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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 01/15/2026.
Claims 1 and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rongley “US 2022/009715 A1” (Rongley).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19-20: A non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a device cause the device to:
trigger an electronic device to emit at least one signal capable of being sensed by at least one sensor (at least see Rongley Abstract; Figs. 1-3; [0008]);
sense the at least one signal emitted by the electronic device, using the at least one sensor (at least see Rongley Abstract; Figs. 3-4; [0098]-[0099]);
determine a actual geographical location of the electronic device, based on the sensed at least one signal (at least see Rongley Abstract; Figs. 1-3; [0008]);
detect a discrepancy between the geographical location of the electronic device and a specified geographical location of the electronic device recorded in an inventory management system (at least see Rongley Abstract; Figs. 1-3; [0009]); and
perform at least one action to handle the discrepancy (at least see Rongley Abstract; Fig. 4; [0101]),
Rongley disclose the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose including one of: updating the inventory management system to record the actual geographical location of the electronic device, causing the electronic device to be re-located back to the specified geographical location that is recorded in the inventory management system. However, (at least see Enssle Abstract; Fig. 1-4; [0035])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Enssle’s teachings in Rongley’s enabled, for the advantage of replenishment needs of specific retail stores, to help inventory by increase profit margins for retailers.
Regarding Claim 2: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a computing device (at least see Rongley Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, wherein the computing device is a server (at least see Rongley Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 4: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one signal is a light (at least see Rongley [0114]).
Regarding Claim 5: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one signal is a sound (at least see Rongley [0101]).
Regarding Claim 6: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one signal is heat (at least see Rongley Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one signal is triggered to be output in a defined pattern (at least see Rongley Abstract; Figs. 1-3; [0008]).
Regarding Claim 8: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is triggered to emit a single signal capable of being sensed by a single sensor (at least see Rongley [0044]).
Regarding Claim 9: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is triggered to emit a plurality of different signals capable of being sensed by a plurality of different sensors (at least see Rongley [0102]).
Regarding Claim 10: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the electronic device is triggered to emit the plurality of different signals in a defined sequence (at least see Rongley [0079]).
Regarding Claim 11: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein triggering the electronic device to emit the plurality of different signals includes: triggering the electronic device to emit a first signal capable of being sensed by a first sensor, determining whether the first signal emitted by the electronic device has been sensed, triggering the electronic device to emit a second signal capable of being sensed by a second sensor, when the first signal emitted by the electronic device has been sensed, and triggering the electronic device to emit a third signal capable of being sensed by a third sensor, when the first signal emitted by the electronic device has not been sensed (at least see Rongley [0044]).
Regarding Claim 12: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a camera (at least see Rongley [0087]).
Regarding Claim 13: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is an audio sensor (at least see Rongley [0091]).
Regarding Claim 14: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a thermal sensor (at least see Rongley [0058]).
Regarding Claim 15: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the physical location is determined by processing the sensed at least one signal using a machine learning model (at least see Rongley [0095]).
Regarding Claim 16: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the machine learning model further processes the sensed at least one signal to determine availability of space for locating one or more additional electronic devices (at least see Rongley [0107]).
Regarding Claim 17: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one action includes updating the inventory management system to record the actual geographical location of the electronic device (at least see Rongley Abstract; Figs. 1-3; [0008]).
Regarding Claim 18: The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one action includes causing the electronic device to be re-located back to the specified geographical location that is recorded in the inventory management system (at least see Rongley [0009]-[0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights