DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 2/10/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 4, amendments to claims 1-3, 5 and 8-11 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The amendments overcome the 101 step 1 rejections. The scope of the additional elements, apparatuses, reader device reading RF tags, and server is seen as including general purpose technology in its ordinary capacity. Used in combination, they are seen as monitoring replacement of components of the apparatus and logging the activity. This is seen as inventory management, and not meaningfully limiting the claim, since even in combination the additional elements are performing in such a way as to apply the idea to a computing environment.
Unno and Ormond are maintained to teach the limitations from previously cancelled claim 4 that are now in the independent claims. Clarifying citations have been added to augment the original citations of the art’s teachings. Unno teaches detection of replacement consumables needed and monitoring and logging said replacement. Ormond teaches using RF technology in apparatuses to scan items. It also teaches, in para. 81, logging of replacement of consumables. These teachings read on the respective claimed limitations.
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 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):
(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.
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,) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: the claimed manager, obtainer, and determiner in claims 1 and 11, as well as an order placer in claim 5, a predictor in claim 8, and a billing issuer in claim 9. Based on the claim amendments and application disclosure, these limitations are interpreted as software run on the claimed processor.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 § 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: managing an aggregated inventory, obtaining consumption information, determining necessity of replacement based on information, and updating stock records based on replacement. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including order fulfillment and inventory management. Additionally, the claims cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a plurality of apparatuses, a reader device that reads RF tags, a server, processor and memory, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, 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, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a date of usage start, and determining a period of time has elapsed since start, and determining replacement of item based on elapsed time. Claim 3 recites a remaining amount of item, and replacing item when remaining amount falls below a threshold.
Claim 5 recites a storage that stores an order quantity and minimum aggregated stock quantity. Said storage’s scope includes transitory computer storage, analogue storage, and mental storage. Claim 5 also recites an order placer, placing an order, transmitting to a terminal order information. This includes humans, managing human behavior, and sales activities. A broadly claimed terminal is seen as applying technology in its ordinary capacity to perform said abstract idea(s).
Claim 6 recites non-positively recited, broadly claim computer components such as an input and output device, as well as human behavior and computer elements in their ordinary capacity to perform managing ordering instructions and ordering items. Claim 7 recites storing order date. Claim 8 recites a storage as in claim 5, as well as a predictor and order placer, which scope includes broadly claimed computing technology. Storing information, predicting a required time to replace an item, based on consumption data, and ordering items at said time is part of said abstract idea(s). Claim 9 recites a billing issuer which has similar scope of other aforementioned elements. Performing a billing process, as claimed, is seen as part of said abstract idea performed by broadly claimed computing technology operating in its ordinary capacities. Claim 10 recites following rules or instructions, and outputting data. This is seen as part of said abstract idea(s).
For these reasons, the claims are not subject matter eligible.
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 1-3, 5-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno (US 2021/0220997) in view of Ormond (US 2012/0176636).
Claims 1 and 11. Unno teaches a stock management system performing stock management of consumable items, the stock management system comprising:
a plurality of apparatuses provided at a production site (para. 115 of Unno for factory setting; para. 65 showing apparatuses)
a server, coupled to the plurality of apparatuses, including a processor and a memory, the processor being configured to execute: (para. 119 showing server connected to apparatuses)
a manager that manages a stock quantity of consumable items used in each of the apparatuses, on a predetermined management aggregation basis; (para. 115 consumables inspection robot in a factory)
an obtainer that obtains consumable item information pertaining to a consumption degree of the consumable items used in each of the apparatuses, from each of the apparatuses; and (para. 115 said robot inspects levels of consumption)
a determiner that determines necessity of replacement of any of the consumable items, based on the consumable item information about the consumable item obtained by the obtainer, (para. 22 showing determination of replacement needs by robot)
wherein based on actual replacement of the consumable item determined to have the necessity of replacement by the determiner, the manager updates the stock quantity in a management aggregation to which the consumable item belongs. (para. 114 showing update of inventory record after replacement)
wherein, upon the reader device of the apparatus that uses a first consumable item determined to have the necessity of replacement to a second piece of the consumable item to be used for replacement during actual replacement of the first piece of the consumable item, the reader device transmits, to the manager, replacement information indicating that the first piece of the consumable item has been replaced with the second piece of the consumable item, and (para. 32 showing reader device collecting information about objects) (para. 25 showing apparatus using first consumable needing replacement determination by camera (reader device), which detects replacement of first item with second; para. 119 showing transmission of usage to server (manager))
wherein upon receipt of the replacement information, the manager decrements, by one, the stock quantity in a management aggregation to which the second piece of the consumable item belongs. (para. 61 and 68 showing logging of stock or consumption level; see also para. 65 showing stock logging; para. 119 showing level of inventory determined in server)
Unno does not teach reading an RF tag. However, Ormond does teach:
a reader device included in each of the plurality of apparatuses that reads information on an RF (Radio Frequency) tag; and (para. 77 showing consumable ID via RFID scanning; para. 80 showing apparatus with reader device for scanning consumable)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of sensor based consumption tracking, with the known technique of RFID in Ormond, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for flexible data gathering. (See Ormond para. 77 for sensor options, as well as para. 32 of Unno for same.)
Claim 2. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 1,
wherein the consumable item information about the consumable item obtained by the obtainer includes information indicating a date of starting usage of the consumable item, and (para. 61 showing start date of use of item)
wherein the processor is configured to, upon determining that a predetermined time period elapses after start of usage of the consumable item based on the consumable item information about the consumable item obtained by the obtainer, affirmatively determine the necessity of replacement of the consumable item. (para. 104 showing time-based replacement of certain items such as filters)
Claim 3. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 1,
wherein the consumable item information about the consumable item obtained by the obtainer includes information indicating a remaining amount of the consumable item, and (para. 54 showing remaining amount as consumption level)
wherein the processor is configured to, upon determining that the remaining amount of the consumable item falls below a threshold based on the consumable item information about the consumable item obtained by the obtainer, affirmatively determine the necessity of replacement of the consumable item. (para. 65 showing level threshold for replacing item)
Claim 5. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a storage that stores information indicating an order quantity of the consumable item, and information indicating a minimum stock quantity of the consumable item, on the predetermined management aggregation basis, and (para. 109 showing threshold for consumable quantity as a basis for replacement)
wherein the processor is configured to:
execute an order placer that performs an order placement process of transmitting, to a terminal at an order destination, order information for placing an order, with the order quantity of the consumable item, for the consumable item having a quantity smaller than the minimum stock quantity, based on the information stored in the storage. (para. 112 showing order placer unit that places orders to an e-commerce site, including order information)
Claim 6. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 5,
wherein the plurality of apparatuses each include an input and output device that can input and output information pertaining to an order of the consumable item, (para. 46 showing consumable inspection unit with input and outputs)
the manager transmits, to the input and output device, instruction information for an instruction of whether to place an order for the consumable item having the stock quantity smaller than the minimum stock quantity or not, (para. 56 showing output of order determination information)
the input and output device displays the instruction information, (para. 56 displaying said information) and upon acceptance of an input for an instruction for placing an order for the consumable item, the input and output device transmits, to the order placer, information for placing the order of the consumable item, and (paragraphs 56 and 57 showing receiving information and placing order)
upon receipt of the information for placing the order of the consumable item, the order placer performs the order placement process for the consumable item. (paragraphs 56 and 57 showing receiving information and placing order)
Claim 7. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to 5,
wherein the storage stores information indicating an order date of the consumable item, on the predetermined management aggregation basis, and (para. 61 showing order history information stored)
when the order date of the consumable item is reached, the order placer performs the order placement process for the consumable item having the stock quantity smaller than the minimum stock quantity. (para. 108 showing order date safety factor determination)
Claim 8. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a storage that stores the consumable item information obtained by the obtainer, (see para. 61 showing consumable information)
wherein the processor executes:
a predictor that predicts a time at which the consumable item is required to be replaced, based on the consumable item information about the consumable item stored in the storage, and (analysis of replacement prediction in para. 108)
an order placer that performs an order placement process for the consumable item, based on the time at which the consumable item is required to be replaced predicted by the predictor. (see para. 108 for determination of order replacement process on the basis of said order time prediction)
Claim 9. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 5. It teaches confirming a price of an order for replenishment. It does not, but Osmond teaches: wherein the processor is configured to execute
a billing issuer that performs a billing process of transmitting billing information for charging a payment for the consumable item, to a terminal of a user who is to receive the consumable item for which the order placement process has been performed by the order placer, or to the terminal at the order destination preliminarily registered with respect to the user. (para. 23 showing billing information provisioning in response to an order determination)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of sensor based consumption tracking, with the known technique of billing in Ormond, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for collection of payments. (See para. 23 showing billing data collection.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno (US 2021/0220997) in view of Ormond, and in further view of Cella (US 2020/0225655).
Claim 10. Unno as modified by Ormond teaches the stock management system according to claim 1. It teaches wherein the processor is configured to, upon determining the stock quantity on the predetermined management aggregation basis satisfies a condition about management of the consumable item, the manager issues an alert. (para. 22 showing notification of said condition trigger event)
It does not, but Cella in para. 567 teaches when monitored conditions trigger an action in response to a safety regulation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of consumption management in Unno, with the known technique of regulation compliance automation in Cella, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing provisioning of data for compliance verification. (See Cella para. 567.)
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 extension fee 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 Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights