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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on February 10, 2026, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 18.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues the amended claims for the product demand monitoring system, incorporating additional elements and a second electronic processor to automatically generate and transmit an order for a volume of product based on the days on hand forecast constitute a practical application. Examiner agrees, and rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 18-20 will be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments against “affixed” sensors are valid and additional search revealed more pedestal-type scales/sensors/load cell devices. Arguments in favor of functional benefit were compelling in reference to the affixed sensors and new art addresses these physical entities.
The addition of the load cell is directly addressed in new art and the idea of a container disposed on the sensor is addressed in art with a reorder device configured to determine, detect a weight/mass of the items. Prior art search provided ample examples of product demand monitoring systems and the novelty and differentiation of the claimed invention, notably for the system and underlying method employed in claims 18-20, has yet to overcome what has been found.
The demand sensor claims provide superficial descriptions of functional benefits provided by the sensor design features and do not overcome the design choice argument.
In view of the above, the rejections based on 35 U.S.C § 103 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 18-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 18-20 are directed to a machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 18-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of predicting future consumption of a product for purposes of sustaining inventory, by measuring and monitoring the consumption of the product.
Claim 18 discloses a product demand monitoring system for maintaining a volume of a product, the system comprising:
measuring a load measurement corresponding to a weight of the product within a container (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), to periodically track, the load measurement; and receive the load measurement; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generate, based on the load measurement and historic load measurement data
corresponding to at least one previously received load measurement of the product, a product demand profile of the product; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
predict, based on the product demand profile, a future demand trajectory; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
generate, based on the future demand trajectory, a days on hand value for the product, the days on hand value being a prediction of how many days until the product within the container will be depleted; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
update the future demand trajectory and the days on hand value for the product based on a subsequently received load measurement from the product demand sensor device, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to predict future demand trajectory based on at least one additional factor, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - claim 19), generate and transmit, via the transceiver to a distribution facility, an order for a volume of the product based on the days on hand forecast, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk, claim 20).
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic principles and practices based on following rules or instructions, mitigating risk, or performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 18-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 18-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a system, a product demand sensor device including a first electronic processor, a first transceiver and a product demand sensor; and a server including a second electronic processor and a second transceiver; a load cell, and automatically updating the future demand trajectory from the product demand sensor device, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination discloses an inventory monitoring system, a processor receiving periodic updates of product on hand from sensors monitoring product weight, calculating a days on hand forecast, and automatically reordering product when indicated by the calculated forecast. The limitations transform the abstract ideas into a practical application utilizing sensors and processors for reordering product and are patent eligible subject matter. Since the claims are directed to statutory subject matter, they are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US 11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods.”
Regarding Claim 1, A demand sensor for weighing an object, Watson teaches, (The reorder device may periodically obtain weight measurements of the item that is placed on the reorder device, as well as a timestamp that indicates a time at which the weight measurements are obtained. Such data may be provided to the entity device, and an entity associated with the entity device may determine whether weight measurement satisfies an item threshold value. If so, additional inventory of the item may be ordered and delivered, [Abstract], the demand sensor comprising:
a frame having a base and a perimeter wall extending from the base, the base and the
perimeter wall forming a recess; Watson teaches, in FIG 1, the functionality of the reorder device and a notional reorder device with a platform and a perimeter, [1:44-47 and FIG 1.]
a platform positioned in the recess, the platform being movable relative to the perimeter wall of the frame, the platform defining an upper object-supporting surface exposed at the recess and configured to receive a container disposed thereon; Watson teaches, (The items 110 that are placed on a surface of the reorder device 102 and that are reordered by the entity 106 on behalf of the customer 108 may include any type of products, [3:66-4:1], and any number of regions that are each associated with a different item 110. That is, a first type of item 110 (e.g., toilet paper) may be stored on a first region of the reorder device 102, a second type of item 110 (e.g., pens) may be stored on a second region of the reorder device 102, and so on. Each region may include sensors that capture weight data relating to the type of item 110 that is associated with that particular region. As a result, the reorder device 102 may be configured such that different types of items 110 may be stored/placed on different regions of a top surface of the reorder device, 102, [4:13-25]), and
a load sensor positioned in the recess adjacent the platform, the load sensor being
operably coupled to the platform to measure a weight of the object Watson does not teach, Hurwich teaches, (the sensor of the tracking unit may be a pressure sensor, strain gauge or the like. A variety of pressure sensors and/or strain gauges may support a wide array of consumable goods or product weights and measurement accuracies, and the manufacturers or resellers may select those that meet their expected use cases. FIG. 3 depicts a simplified reference design table of tracking unit examples in accordance with some embodiments. In a non-limiting example, the table 300 details reference design examples (90-98) for the sensors with respect to load capacity including the unit of measure, number of sensing elements, relative size of the tracking unit and form factor combinations, [0051]).
Watson and Hurwich are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design of Hurwich to facilitating the replenishment of goods, [0003],
supported by the platform, wherein the perimeter wall has an inner circumference defining the recess and an outer circumference opposite the inner circumference, and wherein the perimeter wall is tapered from the inner circumference to the outer circumference.
The inclusion of a recess and tapered wall would be a design choice with no benefit to the utility of the invention. Regardless, Watson teaches a first type of item may be stored on a first region of the reorder device 102, a second type of item 110 may be stored on a second region of the reorder device 102, and so on. Each region may include sensors that capture weight data relating to the type of item 110 that is associated with that particular region. As a result, the reorder device 102 may be configured such that different types of items 110 may be stored/placed on different regions of a top surface of the reorder device, 102, [4:13-25].
It would be a design choice to include a recess and tapered wall and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of an invention, in this case the specific shape, material, and exterior design of the reorder device so that The items that are placed on a surface of the reorder device and that are reordered by the entity on behalf of the customer
may include any type of products. [3:66-4:1]. (MPEP 2144.04 I, 2144.04 VI (C)).
Claim 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of GAO, (US 20190387375 A1), hereafter Gao, “System and Method for Food Quality Monitoring and Intelligent Restocking.”
Regarding claim 2, The product demand sensor of claim 1, wherein the frame includes plastic, and wherein the platform includes metal, Watson does not teach, Gao teaches, (the upper housing 702 and bottom panel 703 of each label may be finished with food safe material such as BPA-free plastic or a food safe metal coating and sealant, [0065]).
Watson and Gao are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design materials of Gao to enable each sensor [ ] to be configured with the attributes and holding requirements of the target food, [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, The product demand sensor of claim 1, further comprising a product status indicator. Watson does not teach, Gao teaches, (At least one multi-color LED 608 may be used to provide a visual indication on the progress of food deterioration based on a color-coding rule 310. The multi-color LED 608 can be managed, either by logic programmed into the label, or remotely by the server 202, to indicate food quality based on sensor information received from the label, [0060]).
Watson and Gao are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor status indicator of Gao to enable each sensor [ ] to be configured with the attributes and holding requirements of the target food, [0008], and alert the consumer to the status of the food, [0061].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in view of Gu, (CN 212567621 U), hereafter Gu, “An Anti-seepage Electronic Scale.”
Regarding claim 3, The product demand sensor of claim 1, wherein the product demand sensor is waterproof. Watson does not teach, Gu teaches, (the waterproof electronic scale comprises: a display device, an alarm device, a dehumidifying device, a water seepage monitoring device, a central control device and a pressure sensing device, the display device, the alarm device, the dehumidifying device, the water seepage monitoring device and the pressure sensing device are electrically connected with the central control device; Gu [p. 1-2]).
Watson and Gu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the waterproof scale of Gu to ensure the electronic scale is kept in the normal working state, Gu, [p. 3].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US 11126955
B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of Dai, (CN 209400110 U), hereafter Dai, “Multiple Rib Supporting Load Sensor.”
Regarding claim 4, The product demand sensor of claim 1, wherein the frame includes a plurality of ribs extending from and supporting the perimeter wall, Watson does not teach, Dai teaches, (a multi-rib board supporting load sensor, multiple rib supporting the load sensor of this utility model is annular, [abstract], the resistor strain sheet is adhered on the outer peripheral surface of the supporting rib plate, [p.2]).
Watson and Dai are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design of Dai to satisfy the requirement sensor low structural height and sensor structure to low height, but also to the sensor supporting plane is large and load is not great, [p. 2].
Regarding claim 5, The product demand sensor of claim 1, wherein the perimeter wall
is substantially frustoconical, Watson does not teach, Dai teaches, (As shown in FIG. 1, as shown in FIG. 2, multiple rib supporting the load sensor of the embodiment of the utility model, which is composed of upper bearing ring 1, lower bearing ring 2, a plurality of supporting ribs 3 and stuck on the resistor strain sheet supporting ribbed slab 3 on the 5. Upper bearing ring 1 and lower load ring 2 have the same structure, upper bearing ring 1 and lower load ring 2 symmetrically distributed, the upper bearing ring 1 and lower load ring 2 provided with a plurality of support ribs 3. The inclusion of a substantially frustoconical shape would be a design choice with no benefit to the utility of the invention. Regardless, Dai teaches the utility model multi-rib supporting the load sensor is a kind of ultra-low height sensors, the advantage that the supporting rib of the whole sensor height is very low and it can obtain large thickness ratio of 3, which is good for improving the test precision of the sensor. [0035], and FIG.7). It would be a design choice to include a substantially frustoconical shape and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of an invention, in this case the shape of the sensor, since the utility model multi-rib supporting load sensor processing is convenient, the precision is high and the cost is low, [p. 4], (MPEP 2144.04 I, 2144.04 VI (C)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US 11126955
B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of Gomez del Campo, (US 20170258388 A1), hereafter Gomez del Campo, “Devices and Methods for Measuring Balance.”
Regarding claim 6, The product demand sensor of claim 1, wherein the perimeter wall encircles and extends beyond the platform such that movement of the platform is limited, Watson does not teach, Gomez del Campo teaches, (Devices for measuring balance can further include electronic or mechanical controls to limit operations such as the platform movement, [0016]).
Watson and Gomez del Campo are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sensor techniques of Watson with the sensor limitations of Gomez del Campo to include a platform reset after the platform movement. The platform reset may comprise a reset time and a neutral platform position, [0008].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US 11126955
B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view Ichimaru, (CN 205179764 U), hereafter Ichimaru, “Weight Measuring Device of Grain Tank.”
Regarding claim 7, The product demand sensor of claim 1, further comprising a
plurality of load sensors including the load sensor, wherein the plurality of load sensors is positioned in the recesses and is configured to sense the weight of the object, Watson teaches, (A reorder device having an item tag reader and one or more sensors may facilitate the automatic reordering of an item, [Abstract], but does not teach the recess placement. Ichimaru teaches, (the recess 84 with the end part of the inner side in left and right directions from the horizontal part 83 toward the inner side of the left and right direction on the left and right direction. recess 84 is provided on the load sensor 11 position on the front and back direction, [p.8]).
Watson and Ichimaru are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design of Ichimaru to accurately measure the weight of the grain tank, [Abstract].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods.”
Regarding claim 9, A product demand sensor for weighing an object, Watson teaches, (The reorder device may periodically obtain weight measurements of the item that is placed on the reorder device, [Abstract], the product demand sensor comprising:
a frame having a base and a perimeter wall extending from the base, the perimeter wall and the base defining a recess, the frame defining an upper surface in which the recess is formed and a lower surface opposite the upper surface; Watson teaches, in FIG 1, the functionality of the reorder device and a notional reorder device with a platform and a perimeter, [1:44-47 and FIG 1.],
a platform positioned in the recess, supported by the frame, and configured to receive and support the object; Watson teaches, (The items 110 that are placed on a surface of the reorder device 102 and that are reordered by the entity 106 on behalf of the customer 108 may include any type of products, [3:66-4:1], and any number of regions that are each associated with a different item 110. That is, a first type of item 110 (e.g., toilet paper) may be stored on a first region of the reorder device 102, a second type of item 110 (e.g., pens) may be stored on a second region of the reorder device 102, and so on. Each region may include sensors that capture weight data relating to the type of item 110 that is associated with that particular region. As a result, the reorder device 102 may be configured such that different types of items 110 may be stored/placed on different regions of a top surface of the reorder device, 102, [4:13-25]), and a load sensor positioned in a cavity of the frame in the lower surface of the frame, wherein the frame is movable relative to the load sensor, and wherein the load sensor is configured to measure a weight of the object based on the movement of the frame, Watson does not teach, Hurwich teaches, (the sensor of the tracking unit may be a pressure sensor, strain gauge or the like. A variety of pressure sensors and/or strain gauges may support a wide array of consumable goods or product weights and measurement accuracies, and the manufacturers or resellers may select those that meet their expected use cases. FIG. 3 depicts a simplified reference design table of tracking unit examples in accordance with some embodiments. In a non-limiting example, the table 300 details reference design examples (90-98) for the sensors with respect to load capacity including the unit of measure, number of sensing elements, relative size of the tracking unit and form factor combinations, [0051]).
Watson and Hurwich are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design of Hurwich to facilitating the replenishment of goods, [0003],
Regarding claim 10, The product demand sensor of claim 9, wherein the frame includes at least one tab extending from the perimeter wall and configured to support the weight of the object. Watson teaches, (the reorder device 102 may include one or more sensors that are configured to obtain data regarding the items 110 placed on the surface of the reorder device 102. [5:3-8].
The use of a tab to support the weight of the object would be a design choice with no benefit to the utility of the invention. Regardless Watson teaches, (the sensor(s) may include a weight sensor(e.g., a load sensor, a strain gauge on a load cell, etc.) that is configured to determine/detect a weight/mass of the items 110, [5:8-11].
It would be a design choice to configure a sensor to support weighing an object and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of an invention, in this case configurations supporting objects to be weighed, the weight measurements are obtained and data may be provided to the entity device, and may determine whether weight measurement satisfies an item threshold value. If so, additional inventory of the item may be ordered and delivered [Abstract]. (MPEP 2144.04 I, 2144.04 VI (C)).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in view of Sakota, (JP 2001289445 A), hereafter Sakota, “Weight Detecting System for Heating Cooker.”
Regarding claim 11, the product demand sensor of claim 10, wherein the at least one tab has an L-shaped cross-section, Watson does not teach, Sakota teaches (the load on the mounting table on which the object to be heated is placed is transmitted directly from its working portion to the weight detecting portion via the substantially L-shaped operating body, so that good accuracy can be ensured, [0007]).
Watson and Sakota are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design of Sakota to ensure good accuracy, [0007].
Regarding claim 12, The product demand sensor of claim 11, wherein the platform defines a planar surface, Watson teaches, (The reorder device may be a pad or mat in which items are placed on a surface of the reorder device [2:1-3]), and wherein the at least one tab has a main body defining a planar surface which is substantially perpendicular to the planar surface of the platform, (FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram 200 of a reorder device that captures data used to facilitate the automatic reordering of items for a customer. As shown in FIG. 2, the diagram 200 includes the reorder device 102, which may have a top surface 202, one or more side surfaces 204, and a bottom surface 206, [6:49-54]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of Rynd, (US 20040154842 A1), hereafter Rynd, “Weight-Sensing Surfaces with Wireless Communication for Inventory Tracking.”
Regarding claim 13, The product demand sensor of claim 9, wherein the platform includes a non-skid surface configured to hold the object on the frame via a friction hold. Watson does not teach, Rynd teaches, (a mobile bed scale comprising: said horizontal bed support having a non-slip surface at least where said horizontal bed support contacts said supporting frame, [claim 42]).
Watson and Rynd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the non-slip surface of Rynd to minimize horizontal displacement, [claim 69].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US 11126955
B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of Gomez del Campo, (US 20170258388 A1), hereafter Gomez del Campo, “Devices and Methods for Measuring Balance.”
Regarding claim 14, the product demand sensor of claim 9, wherein the perimeter wall encircles and extends beyond the platform such that movement of the platform is limited, Watson does not teach, Gomez del Campo teaches, (Devices for measuring balance can further include electronic or mechanical controls to limit operations such as the platform movement, [0016]).
Watson and Gomez del Campo are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sensor techniques of Watson with the sensor limitations of Gomez del Campo to include a platform reset after the platform movement. The platform reset may comprise a reset time and a neutral platform position, [0008].
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of Gao, (US 20190387375 A1), hereafter Gao, “System and Method for Food Quality Monitoring and Intelligent Restocking.”
Regarding claim 15, The product demand sensor of claim 9, wherein the frame includes plastic, and the platform includes metal, Watson does not teach, Gao teaches, (the upper housing 702 and bottom panel 703 of each label may be finished with food safe material such as BPA-free plastic or a food safe metal coating and sealant, [0065]).
Watson and Gao are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design materials of Gao to enable each sensor [ ] to be configured with the attributes and holding requirements of the target food, [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, the product demand sensor of claim 9, further comprising a product status indicator, Watson does not teach, Gao teaches, (At least one multi-color LED 608 may be used to provide a visual indication on the progress of food deterioration based on a color-coding rule 310. The multi-color LED 608 can be managed, either by logic programmed into the label, or remotely by the server 202, to indicate food quality based on sensor information received from the label, [0060]).
Watson and Gao are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems for product consumption and inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor status indicator of Gao to enable each sensor [ ] to be configured with the attributes and holding requirements of the target food, [0008], and alert the consumer to the status of the food, [0061].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Watson, (US 11126955 B1),
hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items,” in view of Hurwich, (US 20170300984 A1), hereafter Hurwich, “Platform for Prediction of Consumption and Re-ordering of Goods,” in further view of in view Ichimaru, (CN 205179764 U), hereafter Ichimaru, “Weight Measuring Device of Grain Tank.”
Regarding claim 16, The product demand sensor of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of load sensors including the load sensor, wherein the plurality of load sensors is positioned in the recesses and is configured to sense the weight of the object, Watson does not teach, Ichimaru teaches, (the recess 84 with the end part of the inner side in left and right directions from the horizontal part 83 toward the inner side of the left and right direction on the left and right direction. recess 84 is provided on the load sensor 11 position on the front and back direction, [p.8]) .
Watson and Ichimaru are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of measurement systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the product inventory management data techniques of Watson with the load sensor design of Ichimaru to accurately measure the weight of the grain tank, [Abstract].
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being taught by Watson, (US
11126955 B1), hereafter Watson, “Sensor Data-based Reordering of Items.”
Regarding claim 18, A product demand monitoring system for maintaining a volume of
a product, Watson teaches, (The reorder device may periodically obtain weight measurements of the item that is placed on the reorder device, as well as a timestamp that indicates a time at which the weight measurements are obtained. Such data may be provided to the entity device, and an entity associated with the entity device may determine whether weight measurement satisfies an item threshold value. If so, additional inventory of the item may be ordered and delivered, [Abstract]), the system comprising:
a product demand sensor device including a first electronic processor, a first transceiver and a product demand sensor; (one or more entity devices that are associated with an entity that facilitates the automatic reordering of items for a customer. The entity device(s) 104 may include one or more processor(s) 402 and memory, [18:33-36]), The reorder device may periodically obtain weight measurements of the item that is placed on the reorder device, as well as a timestamp that indicates a time at which the weight measurements were obtained, [Abstract], The reorder device 102 may transmit the raw audio data to the entity device(s) 104 and/or the microphone(s) may generate one or more audio signals that represent the audio data, which may then be transmitted to the entity device(s), [17:41-45]), and
a server including a second electronic processor and a second transceiver;
wherein the product demand sensor includes a load cell and is configured to measure
a load measurement corresponding to a weight of the product (The sensor(s) may include a weight sensor (e.g. a load sensor, a strain gauge on a load cell, etc.) that is configured to determine/detect a weight/mass of the items, [5:8-11]), within a container applied to
disposed on the product demand sensor device, and the first electronic processor is configured to periodically transmit, via the first transceiver to the electronic server, the load measurement; (A sensor (e.g., a weight sensor) of the reorder device my periodically obtain weight measurements of the items that are placed on the surface of the reorder device, [2:35-37]), and
wherein the second electronic processor is configured to:
receive from the product demand sensor device, via the second transceiver, the load
measurement;
generate, based on the load measurement and historic load measurement data
corresponding to at least one previously received load measurement of the product, a product demand profile of the product; (the reorder device and/or the entity device may determine a reorder threshold associated with the item, [2:42-44]),
predict, based on the product demand profile, a future demand trajectory;
generate, based on the future demand trajectory, a days on hand value for the product, the days on hand value being a prediction of how many days until the product within the container will be depleted; The reorder threshold may be based on the item itself, consumption patterns of the customer, consumption patterns of other customers, and so on, [2:44-46]), and
automatically update the future demand trajectory and the days on hand value for the
product based on a subsequently received load measurement from the product demand sensor device. When the weight data obtained by the sensor(s) of the reorder device is equal to or below the reorder threshold, the reorder device and/or the entity device may cause the item to be reordered for, and delivered to, the customer, [2:46-50]).
Regarding claim 19, The system of claim 18 wherein the second electronic processor is further configured to predict the future demand trajectory based on at least one additional factor, Watson teaches, (after obtaining a weight measurement for the item, the reorder device may send various types of data to the entity device, which may include the weight data, an identifier of the reorder device (e.g., a reorder ID), an identifier for the item (e.g., item ID), an identifier for the item tag associated with the item (e.g., item tag ID), and/or a timestamp that indicates a time at which the weight measurement was obtained. Based on this data, the entity device may determine that the weight data corresponds to a specific item of a particular customer. Based on weight measurements received over time, the entity device may determine the extent to which the item is being used/consumed by the customer. When the weight of the items placed on the reorder device is equal to or less than the reorder threshold for that item/customer, the entity device may cause additional inventory of the item to be ordered for, and delivered to, the customer. The customer may then be informed that additional items have been ordered for the customer, that the customer has been charged for the additional items, and/or a date at which the customer should expect to receive the additional items, [2:55-3:8]).
Regarding claim 20, the system of claim 18, wherein the second electronic processor is further configured to automatically generate and transmit, via the transceiver to a distribution facility, an order for a volume of the product based on the days on hand forecast, Watson teaches, (In order to initiate a reorder of the item 110, the reorder device 102 may transmit a signal to the network device, such as a WiFi hub, a smartphone, or other network device. The signal may also be transmitted directly to the entity device(s) 104. The signal may include the reorder device ID 120, the item tag ID 122, the item weight data 124, and/or the timestamp data 126. The network device may then transmit the signal or another signal to the entity device(s) 104 to request a resupply of the item110. The entity 106 may process the transmitted data to initiate the resupply of the item 110, [18:1-11]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624