et al. (“Swaroop”).
With regard to claims 1 and 5, Ganapathi discloses the claimed part (e.g. inventory item(s)) management system comprising:
a part delivery track record information acquisition unit configured to acquire part delivery track record information (see e.g. [0035] where the drone flies and acquires images on a continuous basis and the location can be tracked throughout the process);
a simulation unit configured to execute a simulation of a part storage space based on the acquired part delivery track record information (see e.g. Fig. 2; see also [0052] Provide remote “visualization” of all corners or locations in the warehouse from any client device);
a recording unit configured to record stored-parts information of the part storage space based on the simulation (see e.g. [0066]);
PNG
media_image1.png
206
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an anomalous state detection unit configured to photograph the part storage space to detect parts that are in an anomalous state, where the anomalous state is crowding out of the stored parts (see e.g. Fig. 6 where a box protruding as found to the left, is found by the examiner to read on crowding-out of the stored parts, as the parts are being crowded out by each other and “protruding”; however, the words crowding out are not used and therefore Ganapathi does not teach this aspect of the limitation.);
a part name determination information acquisition unit configured to acquire part name determination information of the parts that have been detected as being in the anomalous state (see e.g. [0058] This can be done using a traditional deep learning model, first by detecting the location of the text box, and then by conducting text recognition within each of the text boxes, also using machine learning models, such as Tesseract. Once the text within each box is identified, the pre-specified character strings from the text that correspond to the text of interest, such as label number, quantity, SKU number, etc. are extracted,);
a part number identifying unit configured to identify a part number of each of the respective parts that are in the anomalous state by comparing the acquired part name determination information with the acquired stored-parts information (see e.g. [0058] SKU number is identified; [0037-38]; [0042]; [0058]);
an approach calculation unit configured to acquire logistics operation information of the parts that have the respective part numbers identified by the part number identifying unit and have been detected as being in the anomalous state, and to calculate an
PNG
media_image2.png
353
208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
approach to be taken for handling the parts that have been detected as being in the anomalous state (see e.g. Fig. 6, Box protruding approach for that specifically known item); and
a display unit configured to display the calculated approach to be taken in handling the parts that have been detected as being in the anomalous state (see e.g. Fig. 1(to the left) and the specific displayed image(s) at Fig. 6, box protruding).
As found above, and as argued by Applicant, Ganapathi does not disclose detecting “crowding out” as the anomalous event. However, this is a common practice in the container management art, for instance. See Swaroop at e.g. abstract, Figs. 4A 404A, Fig 4B 404B, other Figs and associated text, showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the imaging art to detect a crowded out situation, such as detecting in an image that a container is either overfilled, or not-overfilled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the imaging art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recognition system of Ganapathi, as shown in e.g. Fig. 6, to not only show if a box is protruding, but to indicate whether the image shows an overfilled container, or a not-overfilled container. The advantages of this modification (Ganapathi combined with Swaroop’s overfilled container detection and classifying) are shown in Swaroop at e.g. [0003]:
[0003] Identification of overfilled containers is useful in many industries. For example, in the refuse industry, refuse container overages, container damage, and misplacement, may pose complications for refuse collection and customer billing. A refuse collection company may operate a fleet of refuse collection vehicles that operate regularly to collect refuse from the containers of various customers and transport the refuse to a processing site. An overage can occur, for example, when a container is filled above its rim, e.g., causing the lid to not close completely. If a customer consistently overfills their container(s), creating an overage, the refuse collection company may lose revenue by collecting more refuse than the company agreed to collect from the customer. Moreover, an overfilled container may lead to operational problems in the mechanism(s) that empty the container into the vehicle. Contracts between the company and its customers are priced, and the containers are sized, based on an expected amount of refuse to be collected. Accordingly, a refuse collection company typically charges an overage fee for an overfilled container.
With regard to claim 2, Ganapathi further discloses where the part name determination information includes at least one of information on a part storage space, the time of occurrence of the anomalous state of the parts, part name candidates, or volume of the parts that are detected as being in the anomalous state (see e.g. [0064] number of boxes and associated volume in photo are compared; [0060] time and location are matched).
With regard to claim 3, Ganapathi further discloses where the part number identifying unit holds ancillary information including supply destinations of the parts or purpose of use of the parts (see e.g. [0057] rack bin location as a destination).
With regard to claim 4, Ganapathi further discloses where the part name determination information acquisition unit includes: a storage unit configured to store a machine learning device trained by being input with a plurality of training data sets each composed of a combination of an image of the part and a name of the part (e.g. [0058]); and a calculation unit configured to output the part name of the part by inputting a captured image of the part into the trained machine learning device read out from the storage unit (e.g. [0058] Once the text within each box is identified, the pre-specified character strings from the text that correspond to the text of interest, such as label number, quantity, SKU number, etc. are extracted).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 112(f)claim interpretation in this way:
PNG
media_image3.png
106
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See Remarks (9/3/25), page 5. This is a little unclear to the examiner. The examiner invoked 112(f) for claim interpretation purposes. The examiner has withdrawn the 112 rejections based on this finding. The examiner has introduced new 112 rejection based on the amended language.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has amended the 101 rejection to address the arguments and amendments of Applicant in Remarks 9/3/25. Accordingly, as indicated above, the examiner does not find these arguments/amendments to be persuasive and maintains that the claims not only recite abstract idea, but are directed to abstract idea.
For the 102 rejection, the examiner has converted this into a 103 rejection based on the amendments provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627