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 07/07/2026.
Claims 2-3, 13-14, 17-20 and 24-26 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-11, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/27/2026 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 07/07/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections-35 USC § 101” in page 19,
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims relate to processing product material data rather than organizing human activities. Applicant further argues that the claimed methods cannot practically be performed mentally. Particularly because the claims generate interfaces and interact with a database. Finally, Applicant asserts that, even if an abstract idea is recited, the claimed features provide a practical application by enabling effective control over storage of product materials and facilitating product manufacturing.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the rejection dose not characterize the claims as abstract merely because they process data. Rather, the claims recite managing and allocating manufacturing materials based on production requirements, available inventory, shortages, hierarchical material relationships, and substitution relationships. Specifically, the claims determine quantities of materials required for production, determine whether available inventory satisfies those requirements, identify shortages, determine whether next level or substitute materials are available to address shortages, and calculate quantities of such materials that may satisfy production requirements. Such limitations concern production planning, inventory/resource management, and allocation of available resources, and therefore fall within certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant’s argument concerning the inability to perform the entire claimed method mentally is likewise unpersuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims need not be capable of being performed entirely in the human mind to recite a judicial exception. Moreover, generating interfaces, accessing a database, and expressly requiring calculations to be performed by a computer program are additional computer implementation limitations; they do not alter the underlying character of the recited determinations concerning material requirements, shortages, inventory availability, and substitution. The claimed calculations and evaluations remain part of the identified abstract material management process.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant’s assertion that the claims provide effective control over storage of product materials and facilitate product manufacturing is also unpersuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees as although the calculated information concerns materials intended for manufacturing, the claims do not require the computer program to physically control storage equipment, move to replenish inventory, operate manufacturing machinery, or otherwise cause a physical manufacturing operation based on the determined shortage or material allocation. Instead, the claims acquire material information, perform calculations and determinations concerning that information, query stored information, and present material states through interfaces.
The Specification itself describes the relevant problem as material management involving shortages, overstock, and waste, and explains that material consumption and available inventory are evaluated to determine whether shortages exist. Thus, the asserted benefit relates primarily to improving material-management and production-planning decisions, rather than improving operation of the computer, storage equipment, or manufacturing machinery. Merely using the results of an abstract material-management analysis in the field of product manufacturing does not, without more, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the amendments requiring the recited operations to be performed by the computer program and incorporating additional material management features have also been considered individually and as an order combination. The computer program, database/data source, interfaces, processor and memory implanted the acquisition, calculation, querying, and presentation of information underlying the identified abstract idea. The next level material, substitution, shortage, and consumption limitations further particularize the rules by which the material management analysis is performed but do not impose a technological limitation that transforms the identified exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments do not overcome the rejection, and the rejection of claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29 under the 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 of claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29 has been withdrawn.
The reason to withdraw the prior art rejection of claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29 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. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29 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, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 28 recite an apparatus, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 29 recite a non-transitory tangible computer-readable 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?):
The independent claims 1, 28 and 29 recite the abstract idea of material management, see specification under the title of “Background”. The claims recite the abstract idea of managing manufacturing materials and inventory, including acquiring inventory information, calculating maximum consumption amounts, determining shortages based on consumption requirements and available inventory, identifying next level materials for shortage materials, determining shortage of such next level materials, and evaluating substitution relationships to distinguish substitutable and non-substitutable materials.
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite concepts of managing manufacturing materials and inventory according to production requirements, available inventory, material shortages, and substitution relationships. This constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial or business oriented resource management and allocation. The claims determine what quantities of materials are required to satisfy production demand, whether available quantities are sufficient, and whether alternative or next level materials can satisfy and identified shortage.
More particularly, the claims recite receiving a material query; acquiring data concerning materials used for manufacturing product components, including available inventory amounts; calculating maximum consumption amounts for the materials; and determining whether a shortage exists by considering the maximum consumption amount and available inventory. These limitations constitute determining production requirements and allocating available resources against those requirements, which is a form of inventory and production management.
The claims further determine whether a material experiencing a shortage has a next level material, acquire inventory information for such next level materials, calculate maximum consumption amounts for the next level materials, and determine whether those materials themselves have shortage. These limitations do not change the character of activity; rather, they extend the same resource management analysis to additional levels of materials that may be used to satisfy the production requirement.
The claims additionally use stored substitution relationships to discriminate materials having shortages into groups and to distinguish substitutable next level materials from non-substitutable next level materials before calculating the quantities available to address a shortage. Thus, these limitations further recite determining which available resources may be substituted for other resources in satisfying production requirements, which remains part of the abstract material allocation and inventory management process.
2) These claims recite mathematical concepts and a mental process-type evaluations. For example, the claims calculate maximum consumption quantities, compare those quantities with available inventory, determine remaining quantities and shortage conditions, and evaluate substitution relationships. Such limitations encompass mathematical calculations and evaluations of information that represents the quantitative rules by which the material management process is performed.
Therefore, claims 1, 28 and 29 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 computer program, data source/database, processor, memory, and interfaces are used to obtain information, perform the recited calculations and determinations, query stored information, receive user selections, and display material states. Claim 1 further permits adjustment of material priority or product demand followed by recalculation of shortage or overstock conditions.
Although the information concerns materials for manufacturing products, the claims do not require controlling manufacturing equipment, physically manufacturing a product, physically moving or allocating materials, or causing material replenishment based on the determined shortage. Rather, the computer implements and presents the results of the material management analysis. The Specification similarly identifies the problem as managing production materials to address shortages, overstock, and waste and describes determining shortages from maximum consumption and available inventory. Thus, the claimed improvement concerns management and evaluation of manufacturing-material information, not an improvement to computer functionality or manufacturing machinery.
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).
Accordingly, claims 1, 28 and 29 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. Considering the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. The processor, memory, database/data source, computer program, and interfaces facilitate acquisition, calculation, querying, and presentation of information used in the abstract material management scheme. Likewise, the next level material and substitution processing further defines how the material allocation and shortage analysis is performed, without requiring the resulting determination to control or modify a physical manufacturing operation.
Accordingly, claims 1, 28 and 29 are directed to abstract idea, without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 28 and 29 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 28 and 29 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 22: computer, computer program,
Claims 9, 11, 21, 27: computer, a first output interface, computer program,
Claim 23: computer, first output interface,
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 manage and regulate the quantities of materials utilized in product manufacturing, 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. These limitations further refine the abstract material management scheme but do not integrate it into a practical application or otherwise provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner agrees with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/07/2026. The claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29, 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, 4-12, 15-16, 21-23 and 27-29in 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. 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