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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 05/14/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 8-20 has NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-20 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 8-20 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 and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 8 and 15 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claim(s) 8 and 15 recite(s) concept(s) of inventory tracking, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human.
A method of determining an inventory of an inventory control system, comprising:
causing
receiving,
causing
receiving,
comparing, , the load sensor from the two or more types of sensors and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin; and
determining,
(claim 15) determining that the load sensor data f
The limitations of claims 8 and 15 recite concepts of inventory tracking, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that receives data (A, B, C, D), comparing data (D), determining data (E, F), and thus are considered commercial practice known in the retail business.
Claims 8-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claims 8 and 15 additional elements are:
Claim(s) 8 and 15: “two or more types of sensors positioned in association with a drawer of the inventory control system”, “the two or more types of sensors comprise at least a load sensor”, “at the one or more processors”, “at least one sensor of a discard bin associated with the inventory control system to generate”, “at least one other sensor type of the two or more types of sensors”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations A, B, C, D are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than merely data gathering data / data receive, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitations D is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered data comparison without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; the additional elements that perform limitation E-F are claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data determination, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 8 and 15 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 8-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., does not recite any additional element or combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the selected exception.
Examiner takes Official Notice that is old and well known in the art to collect data from sensors located in drawers and disposal bin.
Further, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas of infrastructure management to collect data, receive data, and generate reports that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
Further, the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g). The processing data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 9-14, 16-20, the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claims 8 and 15, and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Therefore, claims 8-20 are ineligible.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20130088354 A1) in view of Fly et al. (US 20200410434 A1, hereinafter Fly), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20200201338 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 8, 15, Thomas discloses:
An inventory control system, comprising: (para. 13 and Figure 1 system and method for tracking surgical sponges inventory for a surgery);
a discard bin, wherein the discard bin comprises at least one sensor that is configured to detect items that have been deposited in the discard bin; (Figure 1 and para. 22 – waste bin to receive used discard sponge);
a [tray] drawer defining a storage region; (Figure 1 and para. 27 – multiple trays including a RFID reader, the trays with sponges)
two or more types of sensors that are configured to monitor an inventory of the inventory control system, wherein the two or more types of sensors comprise at least a [RFID] sensor [RFID reader]; and (Figure 1 para. 27-30 – RFID reader included in the trays and bar code reader that reads each number )
at least one processor that is configured to:
receive information from the two or more types of sensors, the information including at least [RFID] sensor data from the [RFID] sensor; (para. 30 “A bar code on the packaging of each sponge may be read using the bar code reader 119 and the information supplied to the computing device 122 from the bar code reader 119.”; para. 29 - the tray including RF reader communicate to the computer device 122 each sponge placed in the tray;)
receive information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin; (para. 25-27 - RF tag reader 106 reads the discarded the RFID tags in the sponges into the waste bin 110)
compare at least the [RFID] sensor data and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin; and (para. 36 – “the post procedure sponge count is compared to the number of available sponges (i.e., the number of sponges available prior to the procedure) derived from step 302. At step 322, the process determines whether the sponge counts (i.e., the available sponges and the post procedure sponge count) are the same”, para. 31-34 )
claim 15: “determining that the [RFID] sensor data from at least one sensor type of the two or more types of sensors comprises a different inventory count than at least one other sensor type of the two or more types of sensors; and” (para. 30 - The bar code information may be the same as the RF ID of the sponge or may be different. The bar code of each sponge is read by the bar code reader 119 as each sponge is placed on the tray 103. Based on the number of bar codes from the bar code reader 119, the computing device 122 maintains a tally of the number of sponges placed on the tray 103, which should equate to the number RF IDs read by the RF reader of the tray 103. If, however, one of the sponges 102 on the tray 103 includes an RF ID tag that has failed it will not be able to be read by the RF reader of the tray 103, which would means that if it were left in the patient the system might not detect the error. Thus, the computing device compares the number of the number of sponges as read by the bar code reader 119 with the number of IDs of sponges read by the RF reader of the tray 103. If the numbers are the same, there are no failed RFID tags in sponges. If the numbers are different, there is a failed RFID tag in one or more sponges.)
determine an inventory of the inventory control system based on comparing the [RFID] sensor data and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin; claim 15: “determining, by the one or more processors, the inventory of the inventory control system based at least in part on the inventory counts from the two or more types of sensor data and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin.” (para. 30 - In one embodiment, the system may correlate the sponge whose bar code has a failed RF tag and output the bar code information (or other information) so that personnel can identify and discard the sponge with the failed RFID tag. para. 36-37 “If the sponge counts are the same, the process branches to step 324 and provides a notification confirming that all sponges are accounted for (and none remains in the patient). Upon receiving this confirmation notification, the medical professionals will be confident knowing that no sponges remain in the patient's body cavity and may close the patient's body cavity….If the sponge counts are not the same (i.e., a discrepancy exists), the process branches to step 326 and provides an alert notification that not all sponges are accounted for. This notification may indicate the number of sponges that were made of available for use (available sponges) and that were neither discarded nor remain unused. Upon receiving this notification, the medical professionals may then seek to locate the one or more sponges that are missing. For example, the medical professional may scan the patient to see if the one or more patients remain in the patient's body cavity. Upon finding the missing sponges, they may be scanned (either via being discarded or via scanning) and the processing of the UID data re-initialized to ensure that no discrepancy exists between the sponges that were (1) made of available for use (available sponges) and (2) those that were discarded or remain unused.”)
Thomas did not disclose that one of the two sensor are load sensor.
Fly discloses: [0039] multiple scales to detect weight distribution
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas to include the above limitations as taught by Fly, in order to enables efficiently removing items from worksites, see Fly para. 7.
Thomas discloses waste bin 110 and trays 103; however, did not disclose the trays as drawers and a housing with the drawers and waste bin defining an interior – “a housing defining an interior”, “a discard bin coupled with the housing”, “a [tray] drawer that is positionable within the interior and that is moveable between a closed position and an open position, the drawer”
Wang discloses: Figure 4 and para. 24-25 – a hospital AVG 10 with a house including drawers 108a-n and a plurality of medical waste disposal bins 110a-c;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas to substitute the trays 103 and waste bin 106 in a hosing as taught by Wang, in order to provide a well-controlled access to the contents, see Wang para. 5.
Regarding claim 4, Thomas discloses:
wherein: the discard bin comprises at least one of a sharps bin, a waste bin, and a return bin. (Figure 1 and para. 22 waste bin 106);
Regarding claim 6, Thomas discloses:
wherein: the two or more types of sensors are positioned to monitor the storage region of the drawer. (RFID tag of the tray, and barcode – see figure 1 – the bar code reader 119 is external from the tray and the sponges are scanned as it is placed on the tray);
Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses:
wherein: when the comparing indicates that a first sensor type of the two or more types of sensors detects a different inventory count than a second sensor type of the two or more types of sensors, the at least one processor is further configured to reconcile a difference in inventory counts to determine a correct inventory. (para. 37 “If the sponge counts are not the same (i.e., a discrepancy exists), the process branches to step 326 and provides an alert notification that not all sponges are accounted for. This notification may indicate the number of sponges that were made of available for use (available sponges) and that were neither discarded nor remain unused. . Upon receiving this notification, the medical professionals may then seek to locate the one or more sponges that are missing. For example, the medical professional may scan the patient to see if the one or more patients remain in the patient's body cavity. Upon finding the missing sponges, they may be scanned (either via being discarded or via scanning) and the processing of the UID data re-initialized to ensure that no discrepancy exists between the sponges that were (1) made of available for use (available sponges) and (2) those that were discarded or remain unused”)
Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses:
further comprising: determining that the inventory is accurate when the sensor data (para. 36 “If the sponge counts are the same, the process branches to step 324 and provides a notification confirming that all sponges are accounted for (and none remains in the patient). Upon receiving this confirmation notification, the medical professionals will be confident knowing that no sponges remain in the patient's body cavity and may close the patient's body cavity.”);
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Fly, and Wang combination as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Burgess et al. (US 20210027259 A1, hereinafter Burgess).
Regarding claim 2, the combination, specifically Thomas discloses:
wherein: a first sensor type of the two or more types of sensors is positioned to monitor an interior of [tray]; and a second sensor type of the two or more types of sensors is positioned to monitor of the inventory control system. (RFID tag of the tray, and barcode – see figure 1 – the bar code reader 119 is external from the tray; Wang discloses the drawer: Figure 4 and para. 24-25 – a hospital AVG 10 with a house including drawers 108a-n and a plurality of medical waste disposal bins 110a-c;)
The combination does not disclose sensors is positioned to monitor “an exterior work surface”.
Burgess discloses: Figures 2-3 [0045][0060] Camera 248;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Burgess, in order to securely receiving and storing wasted medication, see Burgess para. 26.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Fly, Wang, and Burgess combination combination as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Kernick et al. (US 20200364648 A1, hereinafter Kernick).
Regarding claim(s) 3, the combination, specifically Burgess discloses: wherein: the exterior work surface comprises [sensors] Figures 2-3 [0037][0070][0062];
The combination does not disclose the sensor as an omnidirectional reader; and the second sensor type is disposed in the omnidirectional reader and is configured to scan at least a majority of an exterior surface of an object placed therein.
Kernick discloses: [0053] The optical device 107C can be a barcode scanner such as omnidirectional scanners;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Kernick, in order to better manage the large number of lenses and growing number of SKUs that need to be kept in stock with automated inventory control, see Kernick para. 4.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Fly, Wang, and Burgess combination as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Lyon et al. (US 20050171854 A1, hereinafter Lyon).
Regarding claim 5, the combination, specifically Burgess discloses a cover of the on the waster receiver; however, does not disclose: wherein: the exterior work surface comprises a transparent region; and the second sensor type comprises at least one optical sensor disposed beneath the transparent region such that a field of vision of the at least one optical sensor faces the transparent region.
Lyon discloses: [0024] “Horizontal RFID interrogator coil 208 can either be on the surface, embedded in, or beneath shelf sensor plate 206. If the coil is either embedded in or placed beneath shelf sensor plate 206, then the shelf sensor plate should be constructed of a material transparent to radio signals.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Lyon, in order to precisely determine the number of tagged products in a locality using RFID, see Lyon par. 5.
Claim(s) 10-12, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Fly, and Wang combination as applied to claims 8 and 15, and further in view of Goldstein et al. (US 10318917 B1, hereinafter Goldstein).
Regarding claim 10, the combination, specifically Thomas discloses:
further comprising: determining that the sensor data (para. 37 “If the sponge counts are not the same (i.e., a discrepancy exists), the process branches to step 326 and provides an alert notification that not all sponges are accounted for. This notification may indicate the number of sponges that were made of available for use (available sponges) and that were neither discarded nor remain unused. . Upon receiving this notification, the medical professionals may then seek to locate the one or more sponges that are missing. For example, the medical professional may scan the patient to see if the one or more patients remain in the patient's body cavity. Upon finding the missing sponges, they may be scanned (either via being discarded or via scanning) and the processing of the UID data re-initialized to ensure that no discrepancy exists between the sponges that were (1) made of available for use (available sponges) and (2) those that were discarded or remain unused”)
The combination does not disclose analyzing a confidence score associated with the sensor data
Goldstein discloses: 19:10-67,20:1-67, 21:1-40 – “The confidence value may be compared to a confidence threshold value. For example, the confidence threshold value may be 0.60. Hypotheses with confidence values below the threshold may be deemed to have a “low confidence” while those at or above the threshold may be deemed to have “high confidence””
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Goldstein, in order to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date item data, see Goldstein para. 4.
Regarding claim 11, the combination does not disclose: wherein: each confidence score is based at least in part on an error factor of a respective sensor.
Goldstein discloses: 19:10-67,20:1-67, 21:1-67 – “the error data 338 may be used to determine a particular hypothesis in the hypotheses data 340. For example, the error data 338 may be used to determine a probability that a variance between the predicted weight distribution and the measured weight distribution is due to a sensor error. A high probability may indicate that the particular variance is the result of a sensor error and not a change in load. The processing module 328 may generate a score based on the probability of the error data 338.”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Goldstein, in order to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date item data, see Goldstein para. 4.
Regarding claim 12, the combination, specifically Thomas: wherein: the two or more types of sensors comprise at least one vision sensor that performs object detection to determine a quantity of an item; para. 31-38 – perform sponge count; and fly discloses [0023] and Figures 2A-3B – cameras and RFID; [0036]-[0037];
The combination does not disclose and the confidence score of the at least one vision sensor is based on a likelihood that the object detection has correctly determined the quantity of the item.
Goldstein discloses 9:25-35; 10:1-10 – “the hypotheses may indicate a predicted item quantity of the interaction and a probability that the predicted item quantity is associated with the interaction… the inventory management system 122 may correctly determine that a quantity of two cans of dog food have been picked and bill the user 116” two cans of item 104 was removed; further see 19:20-67, 20:1-67. 21:1-67;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Goldstein, in order to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date item data, see Goldstein para. 4.
Regarding claim 16, the combination, specifically Thomas discloses: wherein: the two or more types of sensors comprise at least one vision sensor; and comparing the sensor data para. 30-38 – perform sponge count using bar code and RFID technology; and Fly discloses [0023] and Figures 2A-3B – cameras and RFID; [0036]-[0037]; [0036]-[0038] “uses multiple scanning methodologies” a first inventory scan image based is performed, and a second inventory scan RF-based scan is performed; Claim 7: “one or more scales configured to detect weights of respective objects”;)
The combination does not disclose compare a weight measurement from the at least one load sensor with known weight of the item to determine a second inventory count of the item;
Goldstein discloses: 18:35-50 “For example, the weight data 126 may be obtained by picking and placing objects of known weights onto a representative inventory location 114 equipped with weight sensors 120(6) and comparing the known weight to the weight recorded”; 5:60-67, 6:1-5 “the weight sensor 120(6) may comprise a load cell beneath a load that may include a shelf or platform of the inventory location 114. By reading one or more characteristics of the load cell, the weight of the load may be determined”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Goldstein, in order to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date item data, see Goldstein para. 4.
Regarding claim 18, the combination does not disclose: wherein: determining the inventory of the inventory control system is based at least in part on a confidence score associated with the sensor data from each of the two or more types of sensors.
Goldstein discloses: 19:10-67, 20:1-67, 21:1-40 – “A solution may be determined from a set of one or more hypotheses based on a confidence value. The confidence value may be determined based on a difference or ratio between probability values of two or more hypotheses in the hypotheses data 340”; “The confidence value may be compared to a confidence threshold value. For example, the confidence threshold value may be 0.60. Hypotheses with confidence values below the threshold may be deemed to have a “low confidence” while those at or above the threshold may be deemed to have “high confidence”; see 19:1-67, 20:1-67, 21:1-67 Such as First Image Hypothesis one item identified;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Goldstein, in order to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date item data, see Goldstein para. 4.
Regarding claim 19, the combination does not disclose: wherein: the method further comprises determining that an inventory count has changed by a certain number of items based on a detected change in a weight measurement from the load sensor.
Goldstein discloses: 18:35-50 “For example, the weight data 126 may be obtained by picking and placing objects of known weights onto a representative inventory location 114 equipped with weight sensors 120(6) and comparing the known weight to the weight recorded”; 5:60-67, 6:1-5 “the weight sensor 120(6) may comprise a load cell beneath a load that may include a shelf or platform of the inventory location 114. By reading one or more characteristics of the load cell, the weight of the load may be determined”;19:10-67,20:1-67, 21:1-40 – “A solution may be determined from a set of one or more hypotheses based on a confidence value. The confidence value may be determined based on a difference or ratio between probability values of two or more hypotheses in the hypotheses data 340”; “The confidence value may be compared to a confidence threshold value. For example, the confidence threshold value may be 0.60. Hypotheses with confidence values below the threshold may be deemed to have a “low confidence” while those at or above the threshold may be deemed to have “high confidence”” ; See 19:1-67, 20:1-67, 21:1-67 Such as First Image Hypothesis one item identified;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Goldstein, in order to quickly track what item a user has interacted with, maintain up-to-date item data, see Goldstein para. 4.
Regarding claim(s) 20, Thomas discloses:
wherein: the two or more types of sensors are positioned to monitor a storage region of a [tray] of the inventory control system. (Figure 1 and para. 27 – multiple trays including a RFID reader, the trays with sponges)
Thomas does not disclose tray as drawer;
Fly discloses: [0039] multiple scales to detect weight distribution
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas to include the above limitations as taught by Fly, in order to enables efficiently removing items from worksites, see Fly para. 7.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Fly, and Wang combination as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Wolfe et al. (US 20160364686 A1, hereinafter Wolfe).
Regarding claims 13-14, the combination does not disclose: Claim 13 “wherein: receiving the sensor data a lot associated with the lot number has been recalled, and whether the item has expired.”
Wolfe discloses: [0091] “When placed in a medication tray 16, items 22 may be placed within foam inserts 34 to ensure that a marker 26 associated with an item 22 is in a direction for proper scanning. A medication tray 16 can then be scanned as an initial inventory scan via an inventory machine 10 and/or a hand-held reader a computer device can be programmed to display a message informing a user that all items are in a proper place, that an item 22 is out of place, that an adjustment in an operating parameter should be performed, that the computer device is going to make an adjustment to an operating parameter automatically, etc. If there is an inconsistency, an adjustment is requested, or some other indicator causing concern (e.g., expiration date lapsed, recall, etc.), etc., a subsequent scan can be requested after prompting a user to take corrective action..”, [0078] decodes lot number and expiration date see Figures 11A-12;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Wolfe, in order to provide comprehensive inventory tracking, see Wolfe para. 5.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Fly, and Wang combination as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Chirakansakcharoen et al. (US 20160110902 A1, hereinafter Chirakansakcharoen).
Regarding claim 17, the combination, specifically Fly discloses:
wherein: determining the inventory of the inventory control system from the two or more types of sensors. ([0036]-[0038] an inventory cross-check is performed between the results of the first and second inventory scans to ensure that both inventory scans have identified the same tools as being present in the tool control storage device 106 and have identified the same tools as being absent);
The combination does not disclose comprises selecting a lowest inventory count.
Chirakansakcharoen discloses: [0068]-[0072] “At block 1045, the other image information (which have smaller numbers of identified items) is assigned as auxiliary image information for the overlap area.”;[0044]-[0046] “the sensor could receive a higher priority where a small size of the image information is desirable.”, “the server 365 may select auxiliary image information corresponding to the next-largest number of identified items.”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Chirakansakcharoen, in order to serve as a measure of the relative quality of the image information, see Chirakansakcharoen para. 44-45.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Regarding claims 8-20, applicant argues causing sensors to generate sensor data does not fall under Organizing Human Activities grouping, see Remarks page 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Causing sensors to generate sensor data and receive sensor data, are considered data gathering and receiving claimed at a high level of generality, and thus are considered abstract idea.
Regarding claims 8-20, Applicant’s argues the claims have a practical application; see Remarks, page 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Having two sensors to collect data, and compare those two sensor data are not considered an improvement to the functioning of the computer, instead it is considered data gathering /receiving and comparing. Regarding Ex Part Desjardins, Examiner does not see how the current claimed invention equates Ex Part Desjardins solution. Therefore, the claims are directed to the identify abstracted idea.
Further, Applicant’s argues the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception, see Remarks, pages 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not see a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement as argued by applicant, instead, the claimed invention receive data from two sensor monitoring a drawer, and another data from a disposal bin being compared to determine stock.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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 (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights