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
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March 2026, has been entered.
The following is a Non-Final office action on the merits in response to the communications filed on 27 March 2026. Claims 1-22 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted in this application on 27 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copy of the1449 is enclosed herewith.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 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 1-22 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Stansell et al. (US 20190244436 A1), hereinafter “Stansell” as discussed in the previous office action mailed on 15 January 2026. Further: in view of Palamarchuk et al. (US 20150371181 A1), hereinafter “Palamarchuk”.
Regarding amended claims 1, 11, 21 and 22, Stansell fails to teach the steps of receiving from an application executing on a mobile device operated by a user, information encoded by the structure fiducial marker associated with the storage structure; and determining locations of the inventory items positioned on the storage structure using the information encoded by both the item fiducial markers and the structure fiducial marker.
However, Palamarchuk teaches the steps of receiving from an application executing on a mobile device operated by a user, information encoded by the structure fiducial marker associated with the storage structure; and determining locations of the inventory items positioned on the storage structure using the information encoded by both the item fiducial markers and the structure fiducial marker (abstract and ¶¶ 0111-0121) – “… FIG. 10 schematically illustrates an example inventory facility 600 that includes fiducial markers 602 distributed in a pattern over the floor of the inventory facility 600 (structure markers). In many embodiments, the fiducial markers 602 encode a small set of values such that the pattern of the fiducial markers 602 includes repeated instances of identically valued fiducial markers … FIG. 12 illustrates additional acts that can be accomplished in conjunction with the method 620. For example, instances of each of a plurality of identical fiducial markers can be repeated in an overall pattern distributed over the floor of the inventory facility (act 638). To compensate for the lack of unique encoded identification, the relative location between the imaged fiducial markers in combination with the identifies of the imaged fiducials can be used in conjunction with a suitable pattern matching algorithm and the map of locations of the fiducial markers to determine the location of the mobile drive unit 20 within the inventory facility. As another example, the respective fiducial value information can be encoded in a readable code (e.g., bar code or any other suitable readable code, such as QR code, MaxiCode, Data Matrix, EZ Code, or any other identifying tag or code.) on the fiducial marker (act 640). The fiducial markers can be distributed in the pattern such that the images captured by the camera can be processed without additional drive unit location and/or orientation information to determine the location of the mobile drive unit 20 within the inventory facility (act 642). For example, the locational density and variation of the fiducial markers in the pattern can be configured such that the relative positions between and identifications of the fiducial markers in any image, in combination with the location map, provide sufficient information to determine a unique location of the mobile drive unit 20. And in many embodiments, respective fiducial value information is encoded in each of a plurality of the fiducial markers via a plurality of attributes of the fiducial marker (act 644)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of receiving from an application executing on a mobile device operated by a user, information encoded by the structure fiducial marker associated with the storage structure; and determining locations of the inventory items positioned on the storage structure using the information encoded by both the item fiducial markers and the structure fiducial marker, as taught by Palamarchuk, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stansell, to include the teachings of Palamarchuk, in order to enhance the functionality and/or efficiency of the system by providing precise locations of items in a storage facility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejections of claims 1-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant has amended the independent claims. The combination of references teaches the newly added claimed limitations (see above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights