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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie II (claims 4 and 14) in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, Claims 3, 5, 10, 13, 15 have been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20, as filed on 02/02/2026, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20 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) 1 and 11 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claims 1 and 11:
A real-time pantry inventory management system f
receive real-time presence data
automatically determine a real-time inventory of food items associated with the storage element based at least in part on the real-time weight data and real-time presence data;
generate inventory data.
claims 4 and 14 monitor a change in axis values of
determine if the change in axis values exceeds a predetermined threshold, and identify the food container being moved
The limitations of claims 1 and 11 recite concepts of food inventory management, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that receive data (A, E), determine data (B, F), process data (C), generate data (D), thus are considered commercial practice known in the inventory management.
Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Besides the abstract idea, claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements:
Claims 1 and 11: “a plurality of food containers storing a plurality of food items”;
Claims 1 and 11: “a plurality of presence sensors each affixed to one of the plurality of food containers”, claims 4 and 14 - a gyroscope and acceleration sensor of each of the plurality of presence sensors
Claim 1 and 11: “at least one weight sensor coupled to the storage element;”;
Claim 1: “processor”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations A and E are claims at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitations B and F are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than data determination and comparison with threshold to determine if container has moved without the recitation of an improvement of technology or technical field; the additional elements that perform limitation C is also is claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than data being compared to a threshold, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitation D is also is claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than data being compared to a threshold, 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) 1 and 11 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20 are directed to 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 Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical.
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 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 2, 4, 6-9, 12, 14, 16-20 the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claims 1 and 11, and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20 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) 1-2, 4, 8, 11-12, 14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangi (US 20150379463 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 10612964 B1, hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 11, Sarangi discloses:
A real-time pantry inventory management system for a plurality of food containers storing a plurality of food items being supported by a storage element, comprising: [0061] consumable 112 such as rice; Figure1 1 and 2;
a plurality of presence sensors each affixed to one of the plurality of food containers; Fig 1 – the receptacle device(s) 100 with movement sensor(s) 118; Figure 2; [0012] a plurality of receptacle devices;
at least one weight sensor coupled to the storage element; and Fig - Fig 1c – weight sensor 104;
a processor configured to (Figure 2 server 204);
receive real-time weight data from the at least one weight sensor, and ([0063] “a second weight measurement is triggered by the sensor device. The measurement may be triggered, for example, based upon a predetermined amount of time from the first measurement, and/or based upon additional movement of the receptacle detected by a movement sensor (e.g., movement sensor 118)”); [0064] data is sent to the server; Figures1-5;
automatically determine a real-time inventory of food items associated with the storage element based at least in part on the real-time weight data; [00138] “the server system 204 receives a data message sent from a receptacle device (e.g., receptacle device 100) via a network (e.g., network 210). The data message may include, for example, a receptacle identifier that uniquely identifies the receptacle device from one or more receptacle devices in communication with the server system 204 via the network, and sensor data comprising a weight of a consumable (e.g., consumable 112) disposed within or on the receptacle device”; [0139] “the weight may be an actual weight (e.g., 2 oz. or 3 grams) of the consumable as measured by a sensor device (e.g., sensor device 104). ”; Figures1-5;
wherein the processor processes the real-time weight data to determine if the weight of the food items is under predetermined thresholds, and generate inventory data. [0140]-[0142] “the server system 204 compares the weight of the consumable with a threshold weight (e.g., 3 oz.) defined in the predetermined consumable rule”; [0143] “the server system 204 provides an alert (e.g., indicating a low quantity of the consumable or the speed of consumable consumption), in response to the comparison, to a remote user device (e.g., user device 202) via the network”; Figures1-5;
Sarangi discloses the movement sensor is used to determine if measurement of the receptacle device will be trigger; but does not disclose the movement sensor data is send to the server 204 and used by the server 204 to process and determine the weight data - receive real-time presence data from the plurality of presence sensors; determine… real-time presence data processes the real-time presence data;
Shi discloses: 7:60-67 – “The weight data 114 and the vibration data 116 may be sent to the inventory management system 112”6:20-40 “ The analysis module 126 may generate weight validity data 128 for at least a portion of weight data 114. For example, the weight validity data 128 may be determined by determining if vibration values in the vibration data 116 exceed a threshold value. If so, the weight validity data 128 may indicate invalid weight data.”; 7:25-40 “The vibration sensors 106 may include one or more gyroscopes, accelerometers, piezoelectric elements, optical vibrometers, mechanical vibrometers, or other devices that produce an output indicative of a mechanical displacement of an object or portion thereof. the vibration sensors 106 may comprise an integrated microelectromechanical system (MEMS) gyroscope that detects rotation about one or more axes. In other implementations, the gyroscope may comprise one or more fiber optical elements, lasers, spinning masses, and so forth. The output from the gyroscope may be used as vibration data 116”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sarangi to include the above limitations as taught by Shi, in order to monitor quantity of inventory within the facility, see Shi 1:12-30.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 12, Sarangi discloses:
wherein a unique identifier is assigned to each of the plurality of food containers, and the real-time presence data received by the processor includes the unique identifiers. [0036][0073]-[0075] receptable device(s) 100 includes a tag with a unique identifier 108 that is generated by the user device 202 or the server 204; Figure 2;
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 14, Sarangi discloses:
and identify the food container being moved. [0063]-[0064] ([0063] “a second weight measurement is triggered by the sensor device. The measurement may be triggered, for example, based upon a predetermined amount of time from the first measurement, and/or based upon additional movement of the receptacle detected by a movement sensor (e.g., movement sensor 118)”); [0064] data is sent to the server;
Sarangi does not disclose: wherein the plurality of presence sensors further comprises a gyroscope and acceleration sensor, and wherein the processor is configured to monitor a change in axis values of the gyroscope and acceleration sensor, determine if the change in axis values exceeds a predetermined threshold,
Shi discloses: 6:20-40 “ The analysis module 126 may generate weight validity data 128 for at least a portion of weight data 114. For example, the weight validity data 128 may be determined by determining if vibration values in the vibration data 116 exceed a threshold value. If so, the weight validity data 128 may indicate invalid weight data.”; 7:25-40 “The vibration sensors 106 may include one or more gyroscopes, accelerometers, piezoelectric elements, optical vibrometers, mechanical vibrometers, or other devices that produce an output indicative of a mechanical displacement of an object or portion thereof. the vibration sensors 106 may comprise an integrated microelectromechanical system (MEMS) gyroscope that detects rotation about one or more axes. In other implementations, the gyroscope may comprise one or more fiber optical elements, lasers, spinning masses, and so forth. The output from the gyroscope may be used as vibration data 116”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sarangi to include the above limitations as taught by Shi, in order to monitor quantity of inventory within the facility, see Shi 1:12-30.
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 18, Sarangi discloses:
further comprising: at least one database selected from a cloud-based database and a local database for storing all inventory data; and a mobile app configured to access the inventory data stored in the at least one database; wherein the mobile app is configured to enable a user to access the inventory data remotely. [0074]-[0073] receptacle database storing receptacles, measurements, item identifier; [0042] client devices such as smart devices include applications configure to provide data to server 204 ; [0050]; [0068][0074][0134] and receive data from the server relate to inventory; [0143] “n step 510, the server system 204 provides an alert (e.g., indicating a low quantity of the consumable or the speed of consumable consumption)”; Figure 2 – client device and server are remote;
Regarding claim 19, Sarangi discloses:
automatically identifying food items that weigh below predetermined thresholds; automatically creating a shopping list; and automatically placing a shopping order for the identified food items. [0142]-[0155] the server 112 the server system 204 compares the weight of the consumable with a threshold weight (e.g., 3 oz.) defined in the predetermined consumable rule, a selected supplier; and “generates an order (or, “procurement”) data message comprising the consumable type and a consumable quantity (e.g., a weight, volume, a number of units). ”; “In step 518, the server system 204 transmits, via the network, the order data message to a second server (e.g., external server 208) identified by the first supplier identifier. The second server is associated with a merchant (e.g., AMAZON), as described above. The second server may fulfill the order and ship the consumable to the user”;
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangi and Shi combination as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11, and further in view of Shakkour et al. (US 20210073723 A1, hereinafter Shakkour).
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16, the combination, specifically Sarangi discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of weight sensors is configured to have first and second parts, , where each of the plurality of weight sensors being configured to generate a real-time weight signal in response to a weigh change on the storage element; the processor is configured to process the real-time weight signal received from each of the plurality of weight sensor, and calculate the weight of the food items placed on the storage element. [0032] any number of weight sensors may be utilized and disposed withing a top portion of the housing 102 Figure 1C and [0047] FIG. 1C is diagram of a sensor device 104 c (e.g., weight sensor) with multiple weighing areas 105 a-c according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the sensor 104 c may be used by the receptacle device 100 in place of the sensor 104. Thus, for example, a single receptacle device 100 with a sensor 104 c may store and/or measure multiple consumables 112. Additionally, the sensor device 104 c may have a flat (or substantially flat) surface, e.g., in the shape of a plate, dish, or pallet, although in other embodiments it may have a similar shape as sensor 104.; [0031]-[0032] measures weight of the disposed on top; [0062] “the first weight measurement is detected (or, “triggered”) when the lid (e.g., lid 106) is closed and/or movement of the receptacle stops (e.g., as sensed by a motion sensor 118)” [0063] “In step 306, a second weight measurement is triggered by the sensor device. The measurement may be triggered, for example, based upon a predetermined amount of time from the first measurement, and/or based upon additional movement of the receptacle detected by a movement sensor (e.g., movement sensor 118)…adjust the weight based on the second weight”;
The combination, specifically Sarangi discloses weight sensors 104 that can be placed on cabinet and pantry para. 32; but does not disclose “the first part being placed against the side wall of the pantry and a second part positioned on the storage element”, “identify if a weight sensor is touching the storage element”;
Shakkour discloses [0107]-[0111] “The size of intelligent shelf 202 is configured to best fit most average sized pantries or other existing storage solutions.”[0260] “weight sensor module GUI 526 is updated only when the product is actually placed on a weight sensor module 230”
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 Shakkour, in order to easily replaced in case of failure without having to replace the entire intelligent shelf 202, see Shakkour para. 111.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangi, Shi, Shakkour combination as applied to claim(s) 6 and 11, and further in view of BUIBAS et al. (US 20220230216 A1, hereinafter BUIBAS).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 17, the combination, specifically Shakkour discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to calibrate each weight sensor, and generate calibration data for storage in at least one database selected from a local database and a cloud-based database. [0213] “The determination of initial tare weight value of weight sensors 406 and calibration process of weight sensors 406 may be accomplished during manufacturing of weight sensor modules 230.”; [0214] “Weight sensor module MCU 410 (FIG. 9T) determines the initial tare weight of weight sensor 406 by receiving a stabilized digitized weight value from weight sensor module ADC 408 (FIG. 9Q) and stores the stabilized weight value as the tare weight within storage 522.”
The combination does not disclose “each time the weight sensor is affixed to the storage element”
BUIBAS discloses: [0425] “The locations on the shelf where the weight sensor forces are applied may be fixed during shelf manufacturing or may be determined during installation for example by a calibration procedure.”
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 BUIBAS, in order ensure accurate, reliable, and consistent measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangi and Shi combination as applied to claim(s) 8, and further in view of Aji (US 20170161676 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 9, the combination, specifically Sarangi discloses:
wherein the mobile app is configured to automatically identify food items that weigh below predetermined thresholds, automatically create a shopping list, and automatically place a shopping order for the identified food items. [0142]-[0155] the server 112 the server system 204 compares the weight of the consumable with a threshold weight (e.g., 3 oz.) defined in the predetermined consumable rule, a selected supplier; and “generates an order (or, “procurement”) data message comprising the consumable type and a consumable quantity (e.g., a weight, volume, a number of units). ”; “In step 518, the server system 204 transmits, via the network, the order data message to a second server (e.g., external server 208) identified by the first supplier identifier. The second server is associated with a merchant (e.g., AMAZON), as described above. The second server may fulfill the order and ship the consumable to the user”;
The combination does not disclose the functionalities above are performed by the mobile app - wherein the mobile app is configured to.
Aji discloses: [0062] “At 626, the user may view the list of material in need of reordering/purchasing via the dashboard or mobile application. At 628, the user may manually add items to the list.”; [0066] “ The end user may program the device to automatically reorder or require user approval to reorder. At 716, the process described above 702-714, may be repeated and the device may automatically update the server with the new number of containers that were reordered.” And figure 7, the user clicks to reorder;
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 Aji, in order to efficient and/or cost-effective inventory management systems, see Aji para. 3.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangi and Shi combination as applied to claim(s) 11, and further in view of PRIEBATSCH (US 20170098264 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination, specifically Sarangi discloses:
comprising: identifying retailers that offer a discount of the food items that weigh below predetermined thresholds; and placing the shopping order with retailers that offer the best price with the highest ratings.[0130]-[0131] “if a consumable is below a predetermined threshold (as predetermined by the user and stored in the rules database 406) or to be notified at predetermined intervals (or times) of the need to purchase or acquire more of the consumable”; the server compare prices of online and physicals store; [0140]-[0157] “the server system 204 may select the merchant that may ship the quickest and/or at the lowest price. For example, if an online purchaser may immediately ship but another online purchaser has a lower price but cannot ship for a week,” [0131] a merchant that is offering the product 5% below the price;
The combination does not specifically disclose highest ratings.
PRIEBATSCH discloses: [0097] “The transaction system can then arbitrate between available ordering providers to select the lowest-cost and/or most-efficient option for communicating the order O to the selected merchant, with efficiency corresponding to speed, reliability, proximity, satisfaction ratings assigned to the merchant by users, total overall cost including tax, or”
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 PRIEBATSCH N, in order to select most efficient and/or least costly fulfillment and delivery option, see PRIEBATSCH para.10.
Conclusion
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