DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 23 February 2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 23 February 2024, 18 June 2024, and 05 February 2025, have been considered. An initialed copy of the Forms 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a terminal apparatus, which appears to be a typographical error, as claim 4 recites a user terminal. The claim should recite the feature as user terminal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites from a wireless device attached to the one or more items included in the list by a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from a wireless device, which appears to be a typographical error. The claim should recite from a wireless device attached to the one or more items included in the list by a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from [[a]] the wireless device, Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: reading apparatus, management unit, and terminal apparatus, in claims 1-8 and 10-11.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system, claim 11 is directed to a method, and claim 12 is directed to an apparatus.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of updating the status of an item. Specifically, representative claim 11 recites the abstract idea of:
maintaining, a list of one or more items that are subject to a work by a user and the status of each item regarding the work;
accepting login of a first user to the item management system;
detecting a first user operation representing a start of the word regarding the list;
attempting to read identification information attached to the one or more items included in the list by reading identification information stored; and
updating the status of a first item when it is determined that the reading of the first identification information associated with the first item attached to the first item out of the one or more items.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 11 recites the abstract idea of updating the status of an item, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 11 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps for updating the status of an item that comprise maintaining a list of one or more items in a database that are subject to a work by a user and the status of each item regarding the work, accepting a login of a first user, detecting a first user operation representing a first start of the work regarding the list of items, attempting to read identification information attached the items in the list, and updating the status the first item when the identification information is determined that is associate with the first item and where the identification information is attached to the first item out of the one or more items, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 11 includes additional elements: a database, a wireless device, a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from a wireless device, the wireless device, the reading apparatus, and from a first wireless device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 11 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., updating a status of an item) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements a database, a wireless device, a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from a wireless device, the wireless device, the reading apparatus, and from a first wireless device, recited in independent claim 11 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 11 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 11 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 11 is ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and l2 are similar in nature to representative claim 11, and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 11. It is noted that in independent claim 1 includes the additional elements of a management unit, and independent claim 12 includes the additional element of a processing apparatus, a management unit, and a communication unit. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of claimed additional elements in claims 1 and 12, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 1 and 12 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 1 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, depending from claim 1, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims, nor the representative claim 11. The claims of 2-10 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a second wireless device (claim 3), a user terminal and an application screen (claim 4), a third wireless device (claim 6), a terminal apparatus (claim 8), and wireless devices are radio frequency identification (RFID) tags & electromagnetic wave (claim 10). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 3-4, 6, 8, and 10 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 3-4, 6, 8, and 10, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 9 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-10 are ineligible.
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 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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Fead, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2020/0320469 A1).
Claim 1-
Fead discloses an item management system (Fead, see: pargraph [0046] disclosing “System 200 is associated with inventory tracking”) comprising:
a reading apparatus capable of reading, from a wireless device, identification information stored in the wireless device (Fead, see: paragraph [0008] disclosing “a scanner [i.e., reading apparatus] to scan RFID tags [i.e., wireless device] that are attached to each item”; and paragraph [0009] disclosing “item identification code data may also be supplemented with enriched product information”);
a management unit configured to manage, in a database, a list of one or more items that are subject to a work by a user and a status of each item regarding the work (Fead, see: paragraph [0009] disclosing “backend servers may reconcile the data received…and compile a current, comprehensive list of each item in the store's inventory”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session may be initiated by a first user device [i.e., a work by a user]” and “An inventory list or record may be created and maintained by the one or more backend computing systems” and “visibility as to which items have been scanned and which have yet to be scanned [i.e., status regarding the work]”); and
a first wireless device attached to a first item included in the list and storing first identification information associated with the first item (Fead, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “an RFID tag may be coupled to each inventory item”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session may be initiated by a first user device” and “may communicate item identification codes (IICs)” and “inventory list or record may be created and maintained”),
wherein the management unit is configured to update the status of the first item when it is determined that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device in a state where a first user has logged into the item management system and a first user operation representing a start of the work regarding the list has been detected (Fead, see: paragraph [0009] disclosing “backend servers may share the comprehensive inventory list (which may include the enriched product information) back to each employee device so that each employee device has a current inventory list that reflects the scanning performed” and “The communications…may occur in near real time, such that the employee devices receive continuously updated inventory data throughout the scanning session”; and paragraph [0057] disclosing “reconcile the scanned items list and the inventory record 262 to update the inventory record 262” and “the inventory record 262 may be one or more records that correspond to one or more sessions” and “create the scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device…that has joined the scanning session [i.e., first user has logged in]”).
Claim 2-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Fead discloses:
wherein the management unit is configured to update the status of the first item when it is determined that the first user is using the reading apparatus and the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device in the state where the first user has logged into the item management system and the first user operation representing a start of the work regarding the list has been detected (Fead, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “reconcile the scanned items list and the inventory record 262 to update the inventory record 262” and “the inventory record 262 may be one or more records that correspond to one or more sessions” and “create the scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device…that has joined the scanning session”).
Claim 4-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Fead discloses:
wherein the management unit is configured to provide a user terminal of the first user who has logged into the item management system with an application screen related to the work, and the first user operation is detected on the application screen (Fead, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “reconcile the scanned items list and the inventory record 262 to update the inventory record 262” and “the inventory record 262 may be one or more records that correspond to one or more sessions” and “create the scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device…that has joined the scanning session”; and paragraph [0060] disclosing “when the user device 222a determines that an IIC should not be ignored” and “feedback may be…visual (e.g., a newly scanned IIC is displayed on the user interface,)”).
Claim 5-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Fead discloses:
wherein the management unit is configured to update the status of the first item when it is determined that a second user operation has been detected on the reading apparatus and that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device (Fead, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “reconcile the scanned items list and the inventory record 262 to update the inventory record 262” and “the inventory record 262 may be one or more records that correspond to one or more sessions” and “create the scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device and a second set of IICs communicated by either the first use device or a second user device [i.e., second user operation has been detected] that has joined the scanning session”).
Claim 6-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Fead discloses wherein the item management system further comprises:
a third wireless device installed in a place where the work is performed and storing third identification information associated with the place (Fead, see: paragraph [0027] disclosing “The location…determined based on a scanned location tag [i.e., third identification wireless device]” and “an item's gross location may be determined to be the location of the user device (e.g., in a showroom or in a stockroom), or the item's fine location may be determined based on information known to the user device (e.g., using the user device's location, a line of bearing, and signal strength from the RFID tag)”),
wherein the management unit is configured to update the status of the first item when it is determined that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device and the reading apparatus has read the third identification information from the third wireless device (Fead, see: paragraph [0050] disclosing “device location is determined, it may be communicated to one or more of the backend computing devices, such as the IoT communications manager 230, along with information that identifies the item based on the RFID scan data” and “an item location may be determined based on any one or more relationships between a location RFID tag and an item RFID tag”).
Claim 7-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 2, as described above.
Fead discloses:
wherein the management unit is configured to determine that the first user is using the reading apparatus when the reading apparatus is associated with the first user in advance in the database (Fead, see: paragraph [0043] disclosing “one or more of data sources 104a through 104n comprise one or more sensors, which may be integrated into or associated with one or more of the user device(s)”; and paragraph [0057] disclosing “reconcile the scanned items list and the inventory record 262 to update the inventory record 262” and “the inventory record 262 may be one or more records that correspond to one or more sessions” and “create the scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device…that has joined the scanning session”).
Claim 8-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 2, as described above.
Fead discloses:
wherein the management unit is configured to determine that the first user is using the reading apparatus based on that a terminal apparatus the first user is using for the login has a communication connection with the reading apparatus (Fead, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “the analytics engine may create the scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device and a second set of IICs communicated by either the first user device or a second user device that has joined the scanning session. For example, if the first user device communicates a first IIC among the first set of IICs and the second user device communicates a second IIC among the second set of IICs, the analytics engine 250 may create a scanned item list that comprises the first IIC and the second IIC”).
Claim 10-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Fead discloses:
wherein the wireless devices are radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and the reading apparatus is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave to a reading range and read information sent back from the wireless device utilizing energy of the electromagnetic wave (Fead, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “RFID tag may be coupled to each inventory item (e.g., the tags may be attached by the manufacturer or another entity in the supply chain before the product is shipped to the retail location). An employee may scan the RFID tags using a handheld RFID scanning device” and “scan all items located within a certain proximity of the scanner (e.g., twenty feet)” and “Scan data received from a plurality of the RFID tags may be filtered by the user device before being communicated to one or more backend computing systems)”; and see paragraph [0094] “using radio frequency identification (RFID) to management inventory”).
Claim 11-
Fead discloses a method of updating a status of an item in an item management system (Fead, see: pargraph [0046] disclosing “System 200 is associated with inventory tracking”), comprising:
maintaining, in a database, a list of one or more items that are subject to a work by a user and the status of each item regarding the work (Fead, see: paragraph [0009] disclosing “backend servers may reconcile the data received…and compile a current, comprehensive list of each item in the store's inventory”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session may be initiated by a first user device [i.e., a work by a user]” and “An inventory list or record may be created and maintained by the one or more backend computing systems” and “visibility as to which items have been scanned and which have yet to be scanned [i.e., status regarding the work]”);
accepting login of a first user to the item management system (Fead, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device…that has joined the scanning session [i.e., first user has logged in]”; and paragraph [0073] disclosing “In response, the management server 580 may respond by accepting the…device request to join”);
detecting a first user operation representing a start of the work regarding the list (Fead, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “scanned items list by combining a first set of IICs communicated by a first user device…that has joined the scanning session”; and paragraph [0074] disclosing “first user device 522a communicates an initial report of RFID scan data to this management server 580”);
attempting to read identification information from a wireless device attached to the one or more items included in the list by a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from a wireless device, identification information stored in the wireless device (Fead, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “an RFID tag may be coupled to each inventory item”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session [i.e., attempting to read] may be initiated by a first user device” and “may communicate item identification codes (IICs)” and “inventory list or record may be created and maintained”); and
updating the status of a first item when it is determined that the reading apparatus has read first identification information associated with the first item from a first wireless device attached to the first item out of the one or more items (Fead, see: paragraph [0009] disclosing “backend servers may share the comprehensive inventory list (which may include the enriched product information) back to each employee device so that each employee device has a current inventory list that reflects the scanning performed” and “The communications…may occur in near real time, such that the employee devices receive continuously updated inventory data throughout the scanning session”).
Claim 12-
Fead discloses an information processing apparatus that operates in an item management system (Fead, see: pargraph [0046] disclosing “System 200 is associated with inventory tracking”), comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a reading apparatus capable of reading, from a wireless device, identification information stored in the wireless device (Fead, see: paragraph [0045] disclosing “communications manager 230”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session may be initiated by a first user device” and “may communicate item identification codes (IICs)” and “inventory list or record may be created and maintained”); and
a management unit configured to manage, in a database, a list of one or more items that are subject to a work by a user and a status of each item regarding the work (Fead, see: paragraph [0009] disclosing “backend servers [i.e., management unit] may reconcile the data received…and compile a current, comprehensive list of each item in the store's inventory” [0025] disclosing “an RFID tag may be coupled to each inventory item”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session may be initiated by a first user device [i.e., a work by a user] ” and “may communicate item identification codes (IICs)” and “inventory list or record may be created and maintained” and “visibility as to which items have been scanned and which have yet to be scanned [i.e., status regarding the work]”);
wherein, when it is determined that the reading apparatus has read first identification information from a first wireless device attached to a first item included in the list and storing the first identification information associated with the first item in a state where a first user has logged into the item management system and a first user operation representing a start of the work regarding the list has been detected, the management unit is configured to update the status of the first item (Fead, see: paragraph [0009] disclosing “backend servers may share the comprehensive inventory list (which may include the enriched product information) back to each employee device so that each employee device has a current inventory list that reflects the scanning performed” and “The communications…may occur in near real time, such that the employee devices receive continuously updated inventory data throughout the scanning session”; and paragraph [0029] disclosing “scanning session may be initiated by a first user device [i.e., a work by a user] ” and “may communicate item identification codes (IICs)” and “inventory list or record may be created and maintained” and “visibility as to which items have been scanned and which have yet to be scanned”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fead, A., et al., in view of Wulff, T. (PGP No. US 2018/0077532 A1).
Claim 3-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Fead discloses wherein the item management system further comprises:
wherein the management unit is configured to determine that the first user is using the reading apparatus based on a reading result indicating that the reading apparatus has read the second identification information from the second wireless device (Fead, see: paragraph [0060] disclosing “user device 222a may provide perceptible feedback to a user associated with the user device 222a when an RFID scan data is new, relative to the inventory record 262, that is, when the user device 222a determines that an IIC should not be ignored” and “feedback may be auditory (e.g., a beep), visual (e.g., a newly scanned IIC is displayed on the user interface, tactile (e.g., a vibration), or the like. In this way, a user performing the inventory can determine whether there continues to be new RFID tags to scan or if all RFID tags have already been communicated and added to the inventory record 262”; Also see FIG. 3 depicting the system with more than one user with a plurality of scanners, each user with a user device, and the scanners are capable of reading a plurality of RFID tags within the environment.).
Although Fead discloses a user that is associated with information, such as when a user device is associated with a first or second user, Fead does not disclose that a second wireless device, such as an RFID tag, is carried by the first user and storing that information. Fead does not disclose:
a second wireless device carried by the first user and storing second identification information associated with the first user,
Wulff, however, does teach:
a second wireless device carried by the first user and storing second identification information associated with the first user (Wulff, see: paragraph [0017] teaching “RFID tag associated with an identification badge worn by an authorized person to identify the person”; and see: paragraph [0029] teaching “RFID-tagged identification badges worn by the people 24” and “operated by people movable within the venue”).
This step of Wulff is applicable to the system of Fead, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking products within an environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fead, to include the features of a second wireless device carried by the first user and storing second identification information associated with the first user, as taught by Wulff. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Fead, to optimize the efficiency of targeting and tracking products by increasing the sensing capabilities within the environment (Wulff, see: paragraph [0007]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fead, A., et al., in view of Lee, R., et al. (PGP No. US 2018/0218320 A1).
Claim 9-
Fead discloses the item management system according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Fead describes a work of the one or more items by a user (Fead, paragraph [0027]), Fead does not disclose that the work is a shipment or arrival of the one or more items, and does not disclose that the status of the work is if the item has been confirmed in the work or not. Fead does not disclose:
wherein the work is a work related to shipment or arrival of the one or more items, and the status represents whether existence of each item has been confirmed in the work or not.
Lee, however, does teach:
wherein the work is a work related to shipment or arrival of the one or more items, and the status represents whether existence of each item has been confirmed in the work or not (Lee, see: paragraph [0022] teaching “may further update an item location in the database upon detection of the departure of the delivery vehicle” and “receipt of a location update regarding the delivery vehicle, and/or arrival of the delivery vehicle at the retail facility or a customer location. The method also includes, in some approaches, sending shipment notification(s) to a recipient physical retail store or the customer based upon the item location in the database. In this manner, the receiving retail stores and/or customers can receive shipment status”; and paragraph [0060] teaching “RFID tags 132 can be utilized to confirm shipping and work flow information, i.e., confirm that the right products were delivered in the shipment)”).
It is noted that both references of Fead and Lee describe features of using RFID tags to locate items, however, Fead does not describe that the work is related to a shipment or arrival of the items, and therefore the Examiner has relied upon the reference of Lee.
This step of Lee is applicable to the system Fead, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to work flow and tracking of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Fead to include the features of wherein the work is a work related to shipment or arrival of the one or more items, and the status represents whether existence of each item has been confirmed in the work or not, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Fead to accurately complete a supply chain order by improved ways of retrieving tracking information of the products as they move throughout the distribution process (Lee, see at least: paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Anezaki, Y. (PGP No. US 2022/0386293 A1), describes that a device transmits data to a management server via an interface, and a terminal transmits management information for the device to the first user device interface via a second interface by visible light communication, where the data is acquired by the device to the management server based on the received management information.
The Non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Guide to RFID for Shipping and Fulfillment, published on hollingsworthllc.com (2018), describes product distribution methods of capable of tracking details regarding product movement from one point to another, increasing delivery speed, decreasing margin errors, and protecting inventory from theft or loss, all by using specific RFID technologies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688