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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 5/28/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-23 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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, 6-12, 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-23, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative recite:
A household inventory management system comprising: a multi-compartment storage system having a plurality of storage spaces and sets of distinct storage surfaces within the plurality of storage spaces, respectively, for placing temporarily stored items; and object recognition system that includes a plurality of scanning devices disposed within each storage space of the plurality of storage spaces, respectively, for monitoring the sets of distinct storage surfaces, and a controller that monitors locations of the temporarily stored items within the sets of distinct storage surfaces; wherein the controller generates an inventory manifest of the plurality of storage spaces that includes the temporarily stored items within the sets of distinct storage surfaces, the locations of the temporarily stored items, and locations of available spaces within the sets of distinct storage surfaces of the plurality of storage spaces; in response to identifying a recommended recipe having a set of ingredients, the controller compares the inventory manifest with the set of ingredients; and in response to at least one item of the set of ingredients being absent from the inventory manifest, the controller generates a shopping list of the at least one item; the controller includes menu restrictions of members of a residence; the controller determines the recommended recipe based on the inventory manifest and the menu restrictions; the controller recommends ingredient substitutions for the set of ingredients of the recommended recipe based on the menu restrictions; and in the event the inventory manifest does not include at least one item of the set of ingredients and the ingredient substitutions, the controller adds the at least one item to the shopping list.
These limitations recite observing and recording available household items and space, comparing the available items with recipe ingredients, evaluating dietary restrictions, selecting a recipe or substitute ingredient and identifying missing items. These limitations, as drafted, recite a simple mental process that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance with pen and paper but for the recitation of the generic computer components. For example a person could by visually inspecting a refrigerator and cabinets, recording the items and empty spaces, reviewing a recipe, considering dietary restrictions, selecting substitutes and wiring missing ingredients on a shopping list. If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 12 and 18 recite materially similar inventory, comparison, substitution and shopping-list operations and therefore recite the same mental processes.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims recite additional elements, including storage spaces, storage surfaces, scanning devices, object recognition system and a controller. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The scanning devices perform data gathering that supplies information for the subsequent inventory comparison, recipe recommendation, substitution and shopping list operations. The controller is used as a tool to perform those abstract evaluative operations. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC 823 F.3d 607, 612-15(Fed. Cir. 2016) (physical components used in their ordinary capacities to collect and process information did not render an abstract information classification process eligible); Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F4th 1040, 1043-45 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (recitations of physical camera and processor components did not establish eligibility where the claim described a desired results without a specific technical means for achieving it).
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 12 and 18 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 15-17, 19-23 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-23 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 12 and 18 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Claim 1 recites plurality of scanning devices disposed within each storage space.
Claim 12 recites respective scanning device for the storage spaces.
Claim 19 recites respective scanning devices for monitoring the storage surfaces.
The claims do not show how the arrangement produces an asserted improvement in sensing or their ordered combination are well-understood, routing and conventional.
The additional elements of claims 1, 12, 18 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 15-17, 19-23 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-23 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered. The terminal disclaimer has been accepted and double rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights