DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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.
Claim Status
In the amendment filed on October 23, 2025, Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination. Of the above claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 6 are missing period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the tool transport device” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 6 recites “the filtering technique” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of events”, “the object of interest” and “the container of interest” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the drawer” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 1-4 and 6-8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Glickman et al. (Glickman: US 2010/0045423 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Glickman teaches an inventory control system for monitoring the removal and replacement of objects stored in the system (Fig. 9), comprising:
a plurality of storage containers (Fig. 9, multiple storage systems 800 in group 850), where each storage container comprises:
a plurality of storage locations for storing objects (Par 32, multiple storage locations for storing objects, such as those illustrated in FIGS. 1a, 1b and 2);
at least one image sensing device configured to capture image data of the plurality of storage locations (Par 34, one or more image sensing devices configured to capture images of part or all contents or storage locations, and Par 51),
a data processor configured to: receive information representing captured images of the storage locations and data representing the usage or status of the objects associated with the images (Par 43, The data processing subsystem, such as a computer, is in charge of processing images captured by image sensing devices of the imaging subsystem and/or generate reports of inventory conditions. And Fig. 10A-10D and par 206, display of system 800 is provided with a graphical presentation of the tool storage system that dynamically updates the status of tool storage system 800.); and
a portable container (Fig. 9, storage system 800 outside group 850 and Fig. 3, storage system is on rolling wheel for moving around i.e. portable ) comprising a plurality of supplemental locations for storing the object containers (storage drawers 330), being configured to communicate with the plurality of storage locations (Fig. 9, wireless communication and Par 49, data communications between the subsystems and/or to interface with a data communication network and/or another data processing system external to the inventory control system) and being configured to reconcile objects shared between the portable container and plurality of storage containers (Par 96, This data will be used later in evaluation of situations where something is laying over the edge of the tool cutout indicating a wrong tool has been placed in the storage location and Par [0119] The error alert could be for wrong tool, misplaced tool, unknown item across multiple ROI's etc. In one embodiment the signature of the item in the tool cutout ROI could be compared to a database of all tools … known globally.)
Regarding Claim 2, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, wherein the data processor is configured to receive the information based on image data from the image sensing device (Glickman: Par 43, The data processing subsystem, such as a computer, is in charge of processing images captured by image sensing devices of the imaging subsystem and/or generate reports of inventory conditions).
Regarding Claim 3, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, wherein the portable container comprises a supplemental image sensing system, configured to capture an image of each of the plurality of supplemental storage locations (Glickman: Par [0052] System 300 includes a data processing system, such as a computer, for processing images captured by the image sensing device. Images captured or formed by the image sensing device are processed by the data processing system for determining an inventory condition of the system or each storage drawer.).
Regarding Claim 4, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, wherein the portable container and at least one of the plurality of storage containers comprise an RFID scanner (Glickman: Par 37, a keycard reader to read from a key card or fobs authorization level of a user holding the card or fob … radio frequency ID cards).
Regarding Claim 6, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, wherein the data processor is configured to apply the filtering technique based on the filtering technique comprising filtering according to at least one of: target box, tool, object, employee, drawer, event type, drawer, or time range (Glickman: Par 203, data can be sorted by pertinent criteria such as date, user, or drawer,).
Regarding Claim 7, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to display all events of the plurality of events corresponding to the object of interest or the container of interest (Glickman: Fig. 10D and Par 208, FIG. 10d shows an exemplary record stored in system 800 and/or server 802, in which both "before access" and "after access" images 981 and 982 are stored. Missing tools are identified according to "after access" image 982 and listed in area 980 ).
Regarding Claim 8, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to store log event data (Glickman: Par [0137] System 300 records access information related to each access. The access information includes time, user information related to the access, duration, user images, images of storage locations, store unit or contents of the storage system, objects in the storage system, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glickman in view of Bufalini et al. (Bufalini: US 2013/070090).
Regarding Claim 5, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the system further comprises a handheld computing device wherein the handheld computing device is configured to communicate with the tool transport device and the plurality of storage container.
However, Bufalini teaches a storage container/cabinet (Fig. 5) including storage locations for storing objects (Fig. 1, 10 and par 32) monitored by imaging sensing device (Par 40) and further teaches a handheld computing device wherein the handheld computing device is configured to communicate with the tool transport device and the plurality of storage container (Fig. 1, 25 and Par 33, barcode reader to read user identification credentials to ascertain whether the user has access to a particular storage device …, as well as to track and trend access to the storage device, such as for taking inventory and generating reports regarding users).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide a handheld device as taught by Bufalini in order to read user identification credentials to ascertain whether the user has access to a particular storage device (Bufalini: Par 33).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glickman in view of Maloney (US 6707381).
Regarding Claim 9, Glickman teaches the inventory control system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the drawer comprises a tray, wherein the tray comprises a coded tag.
However, Maloney teaches a system and method for tracking and controlling access to objects including a lockable storage cabinet adapted to receive, store, and dispense objects within security containers (abstract) and further teaches wherein the drawer comprises a tray, wherein the tray comprises a coded tag (Fig. 2, rectangular box 32 for placing object and col. 7 lines 35-39; container may be provided with a label 39 bearing indicia identifying the contents of the container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide a tray with a coded tag as taught by Maloney for the benefit of identifying contents and conveying any other desired information (Maloney: Col. 7 lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Glickman and Maloney teaches the inventory control system of claim 9 wherein the coded tag identifies the contents of the tray (Maloney: col. 7 lines 35-39; container may be provided with a label 39 bearing indicia identifying the contents of the container.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688