DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 10/21/2025. Claims 16-34 are pending; claims 30-34 are withdrawn; and, claims 16-29 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 12/13/2016.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 now recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For support, Applicant refers to [0020]. Here is that paragraph in the published version:
[0020] The locking mechanism 16 may include a variety of features that can be interchangeably or in combination used to permit or limit access to the interior of the automatic retail device 10. For example, a biometric identifier (e.g., thumbprint reader) 26 may be incorporated into the locking mechanism 16. Alternatively or additionally, the biometric reader 26 may be an iris scanner. Further, a near field communication (NFC) reader 28 may be incorporated into the locking mechanism 16, which is used to communicate with another NFC enabled device (e.g., most smartphones operating applications such as APPLE PAY® or ANDROID PAY®). Additionally or alternatively, the NFC reader 28 may be an RFID reader and may be employed to detect the presence of an RFID tag. Still further, a card reader 30 may be utilized and permit access to the automatic retail device 10 only after swiping or reading of the chip on a credit card. Still further, a facial recognition camera 32 may be employed to detect a user as they approach the automatic retail device 10. Finally, a key pad 33 (either physical or a touch screen) to enable the inputting of pin codes or promotion codes and the like may further be coupled to and/or incorporated in the locking mechanism 16, as will be described in greater detail below. The keypad or touchscreen 33 may also be used to enable responses by the user (e.g., selection of an option, presentation of branding associated with a product or service, or it may flash to alert the user of its location). Not shown in FIG. 1 are one or more further cameras located on the interior of the automatic retail device 10, these may be positioned on the interior of the door 14, or on certain bins 24 to enable filming/recording of user actions and user identification when retrieving items from the automatic retail device 10.
This mentions nothing about identifying whether the potential purchaser is a purchaser, let alone based on all of the data points in the claimed limitations. Accordingly, this is found to be new matter and not supported in Applicant’s specification. In order to show support, Applicant will need to identify where in the spec is “identifying the potential purchaser is a purchaser” and then indicate how this identifying is performed “based on” the planogram and other data points. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 16, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0200385 to Savage et al. (“Savage”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,198,710 to Hahn et al. (“Hahn”) in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0035186 Nitu et al. (“Nitu”).
With regard to claim 16, Savage discloses the claimed method of interacting with an automatic retail device, the method comprising:
receiving a potential purchaser’s identification information at a controller of the automatic retail device (see [0037]; for the claimed “potential purchaser” and then “purchaser” identification, the examiner notes that a “purchase” does not require a monetary purchase, where the data given by the user is part of the purchase transaction (i.e. the user gives data such as identity and authentication [0036]) and in return the user is able to access the “access and storage system including a storage component . . . .” (see abstract); see [0040] where Savage refers to this as a “transaction” when the user accesses and removes an item from inventory; see also [0097] where the information gathered can be used for billing or other purposes);
transmitting by the controller the received user identification to a server (see e.g. [0037-38]);
receiving confirmation of an identity of the user at the controller from the server (see e.g. [0037-39]);
storing in a memory associated with the automatic retail device a planogram detailing a location of the items stored in each of a plurality of bins within the automatic retail device (see e.g. [0069-73], [0087]; see Figs. 18-19 and [0072] for the stored planogram, where the board 104 may incorporate or utilize sensors that can map certain characteristics of the item 16, such as its shape, weight, surface characteristics, reflectivity, etc or combinations thereof. The measured characteristics can then be compared to those stored in a database so that the identity of the items 16, and any changed characteristics (i.e. the reduced weight of a nail gun that has dispensed a certain number of nails) can be determined. The system 10 can thereby use features similar to facial recognition software/algorithms. Such sensors could also be located at other positions on the system 10, and need not necessarily be positioned on a board 104.) and a per item weight of each item stored in the automatic retail device (see e.g. [0057], [0087], [0095], [0050] and Fig. 10 element 46; see [0072] monitoring weight based on the mapping);
unlocking a door of the automatic retail device upon receipt of the confirmation of the identity of the user from the server (see e.g. [0039] In some cases, the doors 22 of the storage cabinet 12, which provide access to authorized compartments 14/items 16 for that user, may unlock and/or open automatically when the user is identified and/or authenticated.) wherein unlocking the door(s) provides access to the potential purchaser to all items stored in each of the plurality of bins within the automatic retail device (see e.g. Fig. 1, where compartments 14 are all capable of being accessed if the user has been authorized for all of the compartments entry and access and removal);
determining, by the controller, a weight of each of the plurality of bins within the automatic retail device, and with the assistance the planogram (see [0072] where planogram can assist) the contents of each of the plurality of bins of the automatic retail device after receiving the user identification and prior to unlocking the door of the automatic retail device (see e.g. [0060] weight determination before use and after use; [0058] Each weight-based dispenser 62 may operate by taking measurements before and after a tracked dispense operation. The difference in weight can then be converted into a corresponding quantity of items 16 for that particular dispenser 62. The weight-based sensors 66 may have weight-per-unit data stored therein or accessible thereby (i.e. stored in the controller 15 or elsewhere). (emphasis added); [0040]);
capturing images external to the automatic retail device and images internal to the automatic retail device (see e.g. [0074] interior; [0080] outside such as capturing the identity of the user; see also, Hahn at Fig. 1 capturing exterior and col. 7, ln. 60-70 interior; );
automatically locking the door of the automatic retail device upon closure of the door ([0044] The storage cabinet 12 may then lock the associated doors/drawers such that no further access is allowed, at least to those associated compartments 14, until the same or a different user goes through the identification/authorization process.);
determining, by the controller, the weight of each of the plurality of bins within the automatic retail device, and with the assistance of the planogram (see [0072] where planogram can assist) the contents of each of the plurality of bins of the automatic retail device after locking the door of the automatic retail device (see e.g. [0060] weight determination before use and after use; [0058] Each weight-based dispenser 62 may operate by taking measurements before and after a tracked dispense operation. The difference in weight can then converted into a corresponding quantity of items 16 for that particular dispenser 62. The weight-based sensors 66 may have weight-per-unit data stored therein or accessible thereby (i.e. stored in the controller 15 or elsewhere) (emphasis added); see [0064]; [0040]);
locking automatically, by the locking mechanism the door of the automatic retail device upon closure of the door (see e.g. [0044]);
determining, by the controller with the assistance of the planogram and the determined weight of each of the plurality of bins before unlocking the door and after automatically locking the door, which items and how many were removed from the bins by the user wherein a difference in weight and the location of the differences in weight indicate which items were removed from the automatic retail device (see e.g. [0050] and Fig. 10 element(s) 46); and
identifying the potential purchaser is a purchaser (see published claim 14 and Fig. 23, where all historical usage data is stored, where when userA is identified as removal an item (among other things) this is being interpreted as identifying userA as a purchaser in the system);
transmitting to the server, by the controller, the determined items and how many were removed from the plurality of bins by the user (see e.g. [0058-60] etc.), wherein the server utilizes the determined items and how many were removed from the automatic retail device to resolve payment for the items and to post an indication of purchase of the items to a purchaser’s account (see e.g. [0097], [0087] etc.).
However, Savage does not explicitly disclose determining “a first quantity of each item” prior to unlocking the door, and then determining “a second quantity of each item” after closing and locking the door. To be more clear, Savage does disclose taking a weight measurement before and after a tracked dispense operation, including unlocking and locking, as shown above at e.g. [0058] [0060] [0040]; and see [0044] showing that the transaction includes closing the door and automatically locking the door upon the return of an item. The only aspect of the claim limitation that Savage does not disclose is where there is a determination of “a first quantity” and “a second quantity”. See Savage e.g. [0060] weight determination before use and after use; [0058] Each weight-based dispenser 62 may operate by taking measurements before and after a tracked dispense operation. The difference in weight can then converted into a corresponding quantity of items 16 for that particular dispenser 62. The weight-based sensors 66 may have weight-per-unit data stored therein or accessible thereby (i.e. stored in the controller 15 or elsewhere). (emphasis added).
Hahn teaches at e.g. col. 6, ln. 40-60; col. 7, ln. 10-20; col. 32, ln. 49-55, published claim 2, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory monitoring art at a retail location where a potential purchaser/determine purchaser interacts with inventory on for instance a shelf (Fig. 1) to include the ability to determine a first quantity of an item before an event (col. 6, ln. 40-60), determine a second quantity of an item after the event (col. 6, ln. 40-60), based on weight changes (col. 6, ln. 40-60) and planogram data (see col 6 where the system knows which item is at each location, and this is based on planogram data as shown at col. 32, ln. 49-55). See also col. 38, ln. 20-35, The physical characteristics of the inventory location 712, placement of the weight sensors 112(1) at the inventory location 712, physical position of the lane 104 relative to the inventory location 712, quantity and weight of the items 104 at the respective lanes 104, and so forth, may be known. For example, given the physical design of the inventory location 712, it may be known that a weight sensor 112(1) is positioned at each of the four corners of a shelf 102, and that the shelf 102 has a particular length and width. Continuing the example, based on the physical design of the inventory location 712, the physical coordinates corresponding to the lane 104 on that shelf 102 are known. Using this information, as well as the item data 136, weight characteristic data may be generated for an inventory location 712 before, during, or after an interaction. See also published claim 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify the Savage invention with the ability to determine the quantities before and after an event and the specific item based on the planogram mapping, as shown in Hahn, where this is beneficial in that by using the techniques described herein, operation of the facility may be improved. Details about interactions between users and items in the facility may be quickly and accurately determined. For example, as items are picked, placed, and so forth, information such as inventory levels based on changes in the count of items at the inventory locations may be readily and more accurately determined. As a result, the inventory management system may be able to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date inventory information, and so forth. See Hahn, col. 6, ln. 60-67.
The combination of Hahn and Savage, as combined above, does not teach the limitations of “receiving a signal from the controller to unlock a lock” and “receiving a signal from controller to lock the door.” The examiner notes that in Savage the controller does perform the authenticating (e.g. [0087] [0095] etc.), and then the door automatically unlocks (e.g. [0032] [0039] etc.). One could argue that it would be inherent, or at least obvious, that the controller that must first authenticate the user then sends some sort of indication to the lock which then unlocks/locks the appropriate door. It appears that the only portion of the claims that Savage/Hahn does not explicitly teach is where the controller sends lock/unlock signal, as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
497
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This was common to one of ordinary skill in the retail device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One example is, Nitu teaches at e.g. [0010] [0045] [0053-54] Fig 6 that it would have been obvious to send a signal from a controlling device to the door to lock and/or unlock the door based on parameters being met at the controlling device relating to the access, where this is beneficial in that it allows the controlling device to control access to the contents inside the doored compartments based on the parameters collected at the controlling device. See Nitu at e.g. [0010] [0045] [0053-54] Fig. 6. For instance, in Fig. 6 [0053], the controller is the mobile application/smart locker and the lock receives the unlock signal from the controller, and then unlocks; same is done for locking function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nitu with the combination of Savage and Hahn, as combined above, where this is beneficial in that this allows the controller to communicate with and control access to the contents of the secured door. See Nitu at e.g. [0010] [0045] [0053-54].
With regard to claim 17, Savage further discloses prompting the user to respond to an inquiry (see [0036]).
With regard to claim 27, Savage further discloses where the identity of the products in the automatic retail device is stored on the server and used to resolve payment from the user (see e.g. [0038], [0058-59]).
Claim(s) 18-22, 24, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage, Hahn, Nitu, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0267429 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”).
With regard to claims 18, 19, 28, and 29, Savage/Hahn/Nitu does not teach the limitations of claims 18, 28, and 29. However, Johnson teaches at e.g. abstract, [0029-30] that it would have been obvious to use AI to greet by name (see [0029-30] where AI is used to provide prompt/greeting by specific name), and to prompt user to respond audibly (see e.g. [0029-30] abstract where the system provide audio audible output, where this is a prompt to have the user respond audibly user the microphone input device of [0029]), where this is beneficial in order to provide options to the specific named user to communicate with the system, as shown in Johnson. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device interaction art at the time of filing to modify Savage with the ability to use AI to greet by name (see [0029-30] where AI is used to greet by specific name), and to prompt user to respond audibly (see e.g. [0029-30] abstract where the system provide audio audible output, where this is a prompt to have the user respond audibly user the microphone input device of [0029]), where this is beneficial in order to provide options to the specific named user to communicate with the system, as shown in Johnson.
For claims 19 and 20, the examiner notes that Johnson further teaches where a response can be transmitted to the server at [0031-32]. Further yet, Johnson teaches that output from the server to the user device can be an audible audio output, but the user can choose to have that output converted to a text format so that they can read it, and so that the communication system 100 can provide a user-friendly, dynamic interface. See Johnson, [0031-32]. The only difference in the claim is that the user device converts the output to text, instead of the communication system. The prior art of Johnson is a simply rearrangement of parts as is an obvious matter of design choice of the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
C.Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). For claim 20, Johnson teaches presenting an audio output to the user at [0031-34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transaction art at the time of filing to modify Savage to include the ability to present an output as an audio output, text file, or some other forward, in order to provide a user-friendly, dynamic interface. See Johnson [0032].
With regard to claim 21, Savage further discloses where the response includes an incentive for the user to engage in a specified activity (see e.g. [0039).
With regard to claim 22, Savage further discloses where the response includes instructions for the automatic retail device to illuminate one or more bins to alert the user to a location of an item therein (see e.g. [0039]).
With regard to claim 24, Savage further discloses where the response identifies a location of a product at an order fulfillment service and asks if the user would like to place an order for the product (see e.g. [0039]).
Claim(s) 23, 25, 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage, Hahn, Johnson, Nitu, in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0238296 to Purks et al. (“Purks”).
With regard to claims 23, 25, 26, Savage/Hahn/John/Nitu does not teach the limitation of claim 23. However, Purks teaches at e.g. Abstract and in description at e.g. [0054] that an item can be identified as being at another kiosk, where this is beneficial so that the order can be completed at the other terminal (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the kiosk before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Savage and Johnson, to include the ability to identify an item being at another kiosk, where this is beneficial so that the order can be completed at the other terminal (see abstract). For claims 25 and 26, see the media presentation of Purks at e.g. Fig. 3 and 4, which assists the user in responding. See motivation to combine above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has withdrawn the 101 rejections based on the amendments provided.
The examiner has withdrawn the previously-made 112 rejections based on the amendments provided.
Applicant argues that Savage does not disclose, teach, or suggest the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
287
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For these limitations, the examiner refers to at least Savage at e.g. [0058] [0060] to show that the weight determinations can be made “before and after a tracked dispenses operation” and “For example, if the system 10 allows an item 16 in the form of nail gun to be dispensed/loaned out, the difference in weight in the nail gun before and after its use can be tracked to determine the number of nails that were used/consumed,” respectively at [0058] and [0060]. There doesn’t appear to be any argument that Savage does not disclose that this is not performed “prior to unlocking the door.” The main argument is that the weight determination is not performed “after receiving the user identification and prior to unlocking. . . .” The examiner has reviewed Savage and now additionally refers to [0040], which discloses:
PNG
media_image4.png
118
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where the inventory check that occurs after user authentication and before unlocking the door, can include the weight determinations and associated inventory check of the weight-based products, etc. as shown in [0058-60].
For the second limitation, Applicant argues that Savage does not disclose determining the weight of item(s) “after locking the door of the automatic retail device.” The examiner, again, respectfully disagrees. Again, the examiner refers to Savage at [0040] indicating that “As described in greater detail below, after the transaction is completed, or during dispensing, the controller 15 may update inventory levels by adjusting for any items 16 taken, removed or added during a transaction/session. In this manner, the number of items 16 taken, removed or added can be tracked based upon a transactional basis.” As noted above, the inventory calculation of Savage can include a weight determination. See Savage at [0060] where after item is returned, door closed, at some later point the inventory can be calculated based on the weight determination. See also Savage at [0089] showing that real-time inventory levels are monitored, which includes at any time the inventory can be determined, which includes the weight determination. See further MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) C.Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments are not in the cited art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the examiner notes that the identifying of the potential purchaser as the purchaser and associated amendments is found to be new matter. There is no support for this identifying the potential purchaser is a purchaser based on as claimed. Further, the cited references teaches these limitations as indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 on 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627