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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 08/15/2023 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the instant application. Claim 10 has been withdrawn. Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 11, 12, and 14-17 have been amended. Claims 18-20 have been added. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered by the examiner and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 102 in view of the applied prior art of record have been considered by the examiner, and are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented below.
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 1-3, 5, 7, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoo et al (US 2018/0239319) in view of Taira et al (US 2017/0255899).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a storage-retrieval management device comprising: a camera(see at least paragraph [0079] to Abdoo et al, wherein it is contemplated that the cameras 570, when disposed on the doors 526 of the appliance 510, can be used to capture a three-dimensional image and/or a panoramic two-dimensional image of the contents of the refrigerated compartment 520) that captures images each including markers as subjects from above a repository that includes a first storage structure and a second storage structure (see at least paragraph [0075] to Abdoo et al, wherein In order to capture images of all of the various compartments of the appliance 510, it is contemplated that various cameras 570 can be disposed throughout the appliance 510 for capturing and analyzing data and performing the first and second data capturing phases 552, 554 within each of the compartments. Such compartments can include, but are not limited to, refrigerated compartments 520, pantry compartments 524, freezer compartments 522, heaters, warmers, and other similar compartments), the images showing a scene in which an object is put into or taken out of the repository (see at least paragraph [0093] to Abdu et al, wherein information regarding how many times the particular temporarily stored item 542 has been taken out and put back into the appliance 510), the markers being provided on the first storage structure and the second storage structure, the second storage structure being at a position different from a position of the first storage structure in a vertical direction (see at least paragraph [0084] to Abdu et al, wherein providing for the storage of the temporarily stored items 542 on the peripheral of each of the U-shaped shelves 640, the shelf 640 can help guide consumers to place items at an appropriate location and at a convenient and efficient distance from the cameras 570 for optimal viewing by the scanning apparatus 544. This effect creates maximum views, fuller views and clearer views of more of the temporarily stored items 542 within the refrigerating appliance 510. This configuration also creates better views as to each of the shelves 640, such that visual blockage in a vertical direction can also be minimized. According to various embodiments, it is also contemplated that the scanning apparatus 544 can be operable within the appliance 510 such that the various cameras 570, scanners 620, and other components of the scanning apparatus 544 can be operable within the appliance 510 for gathering a maximum amount of information concerning the various storage surfaces 540 and temporarily stored items 542 disposed thereon or therein); and a processor that determines a storage position at which the object is stored, based on whether the markers included in the images are visible or hidden by the object, wherein the first storage structure and the second storage structure are door compartments provided in a door included in the repository (see at least paragraphs [0158] and [0161] to Abdoo et al).
Abdoo et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the markers include region markers physically arranged on a bottom surface of at least one of the door compartments to correspond to predetermined regions of the bottom surface.
However, Taira et al discloses a system and method for managing inventory based on captured images, wherein the markers include region markers physically arranged on a bottom surface of at least one of the door compartments to correspond to predetermined regions of the bottom surface (see at least paragraphs [0014]-[0016] to Taira et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the foodstuff sensing system and method, as disclosed by Abdoo et al and the system and method for managing inventory based on captured images, as taught by Taira et al, in order to enable a system to correlate a storage position and a type of item (see at least paragraph [0004] to Taira et al, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to wherein the processor determines on which of the region markers the storage position of the object is located, based on whether the region markers in the images are visible or hidden in the at least one of the door compartments in which the region markers are set (see at least paragraph [0079] to Abdoo et al, wherein as the doors 526 are rotated from the closed position 530 to the open position 528, or vice versa, a series of successive scans 660 that make up a data capturing phase 550 can be performed as the doors 526 move between the open and closed positions 528, 530. In this manner, the perspective of each camera of the scanning apparatus 544 will be slightly moved during each successive scan 660 of the data capturing phase 550, such that, when the data is stitched, combined, or otherwise aggregated, the resulting data represents a three-dimensional image and/or a panoramic two-dimensional image of the interior 572 of the refrigerating compartment 518. The points at which each data capturing phase 550 is performed during the movement of the doors 526 can be dictated by a predetermined rotational position of each door 526 relative to the open and/or closed position 528, 530 as the door 526 is moved).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to The storage-retrieval management device according to wherein the first storage structure defines a first storage space, the second storage structure defines a second storage space at a position different from a position of the first storage space in the vertical direction, and the processor determines in which one of the first storage space or the second storage space the storage position of the object is, based on whether the markers in the images are visible or hidden (see at least paragraph [0074] to Abdoo et al, wherein it is also contemplated that various drawers 642 contained within the refrigerating compartment 518 can include transparent or at least partially transparent materials such that a camera 570 of the scanning apparatus 544 can view items contained within various drawers 642 of the appliance 510. Such drawers 642 can include, but are not limited to, crisper drawers, pantry drawers, drawers for humidity-controlled compartments, heating compartments, warmers, and other similar drawers 642 of the appliance 510. The various data capturing phases 550 for drawers 642 of an appliance 510 can be conducted as the drawer 642 is moved between a closed position 530 and an open position 528 where the drawer 642 is extended from the refrigerating compartment 518.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 1,wherein the position of the first storage structure is above the position of the second storage structure, the processor determines that the storage position of the object corresponds to the position of the first storage structure when, out of the markers, a marker provided on the first storage structure is hidden in at least one of the images, and the processor determines that the storage position of the object corresponds to the position of the second storage structure when the marker provided on the first storage structure is not hidden and, out of the markers, a marker provided on the second storage structure is hidden in at least one of the images (see at least paragraph [0073] to Abdoo et al, wherein t is contemplated that numerous shelf configurations can be included within the refrigerated compartment 520. Such shelf configurations can include, but are not limited to, U-shaped shelves, narrow-profile shelves, staggered-height shelves, rectangular shelves, height-adjustable shelves, shelves having slidable partitions, transparent shelves, translucent shelves, at least partially translucent shelves, opaque shelves, shelves having integrated lighting, combinations thereof, and other similar configurations for allowing a camera to capture data and/or images as to all or substantially all of the temporarily stored items 542 contained within the refrigerating compartment 518. It is further contemplated that the cameras 570 and/or the shelves 640 can be operable in a variety of directions (i.e., vertically, horizontally, laterally, diagonally, arcuately, irregularly, etc.) in order to provide a wide range of views for performing the first and second data capturing phases 552, 554 to accurately gather information as to the temporarily stored items 542 to generate the current inventory manifest 560.).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 1,wherein the processor further determines a type of the object, and gives notice when the type of the object is indeterminable (see at least paragraph [0056] to Abdoo et al, wherein a processor 670 for the appliance 510 generates an output such as in the form of an indicia transmitted to a user that can correspond to any one or more of the at least one temporarily stored item 542. The predetermined parameters 562 can relate to user preferences as to quantity, quality, life span, spoilage, and other information related to the various temporarily stored items 542 or combinations of parameters).
Claims 11-13 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 1, wherein the region markers are changeable according to an opening angle of the door, and the processor determines the storage position of the object with use of the region markers set according to the opening angle of the door (see at least paragraph [0056] to Abdoo et al, wherein The data capturing phases 550 can be performed to record, obtain, scan, read, measure, view, input, transfer, sequester or otherwise capture data through the use of the scanning apparatus 544).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 14, wherein: the processor that measures a distance from a specific point to the door, wherein the opening angle of the door is determined with use of the distance, and the processor determines the storage position of the object with use of the region markers set according to the opening angle of the door that is determined (see at least paragraph [0077] to Abdoo et al, wherein , where the scanning apparatus 544 includes cameras 570 disposed within a rotationally operable door 526, that is hingedly connected to the cabinet 512, it is contemplated that each door 526 of a French door refrigerator can be configured to take a picture of the opposing French door 526 as the doors 526 are moved to a fully open position 528. In this manner, the system can be configured to be capable of sensing the speed of each door 526 as each door 526 moves between the open and closed positions 528, 530. Such a sensing operation can be done through motion sensors 650, a rotational sensor disposed proximate a door hinge 652, or other similar movement sensing apparatus or combinations thereof). The examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an angle is easily determined when the distances associated with a given point are known, and as such, the disclosure that the system is enabled to calculate the angle associated with the opening of refrigerator door means that the system inherently is able to assess what the distance values associated with the opening and closing of the doors are in order to make such a determination. The examiner submits that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the determination of the distance would be inherent within the disclosure of the applied prior art of record, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 15, wherein: the processor sets the region markers, and determines a distance for use in determining the opening angle of the door, based on the distance from the specific point to the door a predetermined number of times (see at least paragraph [0077] to Abdoo et al, wherein , where the scanning apparatus 544 includes cameras 570 disposed within a rotationally operable door 526, that is hingedly connected to the cabinet 512, it is contemplated that each door 526 of a French door refrigerator can be configured to take a picture of the opposing French door 526 as the doors 526 are moved to a fully open position 528. In this manner, the system can be configured to be capable of sensing the speed of each door 526 as each door 526 moves between the open and closed positions 528, 530. Such a sensing operation can be done through motion sensors 650, a rotational sensor disposed proximate a door hinge 652, or other similar movement sensing apparatus or combinations thereof). The examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an angle is easily determined when the distances associated with a given point are known, and as such, the disclosure that the system is enabled to calculate the angle associated with the opening of refrigerator door means that the system inherently is able to assess what the distance values associated with the opening and closing of the doors are in order to make such a determination. The examiner submits that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the determination of the distance would be inherent within the disclosure of the applied prior art of record, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 14, further comprising: a sensor that measures the opening angle of the door, wherein the processor determines the storage position of the object with use of the region markers set according to the opening angle of the door measured by the sensor (see at least paragraph [0077] to Abdoo et al, wherein , where the scanning apparatus 544 includes cameras 570 disposed within a rotationally operable door 526, that is hingedly connected to the cabinet 512, it is contemplated that each door 526 of a French door refrigerator can be configured to take a picture of the opposing French door 526 as the doors 526 are moved to a fully open position 528. In this manner, the system can be configured to be capable of sensing the speed of each door 526 as each door 526 moves between the open and closed positions 528, 530. Such a sensing operation can be done through motion sensors 650, a rotational sensor disposed proximate a door hinge 652, or other similar movement sensing apparatus or combinations thereof).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art discloses the storage-retrieval management device according to claim 1, wherein the region markers comprise two-dimensional codes (see at least paragraph [0014] to Taira et al).
Claims 19 and 20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights