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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 7 August 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and treated below. Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 are amended.
Applicant’s amendments filed on 7 August 2026, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been considered and are not persuasive. Certain subject matter introduced with the amended claims is considered new matter and therefore rejected, see the below reasoning. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections are therefore maintained.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. On line 15, claim 1 recites “a plurality of logistical indications signifying a logistical state of the selected item at the respective shelving unit.” There is no previous supporting language in the claims or specification that describes what a “logistical state” of an item means. The specifications does mention in paragraph 0006 how a plurality of logistical indications can signify payment state(s), but there is no language that connects or defines this payment state(s) to a logistical state. The language of dependent Claim 3 can further be interpreted to make logistical state(s) as distinct from payment state(s), further supporting that the amended language is new matter. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered without this amended claim language.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2 is 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. On line 5, claim 2 recites “wherein the visual indication includes emitting a distinct hue of light to signify the logistical state of the selected item” There is no previous supporting language in the claims or specification that describes what a “logistical state” of an item means. The specifications does mention in paragraph 0006 how a plurality of logistical indications can signify payment state(s), but there is no language that connects or defines this payment state(s) to a logistical state. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered without this amended claim language.
Claim 11 is 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. On line 16, claim 11 recites “a plurality of logistical indications signifying a logistical state of the selected item at the respective shelving unit.” There is no previous supporting language in the claims or specification that describes what a “logistical state” of an item means. The specifications does mention in paragraph 0006 how a plurality of logistical indications can signify payment state(s), but there is no language that connects or defines this payment state(s) to a logistical state. The language of dependent Claim 14 can further be interpreted to make logistical state(s) as distinct from payment state(s), further supporting that the amended language is new matter. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered without this amended claim language.
Claims 12-20 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 11.
Claim 12 is 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. On line 5, claim 12 recites “wherein the visual indication includes emitting a distinct hue of light to signify the logistical state of the selected item” There is no previous supporting language in the claims or specification that describes what a “logistical state” of an item means. The specifications does mention in paragraph 0006 how a plurality of logistical indications can signify payment state(s), but there is no language that connects or defines this payment state(s) to a logistical state. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered without this amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Francis (US 20240303594 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Francis teaches an identification system for a mass storage system, comprising:
a user initiable microcontroller (described in paragraph 0207);
a computer readable storage device in logical communication with the user initiable microcontroller and configured to store a computer usable media for indicating any item from a predetermined amount of items stored in a plurality of shelving units (described in paragraph 0208 and 0333, wherein the memory would have to store the information pertaining to items stored on a plurality of shelves);
and at least one set of indicators electrically connected with the user initiable microcontroller and being mechanically connected with each shelf of a shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units (paragraph 0334 describes item indicators used to identify and locate objects on shelves);
wherein the user initiable microcontroller is configured to automatically indicating the at least one location of a selected item, via the at least one set of indicators, in any shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units in response to at least one identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller (described in paragraph 0333 and 0334).
Regarding Claim 2, Francis further teaches wherein the at least one set of indicators is configured to automatically visually indicate at least one location of the selected item in any shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units in response to the at least one identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller (described in paragraphs 0333 and 0334, wherein visual indication would be communicating via display).
Regarding Claim 3, Francis further teaches wherein the at least one set of indicators comprises: a first logistic indication in response to the at least one identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller; wherein the first logistic indication signifies a first payment state of the selected item (paragraph 0702 describes the central computer system, or CCS, which is electrically connected to the microcontroller tracking payment for items in an order, paragraphs 0669-0701 further affirms communication between the microcontroller and CCS regarding customer orders which can be in response to a scanned item, wherein the first payment state is the item/order is paid for).
Regarding Claim 4, Francis further teaches wherein the at least one set of indicators further comprises: a second logistic indication in response to at least another identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller; wherein the second logistic indication signifies a second payment state of the selected item different than the first payment state indicated by the first logistic indication (paragraph 0702 describes the central computer system, or CCS, which is electrically connected to the microcontroller tracking payment for items in an order, paragraphs 0669-0701 further affirms communication between the microcontroller and CCS regarding customer orders which can be in response to a scanned item, wherein the second payment state is the item/order is not yet paid for).
Regarding Claim 5, Francis further teaches a user interfacing device electrically connected with the user initiable microcontroller; wherein the user interfacing device is configured for executing the at least one identification code on the user initiable microcontroller to automatically indicate the at least one location of the selected item in any shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units (shown in Figures 39A-39C, also described in paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 6, Francis further teaches wherein the user interfacing device is electrically connected with the user initiable microcontroller via a wired connection or a wireless connection (described in paragraphs 0079 and 0207-0208).
Regarding Claim 7, Francis further teaches an external computer in logical communication with the user initiable microcontroller; wherein the external computer is configured to store a second computer usable media for itemizing each item from the predetermined amount of items stored in the plurality of shelving units (Central computer system, or CCS described in paragraphs 0074-0079).
Regarding Claim 8, Francis further teaches at least another set of indicators electrically connected with the microcontroller and operably engaged with each shelf of a shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units; wherein the user initiable microcontroller is configured to automatically indicate the at least one location of the selected item, via the at least another set of indicators, in any shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units in response to the at least one identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller (location indicators described in paragraph 0088, 0113-0125 and 0334).
Regarding Claim 9, Francis further teaches wherein each item of the predetermined amount of items is positioned between the at least one set of indicators and the at least another set of indicators (paragraph 0079, 0119 and 0425 describe indicators being located around items such as on a shelf, when placed on shelves in a rack, the items would be on the shelves and therefore between indicator sets).
Regarding Claim 11, Francis further teaches a method of indicating a selected item in a mass shelving environment, the method comprising:
initiating an identification system of the mass shelving environment (described in Abstract and paragraph 0361);
executing at least one identification code on a user initiable microcontroller of the identification system (described in paragraph 0012 and 0207, wherein execution is performed as processing after scanning the code);
mechanically connecting the at least one set of indicators to each shelf of the mass shelving environment (paragraph 0334 describes indicators using location determination meaning it would have to be associated with the location of each item in a shelving environment);
retrieving information of the at least one identification code, via the user initiable microcontroller, from a computer usable media stored on a computer readable storage device of the identification system
(described in paragraph 0079, wherein in order to retrieve information a storage device would have to hold the information either on the mobile scanning device, MSD, or the central computer system, CCS which are in operable communication with each other);
sending at least one signal from the user initiable microcontroller to at least one set of indicators (described in paragraph 0079, wherein the signal is the act of scanning and the indicators are item indicators);
and indicating the selected item in the mass shelving environment via an indicator of the at least one set of indicators (described in paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 12, Francis further teaches wherein the step of indicating the selected item in the mass shelving environment via the indicator of the at least one set of indicators further includes that the selected item in the mass shelving environment is visually indicated by the indicator of the at least one set of indicators (described in paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 13, Francis further teaches emitting a first logistic indication, via the indicator of the at least one set of indicators, in response to the at least one identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller; wherein the first logistic indication denotes that a first payment state of the selected item (paragraph 0702 describes the central computer system, or CCS, which is electrically connected to the microcontroller tracking payment for items in an order, paragraphs 0669-0701 further affirms communication between the microcontroller and CCS regarding customer orders which can be in response to a scanned item, wherein the first payment state is the item/order is paid for).
Regarding Claim 14, Francis further teaches emitting a second logistic indication, via the indicator of the at least one set of indicators, in response to the at least one identification code executed on the user initiable microcontroller; wherein the second logistic indication denotes that a second payment state of the selected item different than the first payment state denoted by the first logistic indication (paragraph 0702 describes the central computer system, or CCS, which is electrically connected to the microcontroller tracking payment for items in an order, paragraphs 0669-0701 further affirms communication between the microcontroller and CCS regarding customer orders which can be in response to a scanned item, wherein the second payment state is the item/order is not yet paid for).
Regarding Claim 15, Francis further teaches inputting the at least one identification code on the user initiable microcontroller via a user interfacing device of the identification system (described in paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 16, Francis further teaches connecting the user interfacing device with the user initiable microcontroller by one of a wired connection or a wireless connection (described in paragraph 0207).
Regarding Claim 17, Francis further teaches itemizing each item from a predetermined amount of items stored in the plurality of shelving units by an external computer of the identification system (described in paragraph 0549 wherein the itemizing is via a route to collect items).
Regarding Claim 18, Francis further teaches sending the at least one signal from the user initiable microcontroller to at least another set of indicators of the identification system; and indicating the selected item in the mass shelving environment via an indicator of the at least another set of indicators (described in paragraph 0114 wherein location indicators are the another set of indicators and the sending of a signal is scanning).
Regarding Claim 19, Francis further teaches wherein the selected item is positioned between the at least one set of indicators and the at least another set of indicators (paragraph 0079, 0119 and 0425 describe indicators being located around items such as on a shelf, when placed on shelves in a rack, the items would be on the shelves and therefore between indicator sets).
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Francis (US 20240303594 A1) in view of Hawthorne (US 7152040 B1).
Francis teaches the claim limitations of Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18. They do not teach an electric power source providing power to the indicators.
Hawthorne teaches electronically powered indicators in the form of shelf labels that can electronically display barcodes (described in column 3 lines 48-55 and column 5 lines 36-52).
Regarding Claim 10, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the shelf labels of Hawthorne to the shelves and integrating operation of them with the identification system of Francis. The result would allow store and warehouse managers to alter the shelf labels from a single hub rather than manually replacing shelf labels whenever rearranging of items on the shelves may occur. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the shelf labels of Hawthorne to the identification system of Francis without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the shelf labels of Hawthorne to the identification system of Francis would produce the predictable results of identifying items within a mass storage environment.
Regarding Claim 20, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the shelf labels of Hawthorne to the shelves and integrating operation of them with the identification system of Francis. The result would allow store and warehouse managers to alter the shelf labels from a single hub rather than manually replacing shelf labels whenever rearranging of items on the shelves may occur. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the shelf labels of Hawthorne to the identification system of Francis without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the shelf labels of Hawthorne to the identification system of Francis would produce the predictable results of identifying items within a mass storage environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights