DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final office action on the merits in application number 18/554,399. This action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments dated 6/10/26. Claims 5-7 were amended and Claims 1-4, 8-15 and 19 were cancelled. Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Specification
The previously cited objections regarding “background” and “shelves” are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amended specification.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The previous rejections related to “the target component” and “the component storage” are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claims 5-7 and dependent claims 16-18 each recite an apparatus (machine) that includes a processor, thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Independent Claim 5:
A component warehousing support apparatus that supports warehousing of a component into each of a plurality of component storages in which a warehoused component is stored and from which a component is delivered in response to a request, comprising: processing circuitry configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of production plans, a usage quantity of a target component to be mounted on a board; acquire a stock quantity indicating a number of target components to be warehoused, which are actually stored in each of the component storages, for each of the plurality of component storages; associate the plurality of production plans with different component storages, respectively; calculate, for each of the plurality of component storages, an ideal number of the target component based on the usage quantity of the target component in the production plan; and determine, for each of the plurality of component storages, a priority for warehousing the target component based on a difference between the ideal number and the stock quantity.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
These elements recite:
determining anticipated usage of a component based on a production plan,
determining the quantity of a component already stored in a storage location,
linking the storage location of a component with the production plan,
determining the ideal storage capacity of the storage location based on anticipated usage of the component by the production plan,
for putting away newly incoming components, prioritize between storage locations based on space available (difference between ideal storage capacity and quantity already in that location).
These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a manufacturer to store items needed for production and to find storage space for incoming new stock by determining space available in a storage area by taking into account stock already there and anticipated usage of the stock.
Claim 5 thus recites an abstract idea. Dependent Claim 16 also recites an abstract idea due to its dependency on Claim 5.
Applicant recites the following elements in Independent Claim 6:
A component warehousing support apparatus that supports warehousing of a component into each of a plurality of component storages in which a warehoused component is stored and from which a component is delivered in response to a request, comprising: processing circuitry configured to divide a plurality of component setting positions, included in a component supply trolley, into a plurality of divisions; associate the plurality of divisions with the plurality of component storages, respectively; acquire a stock quantity indicating a number of target components to be warehoused, which are actually stored in each of the component storages, for each of the plurality of component storages; calculate, for each of the plurality of component storages, an ideal number of the target component in the component storage on the basis of the number of target components to be set at the component setting positions belonging to the division corresponding to the component storage; and determine, for each of the plurality of component storages, a priority for warehousing the target component based on a difference between the ideal number and the stock quantity.
These elements recite:
dividing component storage locations into storage sections based on items used by a component feeder device,
determining the quantity of a component already stored in a storage section,
determining the ideal storage capacity of the storage section based on anticipated usage of the component by the component feeder device,
for putting away newly incoming components, prioritize between storage sections based on space available (difference between ideal storage capacity and quantity already in that storage section).
These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a manufacturer to use component feeder devices and to store items in sections to optimally feed the feeder and to determine space available in a storage section to accommodate newly added items.
Claim 6 thus recites an abstract idea. Dependent Claim 17 also recites an abstract idea due to its dependency on Claim 6.
Applicant recites the following elements in Independent Claim 7:
A component warehousing support apparatus that supports warehousing of a component into each of a plurality of component storages in which a warehoused component is stored and from which a component is delivered in response to a request, comprising: processing circuitry configured to expect, for each of a plurality of feeders, a timing at which a component shortage of a target component occurs when the target component is supplied by a feeder from a component holding member and mounted on a board; set the component storage from which the component to be replenished is planned to be delivered in response to an occurrence of the component shortage, on the basis of an order of occurrence of the component shortage, such that two component holding members, being to be replenished to a feeder in response to component shortages expected to occur in succession, are stored in different component storages in advance; calculate a number of the target component to be replenished from each of the component storages in response to the occurrence of the component shortage; acquire a surplus stock quantity of the target component, surplus stock being obtained by subtracting a planned usage quantity from the actual stock quantity in the component storage; set a planned replenishment quantity of the target component from each of the component storages as an ideal number of the target component in each of the component storages; and determine, for each of the plurality of component storages, a priority for warehousing the target component based on a difference between the surplus stock quantity and the ideal number.
These elements recite:
determining an order of usage of components in production
determining an order of removal of the components from storage to avoid shortage
replenishing parts in component feeder devices
coordinating the stocking of and the feeding from two feeders which contain the same components
determining that there are extra components in storage over those needed to replenish parts in component feeder devices
for putting away newly incoming components, prioritize between storage sections based on space available (difference between ideal storage capacity and the extra components still in that storage section).
These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a manufacturer use component feeder devices, to determine anticipated quantity needed for production and when they will be needed, to store items in sections to optimally feed the feeder and to determine space available in a storage section to accommodate newly added items.
Claim 7 thus recites an abstract idea. Dependent Claim 18 also recites an abstract idea due to its dependency on Claim 7.
Thus, Claims 5-7 and 16-18 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, Independent Claim 5 also recites the following additional elements:
component storage - an example of a component storage is described in Applicant’s specification at [0053] as a box with shelves (as illustrated in Fig 2). As claimed in Claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed component storage is any general purpose storage capable of storing reels with no special features or technologies.
component - an example of a component is described in Applicant’s specification at [0053] as “chip-like electronic components such as an integrated circuit, a transistor, a capacitor or the like”. As claimed in Claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed component is a general purpose component with no special features or technologies.
processing circuitry/computer – Although Applicant does not use the term “processing circuitry” in the specification, Applicant recites a computer in at least [0049] that appears to perform the same function as the claimed processing circuitry. Examiner notes that Applicant claims a “computer” that performs the same function in Independent Claim 11. Applicant describes a computer in at least [0050] as a general purpose computer with no special features or technologies.
Independent Claim 6 also recites component supply trolley – this item is described in [00232] as a simple mechanical device that holds component reels with no dimensions, special features or technologies claimed nor disclosed in the specification. This item is represented in Fig 3 (item “4”) as a box with no function or technical detail.
Independent Claim 7 also recites feeder – this item is described in [00232] as a simple mechanical device that transfers carrier tape with no dimensions, special features or technologies claimed nor disclosed in the specification. This item is represented in Fig 3 (item “5”) as a box with no function or technical detail.
Independent Claim 7 also recites component holding member –this item is described in [00108] as a component supply reel R. Component supply reel is described in [00526] as a simple mechanical device that holds carrier tape with no special features or technologies claimed nor disclosed in the specification. This item is represented in Fig 3 (item “R”) as a box with no function or technical detail.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
As discussed, the additional elements component storage, component, processing circuitry/computer, component supply trolley, feeder and component holding member are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Independent Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of acquiring information relating to a quantity of chips to be stored in a storage location and determining which storage location the chips should go to based on how many chips are already stored there. As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of: component storage, component, processing circuitry/computer, component supply trolley, feeder and component holding member
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed component storage, component, processing circuitry/computer, component supply trolley, feeder and component holding member are hardware recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus component storage, component, processing circuitry/computer, component supply trolley, feeder and component holding member are not significantly more. The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 16-18 further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the output and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 5-7, respectively. These claims also recite a display but this element is described in Applicant’s specification as a “display or the like…(such as) a touch panel”. A display is therefore interpreted as a general purpose computer display with no special features or technologies.
Examiner notes Example 46 “Livestock Management” of Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences and Data Processing Examples in the 2019 PEG. In Example 46, Claim 1 recites a general purpose computer and data. This claim also recites detailed information about the data including the intended use of the data. Claim 1 does not impose any limitations on how the data is obtained or how the calculations are performed. Claim 1 was found to not be patent eligible. Example 46 Claim 2, in contrast, claims special purpose hardware elements that perform specific functions as a direct result of the data gathering and calculations and meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Claim 2 was found to be eligible. In Applicant’s case, the additional elements of component supply trolley, feeder and component holding member, as currently claimed, do not further limit the abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 2 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2B because they are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any dimensions, special features or technologies and, thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As presently claimed, these elements are descriptive with no specified function and do not have a material effect on the primary inventive concept of finding the appropriate storage space for incoming new stock by determining space available in a storage area by taking into account stock already there and anticipated usage of the stock.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
After a diligent search Examiner is not able to find a prior art reference or a combination of references that teach the particular combination of elements claimed in Claims 5-7 and 16-18. Examiner notes that these claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 and applicant will need to overcome the 101 rejection in order for these claims to be allowed.
The closest prior art is:
U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0106121 (Puite) – this reference teaches an Automatic Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) with a sequencing tower and teaches assignment of inbound stock to “different ASRS aisles” (see at least [0063]), and teaches assigning orders to ASRS systems based on the one with the greatest remaining storage/buffer capability (see at least [0049]). Puite does not teach a production plan nor determining an ideal storage capacity of a storage location based on anticipated usage of a component by a production plan. Puite further does not teach a component feeding device nor dividing component storage locations into sections based on components used by a component feeding device nor determine ideal storage capacity based on anticipated usage by the component feeding device. Puite further does not teach determining an order of removal from storage nor coordinating the stocking of and the feeding from two component feeding device nor teach prioritizing between storage sections when putting stock away based on space available being the difference between ideal storage capacity and extra components left over from a previous loading of component feeding devices.
U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0156536 (Alfandary) – this reference teaches indicating a candidate of a warehousing destination of the target component from among the plurality of component storages (see at least [0056-0057]). Alfandary does not teach a production plan nor determining an ideal storage capacity of a storage location based on anticipated usage of a component by a production plan. Alfandary further does not teach a component feeding device nor dividing component storage locations into sections based on components used by a component feeding device nor determine ideal storage capacity based on anticipated usage by the component feeding device. Alfandary further does not teach determining an order of removal from storage nor coordinating the stocking of and the feeding from two component feeding device nor teach prioritizing between storage sections when putting stock away based on space available being the difference between ideal storage capacity and extra components left over from a previous loading of component feeding devices.
U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0012566 (Cartwright) – this reference teaches a warehouse management and inventory system for spares and teaches automatic balancing of spares between storage locations using rules based on usage (see at least [0109]). Cartwright does not teach a production plan nor determining an ideal storage capacity of a storage location based on anticipated usage of a component by a production plan. Cartwright further does not teach a component feeding device nor dividing component storage locations into sections based on components used by a component feeding device nor determine ideal storage capacity based on anticipated usage by the component feeding device. Cartwright further does not teach determining an order of removal from storage nor coordinating the stocking of and the feeding from two component feeding device nor teach prioritizing between storage sections when putting stock away based on space available being the difference between ideal storage capacity and extra components left over from a previous loading of component feeding devices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights