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 05/08/2026.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 05/08/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 8-9, that:
“Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Office Action, pp. 2-6.
Without conceding the merits of the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101-and solely to expedite prosecution-Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 14, and 20.
Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite patentable subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that amended independent claims 1, 14 and 20 now recite patent-eligible subject matter and requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC § 101. However, applicant does not identify how the amendments alter the eligibility analyses previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action, not does applicant explain why the amended limitation are no longer directed to a judicial exception.
The amendments do not change the character of the claims as whole. The amended claims remain directed to collecting manufacturing information, determining required manufacturing materials based on the current manufacturing process step, identifying a corresponding storage compartment and detecting material withdrawal, which recite a method of organizing human activity and alternatively, mental processes. The additional limitations merely refine the inventory-management process and do not improve the functioning of the material storage container, sensors, server, or any other technology. Accordingly, the amendments do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection under the 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 USC § 103 over the stated combinations of Chambers and Bossi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Phillips et al. (US20220165109A1, hereinafter “Phillips”) in view of Nixon et al. (US20140277605A1, hereinafter “Nixon”). Therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new references, combinations of Phillips in view of Nixon to teach the new limitations of claims 1-6 and 8-20. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6, 8-13 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 14-19 recite a material storage container, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 20 is recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
1) The independent claims 1, 14 and 20 recite a judicial exception in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity, namely managing inventory. The claims recite operations of authorizing access to a material storage container, receiving a manufacturing lot identifier, determining a current manufacturing process step associated with the manufacturing lot, determining one or more materials associated with that process step, identifying one or more storage compartments storing the determined materials, and providing indications of those storage compartments to facilitate retrieval of the materials. These operations collectively manage the selection, location, and distribution of inventory items needed for a manufacturing process. Such operations constitute inventory planning, inventory allocation, and inventory retrieval decisions that are characteristic of inventory management and therefore fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (II).
2) Additionally, the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and decision-making.
Specifically: the limitations that describe the abstract idea: “authorizing a user to access a material storage container …”, “receiving … a manufacturing lot identifier..”, “transmitting an indication of the manufacturing lot identifier …”, “receiving … an indication of a current process step in a manufacturing process”, “determining … a manufacturing material … based on the indication of the current process step and based on referencing an internal database”, “indicating … a storage compartment … storing the manufacturing material”, and “detecting … whether the user withdrew material from the storage compartment indicated by the material storage container”. Such activities constitute collecting information, analyzing the information according to predetermined criteria, making a selection based upon the analysis, and communicating the result. These operations can practically be performed mentally or with pen and paper by a person consulting manufacturing instructions, process documentation, and material storage records. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1, 14 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
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: managing system comprising a server, internal database, material storage container, storage compartments, using one or more sensors coupled with the storage compartment,
Claim 14: storage compartments, a processor, a managing system comprising a server, an internal database, and one or more sensors coupled with the storage compartments,
Claim 20: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of a material storage container, cause the material storage container, a managing system comprising a server, an internal database, and one or more sensors coupled with the storage compartment,
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 claim therefore merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, namely a manufacturing parts utilizing material storage system, and generally applies the abstract idea using generic technological components. Such limitations do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1, 14 and 20 are directed to abstract idea as the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
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).
Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide a technological improvement or otherwise transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Rather, they implement the abstract idea using generic technological components performing their expected functions.
Accordingly, claims 1, 14 and 20 do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore 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 2-6, 8-13 and 15-19 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 15-19: the processor,
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 managing inventory of materials removed and/or placed in compartments, 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 1-6 and 8-20, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US20220165109A1, hereinafter “Phillips”) in view of Nixon et al. (US20140277605A1, hereinafter “Nixon”).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20. Phillips discloses a method, comprising:
authorizing a user to access a material storage container (Phillips discloses a user swipes his badge to access tool storage based on previously set access rights, see [0043], multi-factor authentication, see [0044], teaches authorization levels for users on the tool control tool storage device, see [0037], as only authenticated or authorized users are able to access to the contents of the drawers, see [0050]) that comprises a plurality of storage compartments (Phillips shows and teaches storage units that include multiple storage drawers, see FIGS. 1A and 1B, see [0048-0051], [0034]; “an inventory control system for monitoring the removal and replacement of objects has at least one drawer or tray including storage locations for storing objects”);
receiving, from the user, a manufacturing lot identifier for (Phillips discloses read work order’s barcode by inventory control system, see [0125]) manufacturing a part; (Phillips discloses user scan a work order barcode, the written work order to describe the work to be done, the location of the work, the work orders may include a bar code or other identifying mark, that identify a work location and required tool list, see [0042], and the inventory control system may require the work location to be chosen after the user has swiped his badge across the systems card reader, see [0042-0043], [0213])
transmitting an indication of the manufacturing lot identifier to a managing system, comprising a server, that is associated with controlling or monitoring manufacture of the part; (Phillips discloses the work order may also be sent from a networked device such as a manager's computer or a central server 1540 to the inventory control system 1510, [0215])
receiving, from the managing system and based on the manufacturing lot identifier, an indication (Phillips discloses selecting section of work location and/or selecting level of work product, see [0043], the work order is associated with work instruction, inspection forms, required documentation, work location, required tool lists, see [0042-0043] and [0213], and the inventory control system can be equipped with a touch screen monitor, the system is capable of displaying work locations to be selected by the user, see [0043]);
determining, at the material storage container, a manufacturing material (Phillips discloses [0114]; “an exemplary digital image 1100 of a drawer or tray with a visual contrast element 1110 being applied to a target location image 1112 to identify the target object 1114”) for manufacturing the part (selected work locations, see [0043]) and based on referencing an internal database (Phillips discloses the inventory control system 1000 also includes a data processor, the data processor may identify the target location image associated with the target object. The target location image may include an image of a drawer or a tray housing the target object, the target location image may take several form, or identify the coordinates associated with the target object, see [0106-0110], and [0117])
indicating, by the material storage container, a storage compartment, of the plurality of storage compartments, storing the manufacturing material; and (Phillips discloses upon identifying the coordinates of the target object, the processor may apply a visual contrast element to the target location image at the identified coordinates associated with the target object to draw the user's attention to the target object. The visual contrast element may include graphics configured to draw a user's attention to the target object, see [0111], or displays a 2-D top-down model view of inside of the drawer or tray showing the storage location of the inventory item, [0119])
detecting, using one or more sensors coupled with the storage compartment, whether the user withdrew material from the storage compartment indicated by the material storage container. (Phillips discloses storage drawers include image sensors, contact sensors, optical sensors, or other sensors that determine presence/absence or objects, before/after images and sensor outputs determine which storage location has had an object removed, see Figs 3, 6A-6C, 9A-9D, [0072], [0089] and [0148]).
Phillips substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Phillips fails to explicitly disclose that the notification or indication is “of a current process step in a manufacturing process for manufacturing the part” and determining storage “based on the indication of the current process step”. However, Nixon teaches:
of a current process step in a manufacturing process (Nixon taches a work item, which including determining the task to be completed or continued, and displaying selected work item data, such as any area, equipment , devices, or parameter associated with the context item, on a UI device 112 for the worker, see [0116], [0187]) for manufacturing the part (Nixon teaches once the user ID has been provided, the server 150 may identify the data associated with the user ID (block 1320), After identifying data associated with the provided user ID, the server 150 may determine whether the UI device 112 is requesting to resume work flow from a previous session (block 1325), The server 150 may transmit the recent session data to the UI device 112 (block 1350). When the server 150 receives a particular session associated with the request to resume workflow, the server 150 may identify the stored session data for that particular session (stored in the memory 1203 of the server 150 shown in FIG. 12A, for example) as the data for the “target session” that will be provided to the UI device 112 (block 1345). The server 150 may transmit the particular session data to the UI device 112 (block 1350), [0182-0184])
determining storage “based on the indication of the current process step” (Nixon teaches once a selection of a work item has been took place, the process continue to determining from the selected work item one or more items required for the execution of the work item (block 710). A checklist is generated of the one or more items for display to a person executing the work item (block 715), including indicating a location of a target piece of equipment within the process plant, see Fig. 7, [0116])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the notification or indication of Phillips to be of a current process step in a manufacturing process for manufacturing the part, as taught by Nixon, and modify determining storage of Phillips can be based on the indication of the current process step, as taught by Nixon, where this would be performed in order to track the progress of the task. See Nixon [0049].
Regarding claims 2 and 15. claims 2 and 15 recites operations that are no more than a predictable variation or duplication of the operations recited in claims 1, 14 and 20, albeit with receiving so-called “a second manufacturing material”, “second storage compartment” Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claims 3 and 16. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a second manufacturing material for disposal based on one or more disposal criteria; and indicating the storage compartment with the second manufacturing material for disposal. (Phillips, [0127-0128]; “a user identified as a floor supervisor could have visual feedback to identify items that have not been returned within the current shift … The memory may include information indication that the tools associated with the floor supervisor include tools that have not been returned within the current shift … the system 1000 displays only items that have not been returned to the inventory control system 1000 to the floor supervisor … find the appropriate storage location to return the inventory within the system 1000”)
Regarding claims 4 and 17. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a manufacturing material identifier for a second manufacturing material; selecting, from a set of the plurality of storage compartments available to receive the second manufacturing material, a second storage compartment for depositing the second manufacturing material based on the manufacturing material identifier; and indicating the second storage compartment for depositing the second manufacturing material. (Phillips discloses identifying tool storage locations for issues tool to be returned to a tool storage device, the instant application describes an effective inventory control system that improves efficiencies and reduces time spent in identifying tool storage locations for issued tools to be returned, tools incorrectly issued to the user, tools due for calibration and inspection, tools out for calibrations and inspection, broken tools, lost tools, and to identify tool storage locations in simple tool searches, see [0105-0106], receiving a selection of the target object from the processor of the inventory control system responsive to the user returning a tool to the tool storage device and displays the visual contrast element applied to the target location image at the target object coordinates on the display 1005 of the inventory control system 1000 to draw a user's attention to the target object (Step 1218), see [0137-0139])
Regarding claims 5 and 18. claims 5 and 18 recites operations that are no more than a predictable variation or duplication of the operations recited in claims 1, 14 and 20, albeit with receiving so-called “a second manufacturing material”, “second storage compartment” Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claims 6 and 19. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 5, further comprising: receiving, based on transmitting the indication, an indication of a second material storage container that has the second manufacturing material; and indicating the second material storage container to the user. (Phillips discloses the inventory control system 1000 also includes a data processor, the data processor may identify the target location image associated with the target object. The target location image may include an image of a drawer or a tray housing the target object, the target location image may take several form, or identify the coordinates associated with the target object, see [0106-0110], and [0117], albeit with receiving so-called “a second manufacturing material”, “second material storage container” Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.)
Regarding claim 8. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting withdrawal of a second manufacturing material from a second storage compartment different than the manufacturing material indicated for withdrawal based on sensor information from a sensor of the material storage container; and triggering an alarm (Phillips discloses Fig. 14C illustrates an exemplary user interface for showing a missing tool within a pallet 1412, see [0167]) based on detecting withdrawal of the second manufacturing material. (Phillips discloses when “Forensics On” is chosen, the ATC invokes the complex filtering algorithms and applies them to the available data, For example, if at the end of a shift during a scheduled toolbox audit, tool “Pick, Radiator Hose, Soft Grip, 10.30” is missing from drawer or tray 3 in the box named “Mechanical Lab,” the administrator user right clicks on the issued tool line item displayed on the screen for tool “Pick, Radiator Hose, Soft Grip, 10.30”. The Forensics on/Forensics off pop-up block appears and the user checks Forensics on (see FIG. 20), see [0262-0274], albeit with receiving so-called “a second manufacturing material”, “second storage compartment” Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.)
Regarding claim 9. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising: capturing an image of the user based on detecting withdrawal of the second manufacturing material. (Phillips, [0079]; “system 300 includes a user camera that captures and stores image of the person accessing storage system 300 each time access is authorized. For each access by a user, system 300 determines an inventory condition and generates a report including associating the determined inventory condition with access information”)
Regarding claim 10. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting deposition of a second manufacturing material into a second storage compartment based on sensor information from a sensor of the material storage container; and triggering an alarm based on detecting deposition of the second manufacturing material. (Phillips discloses when “Forensics On” is chosen, the ATC invokes the complex filtering algorithms and applies them to the available data, For example, if at the end of a shift during a scheduled toolbox audit, tool “Pick, Radiator Hose, Soft Grip, 10.30” is missing from drawer or tray 3 in the box named “Mechanical Lab,” the administrator user right clicks on the issued tool line item displayed on the screen for tool “Pick, Radiator Hose, Soft Grip, 10.30”. The Forensics on/Forensics off pop-up block appears and the user checks Forensics on (see FIG. 20), see [0262-0274])
Regarding claim 11. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: granting access to the material storage container based at least in part authorizing the user to access the material storage container. (Phillips discloses access control device 306 is integrated with display 305. User information for authentication purpose may be input through display device with touch screen functions, face detection cameras, fingerprint readers, retinal scanners or any other types of devices used for verifying a user's authorization to access storage system 300, see [0056], authorization levels, [0094], a user is authorized access to group 850, the user has access to all storage systems within group 850, see [0097])
Regarding claim 12. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, wherein indicating the storage compartment comprises:
activating a light-emitting component associated with the storage compartment; or (Phillips discloses receive a request for identifying a target object, Upon identifying the coordinates of the target object, the processor may apply a visual contrast element to the target location image at the identified coordinates associated with the target object to draw the user's attention to the target object, [0108-0111], [0117])
displaying an indication of the storage compartment on an electronic display. (Phillips discloses upon identifying the coordinates of the target object, the processor may apply a visual contrast element to the target location image at the identified coordinates associated with the target object to draw the user's attention to the target object. The visual contrast element may include graphics configured to draw a user's attention to the target object, see [0111], or displays a 2-D top-down model view of inside of the drawer or tray showing the storage location of the inventory item, [0119])
Regarding claim 13. The combination of Phillips in view of Nixon disclose the method of claim 1, wherein [[the]] one or more criteria for selecting the storage compartment comprise (Phillips, [0127-0128]; “a user identified as a floor supervisor could have visual feedback to identify items that have not been returned within the current shift … The memory may include information indication that the tools associated with the floor supervisor include tools that have not been returned within the current shift … the system 1000 displays only items that have not been returned to the inventory control system 1000 to the floor supervisor … find the appropriate storage location to return the inventory within the system 1000”)
Conclusion
1. 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 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.
2. 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