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 and d) in one claim. 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 d. Even further, any dependent claims which further limit any of the other embodiments (type a) are not necessary for the Examiner to find, because they are not based on a required feature of embodiment type d. Examiner suggests Applicant choose one embodiment, or require the presentation device to actually comprise each of the embodiments. Further, Examiner has included a rejection below under 35 USC 101 and 112(b) because Applicant is only allowed to claim ONE invention and further it is unclear which of the inventions Applicant is trying to claim.
For simplicity, the limitation of claim 1 embodiment d 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, … d), at least one of the sensor, or both the at least one of the sensor and at least one of a product guidance structure is provided along the rear edge, wherein the at least one of the sensor comprises a variable opening angle of its detection area such that the at least one of the sensor is configured to change a size of the opening angle of its detection area, and wherein the product guidance structure 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.
Even further, claims 9-11 further limit the “sensor movement system” which is not required by embodiment type d and therefore claims 9-11 are not required features to be taught by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment under 37 CFR 1.114 (“Response”), filed 8 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0224051 A1 to Vinogradov (“Vinogradov”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they claim multiple machines (devices). Claim 1 encompasses multiple machines (devices) which have non-obvious, separate utility. Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that whoever invents AN eligible invention may obtain ONE patent. Applicant has attempted to claim several potential patentably distinct inventions into one patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, it is unclear if embodiment a or embodiment d is the invention which inventor regards as the invention.
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, 3-4, 9-11, 13-16 and 21 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 Application Publication No. 2009/0224051 A1 to Vinogradov (“Vinogradov”).
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),
at least one of the sensor, or both the at least one of the sensor and at least one of a product guidance structure is provided along the rear edge …, wherein the product guidance structure 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).
DiFatta fails to specifically teach 1.) wherein the at least one of the sensor comprises a variable opening angle of its detection area such that the at least one of the sensor is configured to change a size of the opening angle of its detection area. The Examiner provides Skaff to teach and disclose claimed feature 1.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Vinogradov includes:
wherein the at least one of the sensor comprises a variable opening angle of its detection area such that the at least one of the sensor is configured to change a size of the opening angle of its detection area (Vinogradov: ¶¶ 0022, 0032 and 0091-0099 and Fig. 9),
DiFatta teaches inventory management system. Vinogradov teaches a comparable inventory management system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Vinogradov offers the embodiment of wherein the at least one of the sensor comprises a variable opening angle of its detection area such that the at least one of the sensor is configured to change a size of the opening angle of its detection area. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the sensors with variable opening angles as disclosed by Vinogradov to the sensors as taught by DiFatta for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. Embodiment type a is not a required limitation 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 Vinogradov includes:
wherein the sensor is designed for time-of-flight measurement (DiFatta: ¶ 0020).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov includes:
in accordance with embodiment type a) 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Vinogradov includes:
Further comprising the product guidance structure, and 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 (DiFatta: ¶¶ 0019-0020 and Fig. 2 and 3).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Vinogradov are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Vinogradov includes:
Further comprising the product guidance structure, and the product guidance structure is designed for moving one object or a plurality of objects towards the front edge of the storage structure (DiFatta: ¶¶ 0019-0020 and Fig. 2 and 3).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Vinogradov are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Vinogradov includes:
further comprising the product guidance structure, and the product guidance structure is formed by a guide shaft that is open adjacent to the rear edge of the storage structure (DiFatta: ¶¶ 0019-0020 and Fig. 2 and 3).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Fig. 2)
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Vinogradov are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 21, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta and Vinogradov includes:
wherein the product guidance structure is designed in such a way that:
either the product guidance structure can be directly detected by the at least one of the sensor or the guided object can be directly detected by the at least one of the sensor (DiFatta: ¶ 0020 and Fig. 2).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta and Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 5, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFatta in view of Vinogradov as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent No. 11,106,941 B2 to Buibas et al. (“Buibas”).
As per claim 5, DiFatta and Vinogradov fail to specifically teach wherein the sensor is designed to perform cyclical detection. The Examiner provides Buibas to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Buibas includes:
wherein the sensor is designed to perform cyclical detection (Buibas: column 10, line 43 through column 11, line 61)
DiFatta and Vinogradov teaches inventory management systems. Buibas teaches a comparable inventory management system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Buibas offers the embodiment of wherein the sensor is designed to perform cyclical detection. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the cyclical detection as disclosed by Buibas to the sensors as taught by DiFatta and Vinogradov for the predicted result of improved inventory management systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta, Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 12 (NOT A REQUIRED LIMITATION), the claimed subject matter that is met by DiFatta, Vinogradov and Buibas includes:
further comprising the product guidance structure, and 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, Vinogradov and Buibas are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 7-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFatta in view of Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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 Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov and Ojima includes:
wherein the input unit is a button (Ojima: ¶¶ 0105 and 0187)
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta, Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov and Ojima includes:
wherein the sensor function is a product query (Ojima: ¶¶ 0105 and 0187).
The motivation for combining the teachings of DiFatta, Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov 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, Vinogradov and Ojima are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0303445 A1 to Skaff et al. (“Skaff”) teaches and discloses an “image capture system for tracking target objects includes a movable base that supports one or more image capture modules, each of the image capture modules including a camera module, a first light module and a second light module. The camera module is mounted on a first plane of a mount bracket, the first light module is mounted on a second plane of the mounting bracket, and a second light module is mounted on a third plane of the mounting bracket. The first and second planes define a first angle, the first and third planes define a second angle, and the second angle is larger than the first angle. An output of the first light module and a light output of the second light module is selected based on an operating condition of the camera module” (Skaff: Abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights