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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 12/09/2025 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, 4, 8, 15 is 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 10/09/2025 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: receiving, by one or more processors of an inventory control system, information from two or more types of sensors that are positioned to monitor items of the inventory control system, wherein the two or more types of sensors each comprise a load sensor, an imaging device, a radio frequency reader, an infrared sensor, and an optical reader;
receiving, by the one or more processors of the inventory control system, information from at least one sensor of a discard bin of the inventory control system;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the information from the two or more types of sensors and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin; and
determining, by the one or more processors, an inventory of the inventory control system based on the compared information from the two or more types of sensors and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin.
(claim 15) determining that the information 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
The limitations of claims 8 and 15 recite concepts of data recommendation, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that receives data (A, B), comparing data (C), determining data (D, E), and thus are considered commercial practice known in the know 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…wherein the two or more types of sensors each comprise a load sensor, an imaging device, a radio frequency reader, an infrared sensor, and an optical reader.”; “at least one processor”, “at least one sensor of a discard bi”;
Claim 20: drawer;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A, B are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than merely data gathering data, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitations C 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 D-E 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., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical.
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, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fly et al. (US 20200410434 A1, hereinafter Fly) in view of DeBusk et al. (US 20150332209 A1, hereinafter DeBusk).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 8, Fly discloses:
Claim 1: “An inventory control system, comprising:” ; Claim 8: “A method of determining an inventory of an inventory control system, comprising:”; Figures 2A-3B;
a housing defining an interior; Figures 2A-3B – a tool control storage device 106;
a drawer that is positionable within the interior and that is moveable between a closed position and an open position, the drawer defining a storage region; ([0019][0028] Figs 2A-3B - drawers 330 that opens and closes)
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 each comprise a load sensor, an imaging device, a radio frequency reader, an infrared sensor, and an optical reader; and ([0023] “the tool control storage device 106 includes a first sensing subsystem in the form of an image sensing subsystem configured to capture images of contents or storage locations of the system… a second sensing subsystem that, in one example, takes the form of an RFID sensing subsystem including one or more RFID antennas, RFID transceivers, and RFID processors”)
at least one processor that is configured to:
receive information from the two or more types of sensors; ([0036]-[0038] “uses multiple scanning methodologies” a first inventory scan image based is performed, and a second inventory scan RF-based scan is performed;)
compare the information from the two or more types of sensors, and ([0036]-[0038] an inventory cross-check is performed between the results of the first and second inventory scans)
determine an inventory of the inventory control system based on the compared information from the two or more types of sensors ([0036]-[0038] cross-checking is performed to determine if inventory is absent or present based on comparison of both sensors reading);
Fly discloses the control storage device 106, see figure 2A, but does not disclose “a discard bin coupled with the housing, wherein the discard bin comprises at least one sensor that is configured to detect items that have been deposited in the discard bin;”, “receive information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin; compare the information from the two or more types of sensors, and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin;”, “and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin”
DeBusk discloses: Figure 1 [0082] an enclosure 12 with aluminum cover 25 is provided over the opening 24 with two RFID antennas; [0090]-[0097] and Figure 2 discloses items 38 with the RFID tags inside of stock bin 36 are read by the RFID read 46 and compile in a pre-op list; items 38 wrappers with the RFID tags throw inside of the encloser 12 inside of bin 18 are read by the RFID read 28 and compile in a post-op used-item list; all unused items 38 with RFID tags placed back into the stock bin 34 are read by reader 46 and compile in a post-op unused-item list. [0098] “the medical item inventory module 40 may compare the items listed in the pre-op list to the items listed in the post-op used-item list and the post-op unused-item list (step 128). If an item in the pre-op list does not appear on either of the post-op lists (step 130), this means the item was brought into the procedure room but neither the item nor its wrapper ended up in the stock bin or the waste bin after the procedure”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fly to include the above limitations as taught by DeBusk, in order to more accurately reflected on the patient's bill, allowing the hospital to more accurately charge for the procedure, see DeBusk para. 18.
Regarding claim(s) 4, Fly does not disclose: wherein: the discard bin comprises at least one of a sharps bin, a waste bin, and a return bin;
Burgess discloses: Figure 1 [0082] an enclosure 12 with wasted bin 18;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fly to include the above limitations as taught by DeBusk, in order to more accurately reflected on the patient's bill, allowing the hospital to more accurately charge for the procedure, see DeBusk para. 18.
Regarding claim 6, Fly discloses:
wherein: the two or more types of sensors are positioned to monitor the storage region of the drawer. ([0029] “the tool control storage device 106 advantageously uses multiple scanning methodologies”; [0023] and Figures 2A-3B;)
Regarding claim 9, Fly discloses:
further comprising: determining that the inventory is accurate when the information from each of the two or more types of sensors indicates a same inventory count. ([0036][0037] 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 from the tool control storage device 106. User alerts are issued if the results of the two inventory scans are not consistent with each other.)
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fly and DeBusk combination as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Burgess et al . (US 20210027259 A1, hereinafter Burgess).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the combination, specifically Fly discloses:
wherein: a first sensor type of the two or more types of sensors is positioned to monitor an interior of the drawer and a second sensor type of the two or types of sensors is positioned to monitor the inventory control system. ([0023] and Figure 3 camera and RFID sensors)
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 Fly, Burgess, and DeBusk 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 Fly, DeBusk, 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) 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fly DeBusk, and Burgess combination as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Goldstein et al. (US 10318917 B1, hereinafter Goldstein).
Regarding claim 7, the combination, specifically Fly discloses:
wherein: when the compared information indicates that a first sensor type of the two or more types 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 [0036]-[0038] “cross-check is performed between the results of the first and second inventory scans to ensure that the results of the two scans are consistent.. User alerts are issued if the results of the two inventory scans are not consistent with each other”;
The combination does not disclose: to reconcile a difference in inventory counts to determine a correct inventory.
Goldstein discloses 20:45-67, 21:25 – “The combined hypothesis that has the greatest combined probability may be deemed to be the solution..a combined probability that is the product of the probabilities of pairs of hypotheses from the first set and the second set may be calculated. For example, the aggregate probability” two cans of item 104 was removed; further see 19:20-67, 20:1-67;
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 10, the combination, specifically Fly discloses:
determining that the information from the two or more types of sensors does not match; and wherein determining the inventory of the inventory control system comprises [cross-check]. [0023] and Figures 2A-3B – cameras and RFID; [0036]-[0038] cross-check does not match;
The combination does not disclose: “analyzing a confidence score associated with the information from each of the two or more types of sensor”, “selecting an inventory count from a sensor type of the two or more types of sensors having a highest confidence score” ;
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 does not disclose: wherein: the two or more types of sensors comprise at least one vision sensor that performs object detection to determine a quantity of the item; and [0023] and Figures 2A-3B – cameras and RFID; [0036]-[0037] cross check;
Fly does not disclose 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.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fly and DeBusk 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 information from the two or more types of sensors comprises receiving one or both of a lot number and an expiration date of an item from the inventory control system.”, and claim 14 “further comprising: performing one or more checks based on the one or both of a lot number and an expiration date of the item, the one or more checks comprising at least one check selected from the group consisting of determining whether the item is appropriate for a given patient, whether 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) 15-16, 18, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fly et al. (US 20200410434 A1, hereinafter Fly) in view of Goldstein et al. (US 10318917 B1, hereinafter Goldstein), and further in view of DeBusk et al. (US 20150332209 A1, hereinafter DeBusk).
Regarding claim 15, Fly discloses:
receiving, by one or more processors of an inventory control system, information from two or more types of sensors that are positioned to monitor items of the inventory control system, wherein the two or more types of sensors each comprise a load sensor, an imaging device, a radio frequency reader, an infrared sensor, and an optical reader; ([0036]-[0038] [0023])
comparing, by the one or more processors, the information from the two or more types of sensors; ([0036]-[0038])
determining that the information 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 ([0036]-[0038] cross-check does not match)
determining, by the one or more processors, an inventory of the inventory control system based at least in part on the inventory counts from the two or more types of information. ([0036]-[0038] determined cross-check does not match, alert user);
Fly does not disclose “based at least in part on the inventory counts” that was different.
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”.The first ranked hypothesis that has a confidence value above the confidence threshold may be deemed a solution.” 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 Fly 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.
Fly discloses the control storage device 106, see figure 2A, but does not disclose “receiving, by the one or more processors of the inventory control system, information from at least one sensor of a discard bin of the inventory control system; compare the information from the two or more types of sensors, and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin;”, “and the information from the at least one sensor of the discard bin”
Figure 1 [0082] an enclosure 12 with aluminum cover 25 is provided over the opening 24 with two RFID antennas;
DeBusk discloses: [0090]-[0097] and Figure 2 discloses items 38 with the RFID tags inside of stock bin 36 are read by the RFID read 46 and compile in a pre-op list; items 38 wrappers with the RFID tags throw inside of the encloser 12 inside of bin 18 are read by the RFID read 28 and compile in a post-op used-item list; all unused items 38 with RFID tags placed back into the stock bin 34 are read by reader 46 and compile in a post-op unused-item list. [0098] “the medical item inventory module 40 may compare the items listed in the pre-op list to the items listed in the post-op used-item list and the post-op unused-item list (step 128). If an item in the pre-op list does not appear on either of the post-op lists (step 130), this means the item was brought into the procedure room but neither the item nor its wrapper ended up in the stock bin or the waste bin after the procedure”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fly to include the above limitations as taught by DeBusk, in order to more accurately reflected on the patient's bill, allowing the hospital to more accurately charge for the procedure, see DeBusk para. 18.
Regarding claim 16, Fly discloses:
wherein: the two or more types of sensors comprise at least one vision sensor; the two or more types of sensors comprise at least one load sensor; and [0023] imaging sensing; [0039] weight sensing;
comparing the information from the two or more types of sensors comprises: performing object detection one at least one image from the at least one vision sensor to determine a first inventory count of an item; ([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”;)
comparing the first inventory count to the second inventory count. [0036]-[0037][0039] cross check; [0039] sensing device can include weight sensor;
Fly discloses one or more scales configured to detect weights of respective objects, claim 1, par. 39; but 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 Fly 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, Fly 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 information 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 Fly 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, Fly does not disclose: wherein: the two or more types of sensors comprise at least one load sensor; and 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 at least one 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 Fly 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, Fly discloses:
wherein: the two or more types of sensors are positioned to monitor a storage region of a drawer of the inventory control system. [0023] and Figures 2A-3B – cameras and RFID; [0036]-[0038] cross-check does not match;
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fly, Goldstein, and DeBusk 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 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Regarding claims 1-7, Examiner substantially agree with applicants argument, see Remarks page 9 First paragraph. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdraw.
Regarding claims 8-20, Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the claims have a practical application; see Remarks, page 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “Data from each of these sensors is compared to ensure that all items removed from a particular drawer are accounted for, even when a portion of the item needs to be returned, wasted, or otherwise disposed of”, however, the claimed limitations does not have such a structure as argued by the applicant, see Remarks pages 7-8. Instead, the claims are collecting and comparing data from sensors. Therefore, the claims are directed to the identified abstracted idea.
Further, Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception, see Remarks, pages 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “example, the use of sensor fusion provides techniques to ensure that inventory data from the sensors is more accurate”, however, the claims are collecting and comparing data from sensors. Further, Examiner does not see an unconventional arrangement as argued by applicant.
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