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 .
Examiner Note
Applicant has claimed four distinct/separate embodiments (a, b, c and d) in one claim. While Examiner was courteous to find all the embodiment and gave Applicant notice in the Non-Final mailed 19 September 2025 that each of the embodiments were not necessarily limiting, the amendments filed in the Amendment (“Response”) on 19 December 2025 to further limit each of the embodiments to further deviate from each other creates a serious search burden. Further, since the embodiments are each optional, if Examiner were to find prior art for one embodiment, the prior art for the one embodiment would teach the entire claim. Examiner has chosen below to only examine embodiment type b. Even further, any dependent claims which further limit any of the other embodiments (type a, c and d) are not necessary for the Examiner to find, because they are not based on a required feature of embodiment type b. Examiner suggests Applicant choose one embodiment, or require the presentation device to actually comprise each of the embodiments.
For simplicity, the limitation of claim 1 embodiment b for which Examiner has provided prior art for are provided below:
Product presentation device comprising:
at least one sensor with a detection area for detecting an object within the detection area, and
at least one storage structure for the storage of the object, wherein the storage structure comprises a rear edge and a front edge, wherein the detection area of the sensor is orientated along the direction from the rear edge to the front edge,
wherein, … b), individually positioned sensors are provided along the rear edge and a product guidance structure is provided corresponding to the position of one of the respective individually positioned sensors, which is provided for guiding the object towards the front edge and configured to directly apply a force to the object in a direction pointing towards the front edge,
wherein the product guidance structure is designed in such a way that the
one of the individually positioned sensors is configured to directly detect the guided object.
Even further, claims 9-11 further limit the “sensor movement system” which is not required by embodiment type b and therefore claims 9-11 are not required features to be taught by the prior art. Claims 12-15 further limit embodiment types b ‘OR’ c, and while Examiner has provided a rejection for these features, these features are further not required when viewed as further limiting just embodiment type c.
Given the above, the Markush grouping of claim 9-15 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use because independent claim 1’s embodiments are optional and do not share a single structural similarity and common use, and claims 9-15 attempt to further limit optional features which do not share a single structural similarity and common use.
Applicant should set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues DiFatta in view of Buibas and Burger fails to teach “b), individually positioned sensors are provided along the rear edge and a product guidance structure is provided corresponding to the position of one of the respective individually positioned sensors, which is provided for guiding the object towards the front edge and configured to directly apply a force to the object in a direction pointing towards the front edge, wherein the product guidance structure is designed in such a way that the one of the individually positioned sensors is configured to directly detect the guided object”. However, DiFatta clearly teaches “FIG. 2 schematically depicts a cross-section of an inventory location 55 where a distance sensor 4 is measuring a distance L to a rear-most retail item 62x. At the depicted inventory location 55 three items 62 sit on shelf 57. A pusher 61 pushes the items 62 toward a front edge 58 of the shelf 57 such that the items are maintained toward the front of the shelf” (DiFatta: ¶ 0019, emphasis added) and the “distance sensor 4 measures the distance L to the rear-most retail item 62x, and thus a distance not occupied by the retail items 62. In the depicted embodiment, the measurement is effectuated by measuring a distance to the pusher 61, which is against the rear-most item 62x. In other embodiments, the distance sensor 4 may measure the distance to the actual retail item 62” (DiFatta: ¶ 0020, emphasis added). While DiFatta may have a more advanced sensor movement system which automatically moves to different product guidance structures, once the sensor of DiFatta is in place, the sensor teaches all the features of the claimed product presentation device, except for the feature of “individually placed sensors”. Examiner uses Buibas to teach and disclose this feature. Buibas teaches the “configuration shown has three distance sensor units 6402e, 6402f, and 6402g. Because the item storage areas are of different widths, the distance sensor units are not evenly spaced. If the store reconfigures the shelf with different sized items, distance sensor units may be easily moved to new positions, and units may be added or removed as needed” (Buibas: column 63, lines 8-30, emphasis added) and “a distance measurement is indicative of the number of products on a particular lane or bin in a shelf, and changes in distance or perturbances in the measurement statistics are indicative of an action/quantity. Distance measurement is illustrated for bin 6401d. LIDAR 6402d emits light 6403d, which reflects off of moveable back 6601d. The time of flight 6604d for the round trip of the light is measured by the sensor 6402d, and is converted to a distance. In this embodiment, distance signals from LIDARs 6402a, 6402b, 6402c, and 6402d are transmitted to a microprocessor or microcontroller 6610, which may be integrated into or coupled to shelf 4213a or a shelving unit in which the shelf is installed. This processor 6610 may analyze the signals to detect action events, and may send action data 6611 to a store server 130. This data may for example include the type of action (such as removing or adding items), the quantity of items involved, the storage zone where the event occurred, and the time of the event. In one or more embodiments the action detection may be performed by the store server 130 without a local microprocessor 6610” (Buibas: column 62, lines 15-48). DiFatta teaches inventory management system. Buibas teaches a comparable inventory management system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Buibas offers the embodiment of individually positioned sensors and a product guidance structure is provided corresponding to the position of the respective sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the respective sensors as disclosed by Buibas to the inventory management system as taught by DiFatta for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0225625 A1 to DiFatta et al. (“DiFatta”) in view of United States Patent No. 11,106,941 B2 to Buibas et al. (“Buibas”).
As per claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta includes:
Product presentation device comprising (DiFatta: Fig. 1):
at least one sensor with a detection area for detecting an object (DiFatta: ¶ 0018 and Fig. 1, 4 and Fig. 2), and
at least one storage structure for the storage of the object, wherein the storage structure comprises a rear edge and a front edge, wherein the detection area of the sensor is orientated along the direction from the rear edge to the front edge, wherein (DiFatta: ¶¶ 0019-0020 and Fig. 2, 57),
a product guidance structure is provided…, which is provided for guiding the object towards the front edge and configured to directly apply a force to the object in a direction pointing towards the front edge (DiFatta: ¶¶ 0019-0020 and 0033 and Fig. 2, 61),
wherein the product guidance structure is designed in such a way that the … sensor is configured to directly detect the guided object (DiFatta: ¶¶ 0018-0020 and Figs. 1 and 2).
DiFatta fails to specifically teach individually positioned sensors are provided along the rear edge and a product guidance structure is provided corresponding to the position of the individually positioned sensors. The Examiner provides Buibas to teach and disclose claimed feature 1.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Buibas includes:
individually positioned sensors are provided along the rear edge and a product guidance structure is provided corresponding to the position of the individually positioned sensors (Buibas: column 12, lines 5-61, column 61, line 57 through column 62, line 48 and column 63, lines 8-30 and Figs. 66A-66D),
DiFatta teaches inventory management system. Buibas teaches a comparable inventory management system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Buibas offers the embodiment of individually positioned sensors are provided along the rear edge and a product guidance structure is provided corresponding to the position of the individually positioned sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the respective individually positioned sensors as disclosed by Buibas to the inventory management system as taught by DiFatta for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. Embodiment types a, c and d are not required limitations of the claim and are therefore not limiting. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor is designed for time-of-flight measurement (DiFatta: ¶ 0020 and Buibas: column 62, lines 15-48).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor is designed to transmit its detection data representing the detection of the object in a radio-based manner (DiFatta: ¶ 0024).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor is designed to perform cyclical detection (Buibas: column 10, line 43 through column 11, line 61).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor is designed to receive a detection control signal and, as a result, to perform a detection based thereon (Buibas: column 29, lines 20-35).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 9 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
in accordance with embodiment type a) or c) of claim 1, wherein the sensor movement system comprises at least one of the following embodiments, namely: a draw-wire-based sensor movement system, a belt-based sensor movement system a gear- or shelf-based sensor movement system, a thread-based sensor movement system, a magnet-based sensor movement system (DiFatta: ¶ 0028).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 10 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor movement system is designed in such a way that the movement of the sensor along the rear edge is provided by a linear motion or a rotational motion or a superposition of a linear with a rotational motion (DiFatta: ¶ 0026).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 11 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor movement system is designed in such a way that the sensor can be positioned at discrete positions (DiFatta: ¶ 0026).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 12 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
in accordance with embodiment type b) or c) of claim 1, wherein the rear edge of the storage structure lies above the front edge of the storage structure in the direction of gravitational acceleration, wherein the product guidance structure in the region of the front edge of the storage structure or the storage structure comprises a boundary at its front edge (Buibas: column 61, line 57 through column 62, line 3).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
according to claim 1 in accordance with embodiment type b) or c) of claim 1, wherein the product guidance structure is formed in such a way that a plurality of objects can be placed and guided one after the other along a line extending between the rear edge and the front edge of the storage structure (Buibas: column 61, line 57 through column 62, line 3).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
according to claim 1 in accordance with embodiment type b) or c) of claim 1, wherein the product guidance structure is designed for moving one object or a plurality of objects towards the front edge of the storage structure (Buibas: column 61, line 57 through column 62, line 3).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
in accordance with embodiment type b) or c) of claim 1, wherein the product guidance structure is formed by a guide shaft that is open adjacent to the rear edge of the storage structure (Buibas: column 61, line 57 through column 62, line 48).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Buibas includes:
wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect the object by measuring the distance between the sensor and the object (DiFatta: ¶ 0020 and Buibas: column 62, lines 15-48)
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFatta in view of Buibas as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0164500 A1 to Burger et al. (“Burger”).
As per claim 2, DiFatta and Buibas fail to specifically teach wherein the storage structure comprises a slope deviating from the horizontal, and the sensor is orientated in such a way that its detection area essentially follows the slope of the storage structure. The Examiner provides Burger to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Burger includes:
wherein the storage structure comprises a slope deviating from the horizontal, and the sensor is orientated in such a way that its detection area essentially follows the slope of the storage structure (Burger: ¶¶ 0036 and 0075-0078 and Figs. 3-4)
DiFatta and Buibas teach inventory management systems. Burger teaches a comparable inventory management system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Burger offers the embodiment of wherein the storage structure comprises a slope deviating from the horizontal, and the sensor is orientated in such a way that its detection area essentially follows the slope of the storage structure. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the slope as disclosed by Burger to the inventory management systems as taught by DiFatta and Buibas for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 7-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFatta in view of Buibas as applied in claim 1, and further in view of European Publication No. 3 815 581 A1 to Ojima (“Ojima”).
As per claim 7, DiFatta and Buibas fail to specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises a screen to display sensor identification data or product identification data. The Examiner provides Ojima to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Ojima includes:
wherein the sensor comprises a screen to display sensor identification data or product identification data (Ojima: ¶ 0109)
DiFatta and Buibas teach inventory management systems. Ojima teaches a comparable inventory management system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Ojima offers the embodiment of wherein the sensor comprises a screen to display sensor identification data or product identification data. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the display as disclosed by Ojima to the inventory management systems as taught by DiFatta and Buibas for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima includes:
wherein the sensor comprises an input unit, for triggering a sensor function (Ojima: ¶¶ 0105 and 0187).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima includes:
wherein the input unit is a button (Ojima: ¶¶ 0105 and 0187)
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima includes:
wherein the sensor function is a product query (Ojima: ¶¶ 0105 and 0187).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima includes:
wherein the sensor function is a real-time inventory query (Ojima: ¶¶ 0105 and 0187).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta, Buibas and Ojima are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627