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 07/24/2025.
Claims 2-6 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements filed on 07/24/2025 and 07/07/2026 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 recite a device, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 6-8 recite a device, 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?):
1) Claim 1 recites: “a setting unit that sets addresses for products of a plurality of clients; and a management unit that manages the products in a plurality of warehouses by the addresses”.
Claim 1 recites a certain method of organizing human activity. claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. As the above recited limitations describe organizing and managing products stored for multiple clients by assigning storage addresses with warehouses and managing those products according the assigned information. The claimed limitations therefore recites a commercial practice of organizing inventory, assigning storage locations, and managing products among warehouses. Such activities constitute a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions involving inventory management, warehouse logistics, and supply-chain administration, which are identified as abstract ideas. See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2).
Additionally, claim 1 recites a mental process. The claimed operations of determining storage addresses and managing inventory according to those addresses are evaluation and organizational decisions that can practically be performed by a person, such as a warehouse manager of inventory planner, using inventory records, warehouse maps, or written logs. Accordingly, the claim also recites a mental process, including observation, evaluation and judgment capable of being performed in the human mind or with pern and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
2) Claim 6 recites: managing products of multiple clients stored with a warehouse; determining that a product of a first client is out of stock based on shipping information; determining that an identical product belonging to a second client is available; and shipping the second client’s product to customer.
Claim 6 recites a certain method of organizing human activity. claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. As the above recited limitations describe a commercial inventory fulfillment policy governing how products owned by different clients are allocated to satisfy customer demand when inventory shortage occur. The claimed limitations therefore recites a commercial practice of organizing inventory, order fulfillment, and managing products among warehouses. Such activities constitute a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions involving inventory allocation, order fulfillment, and supply-chain management, which are identified as abstract ideas. See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2).
Additionally, claim 6 recites a mental process. The claimed determinations including determining that inventory is out of stock, determining that identical inventory exists, and deciding to ship the identical inventory from another warehouse are evaluation and organizational decisions that can practically be performed by a person, such as a warehouse manager of inventory planner, using inventory records, warehouse maps, or written logs. Accordingly, the claim also recites a mental process, including observation, evaluation and judgment capable of being performed in the human mind or with pern and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, claim 6 recites 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: a management device, a setting unit, a management unit,
Claim 6: a management device, a management 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).
Likewise, claim 1 does not recite any particular manner in which storage addresses are generated, any improvement in address allocation algorithms, or any technological mechanism for managing inventory. Claim 6 does not improve warehouse automation, inventory tracking technology, computer functionality, database management, communication technology, or any other technological field. Instead, the additional elements merely apply the abstract inventory management rules using generic computing.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 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.
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).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 6 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 6 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 3, 4: management device, setting unit,
Claim 5: management system, management device, warehouse management device,
Claim 7: management device,
Claim 8: management device, management unit,
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, 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 1-8, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by GRAVELLE et al. (US20210398059A1, hereinafter “GRAVELLE”).
Regarding claim 1. GRAVELLE discloses a management device (GRAVELLE discloses the computerized inventory management system (CIMS) including a central computing system, central database, processors and inventory management modules see Figs. 4A-4C; [0012-0014]) comprising:
a setting unit (GRAVELLE discloses the CIMS Stores and maintains locations identifiers (location_IDs), facilities identifiers (Facility_IDs), bin identifiers (Bin_IDs), and storage records in the central database, thereby assigning storage addresses to inventory. See Figs. 5A-5C; see [0113-0116]) that sets addresses for products (GRAVELLE discloses each storage location has a unique location_ID (i.e., the claimed addresses). Storage bins and products are associated with Location_IDs, Facility_IDs, and Bin_IDs so that the exact locations/addresses of inventory products are recorded and tracked. See [0115-0116]) of a plurality of clients (GRAVELLE discloses the system manages inventory belonging to multiple entities/vendors. The storage bin contents table stores Product_ID together with the Vendor_ID (owner) for products stored in the system. See [0072-0075] and [0128]) and
a management unit (GRAVELLE discloses the CIMS tracks inventory, storage bins, storage locations, and ownership information using the central database and management modules, see Figs 4C, 5A-5C, and [0012-0014], [0104-0108]) that manages the products in a plurality of warehouses (GRAVELLE discloses the network of facilities is a hierarchical network comprising at least one mega facility, at least one macro facility, and at least one micro facility as illustrated in Figs. 6A-6B, see [0050]) by the addresses. (GRAVELLE discloses inventory is managed in multiple facilities, such as mega, macro, micro, nano facilities having storage locations and local facility databases, see Figs. 3A-4C; [0123] (i.e. the claimed warehouses). The disclosure explain that every indexed storage location has a unique Location_ID (i.e., the claimed addresses) by which the exact whereabouts of inventory are identified and tracked across facilities, see [0115-0116])
Regarding claim 5. GRAVELLE discloses a management system comprising: (GRAVELLE discloses a computerized inventory management system (CIMS), which is multi-entity inventory management system, comprising a central computing system, facility management subsystems, vehicle management subsystem, robotic handlers, and databases that collectively manage inventory and shipment operations. See Figs. 4A-4C; [0065-0066])
the management device according to claim 1; and (GRAVELLE discloses the CIMS functions as the management device discussed for claim 1 supra by maintaining product records for multiple entities, storage locations, and multiple facilities. See 4C, 5A-5C and summary, multiple inventory handlers are communicatively connected 101 in a multi-entity inventory management system, see [0049])
a warehouse management device (GRAVELLE discloses facility management subsystem (404) located at each warehouse/facility that mange robotic handlers, conveyors, storage locations, local databases, and warehouse operations. Figs 4A-4C; [0071]) that manages shipment from the warehouses. (GRAVELLE discloses the Facility Management Subsystems cooperate with the Vehicle Management Subsystems to retrieve products from storage, prepare them for fulfillment, and manage transport between facilities and to customers. Figs 2, 4A-4C, 6A-6B, and 16 illustrate retrieving inventory from warehouse storage, dispatching robotic handlers, and managing shipments and transport. See [0013-0017], [0072], [0082])
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 2-3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over GRAVELLE et al. (US20210398059A1, hereinafter “GRAVELLE”) in view of Carmichael et al. (US8311901B1, hereinafter “Carmichael”).
Regarding claim 6. GRAVELLE discloses a management device comprising
a management unit that manages products (GRAVELLE discloses the storage bin contents table tracks Product_ID, Vendor_ID, quantity, and location, while the global storage locations table records where inventory is stored throughout the system. [0114-0116] and [0128]) of a plurality of clients stored in a warehouse for each of the clients, (GRAVELLE discloses the computerized inventory management system (CIMS) manages inventory belonging to multiple entities (vendors/sellers). The inventory records associate products with the corresponding Vendor_ID/Entity_ID while maintaining inventory in common storage facilities. See Figs. 5A-5C, wherein the products owned by different vendors within warehouse facilities, such as mega, macro, micro, nano facilities having storage locations and local facility databases , see Figs. 3A-4C; [0123] (i.e. the claimed warehouse for each of the clients)) wherein
GRAVELLE substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, GRAVELLE fails to explicitly disclose the “when a product of a first client based on shipping information is out of stock and a product identical to the product of the first client that is out of stock is stored as a product of a second client different from the first client, the management unit ships the product of the second client as a substitute product”. However, Carmichael teaches
when a product of a first client based on shipping information is out of stock (Carmichael teaches the IMS 100 preferably determines an appropriate retailer based upon the retails closest in proximity to the consumer’s location that might fulfill the ordered product, see col. 6-lines 6-11, and if the closest retailer to the consumer does not have active stock of the product, the IMS 100 will locate the next nearest retailer, see col.6-lines 24-31) and a product identical to the product of the first client that is out of stock is stored as a product of a second client different from the first client (Carmichael teaches the IMS 100 continues this process until a retailer is located that has stock of the product. See col. 6-lines 16-18 and col 6-lines 31-43), the management unit ships the product of the second client as a substitute product. (Carmichael teaches the retailer will box and ship the product to the consumer in branded packaging materials that are provided by the indirect seller 108. See col. 6-lines 51-67 and col 9-lines 45-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GRAVELLE to include when a product of a first client based on shipping information is out of stock and a product identical to the product of the first client that is out of stock is stored as a product of a second client different from the first client, the management unit ships the product of the second client as a substitute product, as taught by Carmichael, where this would be performed in order to provide for a fully integrated product distribution method that enables retailers, manufacturers, and indirect sellers, such as, e.g., ecommerce web sites, to better implement ecommerce strategies. See Carmichael, col. 2-lines 27-30.
Regarding claim 7. The combination of GRAVELLE in view of Carmichael disclose the management device according to claim 6, wherein
GRAVELLE substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, GRAVELLE fails to explicitly disclose the “when the substitute product is shipped, a product identical to the substitute product is replenished as a product of the second client”. However, Carmichael teaches
when the substitute product is shipped (Carmichael teaches IMS 100 additionally receives sales information from the retailers 104, the sales information comprises sales generated through an indirect seller 108, and that the retailers 104 to automatically transmit sales information on a real-time basis as the retailers 104 scan UPC codes or SKUs on products being sent to consumers 106, see col. 5-lines 11-16, and col. 5-lines 29-34), a product identical to the substitute product is replenished as a product of the second client. (Carmichael teaches the shipping information received from the manufacturers 102 and the sales information from the retailers 104, the IMS 100 to determine if a specific product would need to be suggested to a particular retailer to stock or order based upon geographic or demographic demand for that product, see col. 5-lines 48-60)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GRAVELLE to include when the substitute product is shipped, a product identical to the substitute product is replenished as a product of the second client, as taught by Carmichael, where this would be performed in order to provide for a fully integrated product distribution method that enables retailers, manufacturers, and indirect sellers, such as, e.g., ecommerce web sites, to better implement ecommerce strategies. See Carmichael, col. 2-lines 27-30.
Regarding claim 2. GRAVELLE disclose the management device according to claim 1, wherein
GRAVELLE substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, GRAVELLE fails to explicitly disclose the “the setting unit sets a warehouse to store the products and a number of the products managed in the warehouse based on a demand forecast of the products”. However, Carmichael teaches
the setting unit sets a warehouse to store the products and a number of the products managed in [[a]]the warehouse (Carmichael teaches the IMS determines the retailer (warehouse/fulfillment location) that will maintain or fulfill inventory based on inventory information and consumer location. see col. 6-lines 1-33, col.6-lines 24-31 and Fig. 2) based on a demand forecast of the products. (Carmichael teaches the IMS analyzes shipping and sales information to determine product trends by geographic territory and demographics. The resulting market data are used to adjust product inventories, remind retailers to restock inventory, and suggest that retailers stock products indicated to be in demand in a certain are. See col. 5-lines 47-62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GRAVELLE to include the setting unit sets a warehouse to store the products and a number of the products managed in the warehouse based on a demand forecast of the products, as taught by Carmichael, where this would be performed in order to provide for a fully integrated product distribution method that enables retailers, manufacturers, and indirect sellers, such as, e.g., ecommerce web sites, to better implement ecommerce strategies. See Carmichael, col. 2-lines 27-30.
Regarding claim 3. GRAVELLE disclose the management device according to claim 1, wherein
GRAVELLE substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, GRAVELLE fails to explicitly disclose the “the plurality of warehouses are provided in different regions, and the setting unit sets a warehouse to store the products and a number of the products managed in the warehouse based on a regional demand forecast of the products”. However, Carmichael teaches
the plurality of warehouses are provided in different regions, and the setting unit sets a warehouse to store the products and a number of the products managed in [[a]]the warehouse based on a regional demand forecast of the products. (Carmichael teaches the IMS 100 may be designed to perform regular reconciliations of the shipping information received from the manufacturers 102 and the sales information from the retailers 104, and algorithms may be implemented by the IMS 100 that would enable the IMS 100 to determine if a specific product would need to be suggested to a particular retailer to stock or order based upon geographic or demographic demand for that product. These recommendations could be made at the request of either the manufacturers 102 or the retailers 104. See col.5-lines 47-50, col. 5-lines 56-62, col 6-lines 1-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GRAVELLE to include the plurality of warehouses are provided in different regions, and the setting unit sets a warehouse to store the products and a number of the products managed in the warehouse based on a regional demand forecast of the products, as taught by Carmichael, where this would be performed in order to provide for a fully integrated product distribution method that enables retailers, manufacturers, and indirect sellers, such as, e.g., ecommerce web sites, to better implement ecommerce strategies. See Carmichael, col. 2-lines 27-30.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over GRAVELLE in view of Carmichael further in view of Aggarwal (US9487356B1, hereinafter “Aggarwal”).
Regarding claim 8. The combination of GRAVELLE in view of Carmichael disclose the management device according to claim 6, wherein
The combination of GRAVELLE in view of Carmichael substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the warehouse stores the products classified into a plurality of management levels according to a shipping frequency, the products of the plurality of clients stored in the warehouse are products with the shipping frequency equal to or lower than a predetermined level, and the management unit ships the substitute product for the products with the shipping frequency equal to or lower than the predetermined level”. However, Aggarwal teaches
the warehouse stores the products classified into a plurality of management levels (Aggarwal, col. 9-lines 24-28; “the workspace may be segmented to two, three, four, or more different storage areas according to different levels of access frequency … the storage area may be divided into a low-frequency storage area”) according to a shipping frequency, (Aggarwal, col. 2-line 47- 67; “A storage area may be segmented according to the frequency at which inventory items are accessed … More frequently accessed items may be stored in a high-frequency storage area … Less frequently accessed items may be stored in a low-frequency storage area”)
the products of the plurality of clients stored in the warehouse are products with the shipping frequency equal to or lower than a predetermined level, (Aggarwal, col. 8-lines 60-65; “the workspace 70 may be divided according to the frequency at which inventory items are accessed … Less frequently accessed items may be stored in a low-frequency storage area”) and
the management unit ships the substitute product for the products (Aggarwal, col. 9-lines 64-67; “inventory request may represent a shipping order specifying particular inventory items that have been purchased by a customer and that are to be retrieved from inventory system 10 for shipment to the customer”) with the shipping frequency equal to or lower than the predetermined level. (Aggarwal, col. 3-lines 36-54; “access to such low-frequency items … overhead drive units can be used to lift a transportable object … from the storage area and deliver the transportable object to a designated location … the designated area can include a packing or shipping station where an inventory item is retrieved from the transportable object or otherwise processed (e.g., to fulfill an order))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GRAVELLE to include the warehouse stores the products classified into a plurality of management levels according to a shipping frequency, the products of the plurality of clients stored in the warehouse are products with the shipping frequency equal to or lower than a predetermined level, and the management unit ships the substitute product for the products with the shipping frequency equal to or lower than the predetermined level, as taught by Aggarwal, where this would be performed in order to provide efficient storage usage at the cost of slower access time. See Aggarwal, col. 3-lines 11-12.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over GRAVELLE in view of Aggarwal (US9487356B1, hereinafter “Aggarwal”).
Regarding claim 4. GRAVELLE disclose the management device according to claim 1, wherein the warehouses store the products (GRAVELLE disclose products are stored in a warehouse storage bins and storage location identified by Facility_ID, Bin_ID and Locaiton _ID, see Figs. 5A-5C; [0115-0116]) and the setting unit sets the addresses for products (GRAVELLE disclose the system assigns products to storage addresses identified by Location _IDs and storage bins maintained in the storage location tables. See Figs. 5A-5C; [0012-0014], [0104-0108])
GRAVELLE substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, GRAVELLE fails to explicitly disclose the “classified into a plurality of management levels according to a shipping frequency, whose shipping frequency is equal to or lower than a predetermined level”. However, Aggarwal teaches
classified into a plurality of management levels according to a shipping frequency (Aggarwal, col. 2-line 47 to col. 3-line 1; “storage area may be segmented according to the frequency at which inventory items are accessed … items may be stored in a high-frequency storage area … Less frequently accessed items may be stored in a low-frequency storage area. The low-frequency storage area may be configured to provide efficient space usage”, and see col. 4-lines 34-41), whose shipping frequency (Aggarwal, col. 2-lines 66-67; “Less frequently accessed items may be stored in a low-frequency storage area”) is equal to or lower than a predetermined level. (Aggarwal teaches the inventory management system and method that determine the frequency of access associated with an inventory item and selects an inventory holder based on that frequency. Less frequently accessed inventory items are assigned to a low-frequency storage area. While more frequently accessed inventory items are assigned to a high-frequency storage area. See col. 5-lines 47-67 and col. 3-lines 36-54)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GRAVELLE to include classified into a plurality of management levels according to a shipping frequency, whose shipping frequency is equal to or lower than a predetermined level, as taught by Aggarwal, where this would be performed in order to provide efficient storage usage at the cost of slower access time. See Aggarwal, col. 3-lines 11-12.
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