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 07/02/2026.
Claims 1, 11-12 have been amended.
Claims 5-9 have been canceled.
Claims 1- 4 and 10-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 07/02/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted in pages 11-15.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they recite known-position wireless devices, relative movement measurement, physical space position estimation, generation of area based item series histories, comparison of item area and user area identifiers for corresponding time segments, and exclusion based on non-coincidence, thereby suppressing erroneous identification or false attribution.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the rejection in Step 2A, Prong One, the rejection does not characterize the physical sensing components themselves as abstract. Rather, the claims recite the mental process of maintain item/user location histories, comparing such histories, determining coincidence and non-coincidence, excluding users according to a criterion, and determining which user utilized an item. Such observations, comparisons, and determinations can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The claims also concern certain methods of organizing human activity, namely managing interactions between users regarding utilization of an item.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, the wireless devices, reading apparatus, motion sensors, and position estimation functionality obtain and derive the location information used in the abstract determination. The claims do not improve the operation of those technologies; rather, the use those technologies to determine which user have utilized the item. The asserted suppression of erroneous attribution improves the accuracy of that determination, not the functioning of the underlying sensing, wireless, or computing technology. Thus, even considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, obtain, process, and analyze the information used to perform the identified abstract determination, with resulting output being actual utilization data associating an item with a user. Accordingly, the claims do not provide significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for managing item locations and record keeping, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 of 1- 4 and 10-17 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1- 4 and 10-17 are distinguished over the prior art. A search was conducted by the examiner and no prior art was found. The examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in any prior art. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the Applicant's claimed invention. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections below in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1- 4 and 10-17 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
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- 4 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 10, 13-17 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 11 recites a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 11 and 12 recite the abstract idea of managing item locations and record keeping, see [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of:
Claims 1, 11 and 12 obtain location histories identifying areas occupied by an item and respective users during corresponding time segments, compare the item area and user area information, determine coincidence and non-coincidence, exclude a user when the degree of non-coincidence exceeds and criterion, and identify the user who utilized the item.
1) Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing interactions between people concerning utilization of an item by determining which of multiple users utilized the item based on their respective presence with the item.
2) Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite mental process because a person can observe or record where an item and users were during particular periods, compare those records, determine matches and non-matches, eliminate users whose locations do not sufficiently correspond to the item’s locations, and determine which user utilized the item. Such observations, comparisons, evaluations, and determinations can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 12 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: an item management system, a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas, respectively; a second wireless device attached to an item; a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively; at least one reading apparatus, a wireless device, a history obtaining unit, a generation unit, a position estimation unit,
Claim 11: at least one reading apparatus, a plurality of wireless devices, the plurality of wireless devices including a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas, respectively, a second wireless device attached to an item, and a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively, one or more motion sensors;
Claim 12: a communication unit, at least one reading apparatus, a plurality of wireless devices, the plurality of wireless devices including a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas, respectively, a second wireless device attached to an item, and a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively, a history obtaining unit, a generation unit, a storage, a position estimation unit,
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 claims therefor merely apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment and do not effect a transformation of an article, improve another technology or technical field, or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 12 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?):
Claims 1, 11 and 12 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).
The combination ultimately produces information identifying which user utilized the item; it does not impose a further technological operation on that determination or otherwise provide an inventive concept apart from carrying out the identified abstract idea using the recited sensing and information processing components.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 12 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 2-4, 10, 13-17 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 12 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea. In addition, claim 13 is considered to recite an abstract idea of mathematical relationship, which is a relationship between variables or numbers, and numerical formula or equation.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-4, 10, 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 12 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 2: the item management system, a reservation management unit, the generation unit,
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7: the item management system, the generation unit,
Claim 5: the item management system,
Claim 8: the item management system, the at least one reading apparatus,
Claim 9: the item management system, the first wireless devices, the at least one reading apparatus, a position estimation unit, the second wireless device or each third wireless device, the history obtaining unit,
Claim 10: the item management system, the wireless device is a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, the at least one reading apparatus,
Claim 14: the generation unit,
Claim 15: the history obtaining unit, first wireless device,
Claim 16: the at least one reading apparatus comprises: an acceleration sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor,
Claim 17: a measuring unit, the at least one reading apparatus, the external device,
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 item locations and record keeping, 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- 4 and 10-17, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/02/2026. The claims 1- 4 and 10-17, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in any prior art. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections above in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1- 4 and 10-17 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. 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