DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 09/10/2025. Claims 1-32 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 04/18/2024.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 15, 24) recites “a position of the show along the length of the rack” in line 10, and line 32. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the latter recitation of the two. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 15, 24) recites “a position of the magnet in relation to the sensor” in lines 16 and 18-19. The latter recitation in lines 18-19 renders the claim indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “in the rack based the position. . . .” in ln 38. This sentence does not make grammatical sense as something seems to be missing. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-18, 22-27, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 8260456 to Siegal et al. (“Siegal”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0113990 to Schodlbauer (“Schodlbauer”).
With regard to claims 1, 15, 24, Siegal discloses the claimed system for counting packs of cigarettes stored in a rack, comprising:
a longitudinal rack configured to store a plurality of packs of cigarettes along a length of the rack between a front end of the rack and a rear end of the rack (see Siegal e.g. Fig. 2, 3, etc.; the recitation of “packs of cigarettes” is intended use; Siegal col. 7, ln. 20-25, “Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the product is typically in the form of containers which can have a generally rectangular or cylindrical configuration.”(emphasis added); track unit at e.g. col. 2 ln. 15-35);
a shoe movably attached to the rack such that the shoe is configured to travel between the front end of the rack and the rear end of the rack, wherein the shoe is configured to be pushed back towards the rear end of the rack with each pack of cigarettes loaded on the rack (see Siegal, abstract, pusher is claimed shoe; col. 2 ln. 1-30);
a magnet coupled to the shoe such that a position of the magnet along the length of the rack corresponds to a position of the shoe along the length of the rack (see Siegal e.g. col. 9 ln 27-45; col. 9 ln 50-60); and
a circuit board communicatively coupled to the rack (Siegal e.g. col. 9, ln 27-52, sensor strip includes array of sensing elements) and comprising:
a plurality of sensors arranged along the length of the rack (Siegal e.g. col. 9, ln 27-52, sensor strip includes array of sensing elements), wherein:
each sensor generates a first signal corresponding to a magnetic field strength associated with the magnet (Siegal, col. 9, ln. 28-43, magnet actuates reed switches, reed switches select resistor value, output voltage via voltage divider is indicative of pusher position (i.e. depends on magnet position relative to sensors); Schodlbauer teaches at e.g. abstract and throughout, a magnetic field sensor arrangement that generates an output dependent on the magnetic field, in Schodlbauer dependent on direction, supporting that the sensor output is a magnetic-field-based signal from which position is determined);
the first signal generated by each sensor is based at least in part upon a position of the magnet in relation to the sensor (Siegal, col. 9, ln. 28-43, magnet actuates reed switches, reed switches select resistor value, output voltage via voltage divider is indicative of pusher position (i.e. depends on magnet position relative to sensors); Schodlbauer teaches at e.g. abstract and throughout, a magnetic field sensor arrangement that generates an output dependent on the magnetic field, in Schodlbauer dependent on direction, supporting that the sensor output is a magnetic-field-based signal from which position is determined); and
each sensor further generates a second signal indicating an angular measurement based at least in part upon a position of the magnet in relation to the sensor (Siegal shown above discloses magnetic actuation/voltage outputs indicative of position, but does not disclose a second signal that is an angular measurement related to magnet
PNG
media_image1.png
456
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
position. Schodlbauer teaches at e.g. Fig. 1, [0015-19] angular measurement related to position of magnet in relation to sensor 5, see arrows 4 showing angular measurement at each point; [0016] If one views the magnetic field pattern along a trajectory 3, it is found that not only the magnitude but also the direction of the local magnetic field changes along this trajectory. This direction is shown by arrow 4. If a magnetic field sensor 5 now moves along this trajectory 3, it receives magnetic field lines of a different direction corresponding to arrows 4 as a function of location in the longitudinal direction of trajectory 3, which arrows indicate the local direction of the magnetic field at different locations of trajectory 3. Conversely, the permanent magnet 1 can also be shifted together with this magnetic field 2 along arrow 6 and the magnetic field sensor 5 can be arranged fixed, wherein the movement path of arrow 6 then lies parallel to trajectory 3.);
a memory that stores values corresponding to each first signal generated by the sensors and further stores the angular measurements corresponding to the second signals generated by the sensors (Siegal discloses a system with sensor strip and sensing circuit and microprocessor that uses the output to determine pusher position and thus product quantity (a microprocessor based system necessarily stores/uses measured values); Siegal does not disclose storing the angular measurements; Schodlbauer teaches an evaluation circuit that converts the direction-dependent sensor output into position information, implementing this conversion in a processor based system inherently uses stored values/parameters (calibration/lookup/processing)); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the sensors and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to (microprocessor, below):
receive the first signals generated by the sensors indicating the magnetic field strength associated with the magnet (Siegal col. 1, ln. 60—col. 2 ln. 17, microprocessor coupled to sensor that receives the first signals);
detect that a first value of the first signal generated by a first sensor equals or exceeds a threshold (Siegal col. 9 ln 28-43, reed switch actuation by a magnet in a threshold phenomenon (switch closes when field is sufficient));
in response to detecting that the first value of the first signal equals or exceeds the threshold (Siegal col. 9 ln 28-43, reed switch actuation by a magnet in a threshold phenomenon (switch closes when field is sufficient)), obtain from the memory a first angular measurement generated by the first sensor (Seigal col. 9 ln 28-43, The value of this resistance determines the voltage drop generated thereacross and, with standard voltage divider techniques; Seigal does not disclose the angular measurement, see Schodlbauer, abstract Fig. 1, An evaluation circuit converts the output signal of the magnetic field sensor to a signal that corresponds to a relative position between the magnetic field sensor and the permanent magnet along said linear movement path, Schodlbauer [0014] This can then be converted by an evaluation unit, as required, into a signal directly proportional to the path being measured, which latter signal is present for example, as an analog signal, a digital signal or a pulse width-modulated signal.); determine a first distance of the shoe from the front end of the rack based at least in part upon the first angular measurement and a position of the first sensor along the length of the rack, wherein the first distance represents a position of the shoe along the length of the rack (Seigal portions above discloses determining position of product container, Seigal does not disclose where this is based on the first angular measurement; Schodlbauer discloses, above, the sensor output depends on direction of magnetic field, and an evaluation circuit converts that directional output into a signal corresponding to relative position along the linear path); and
determine a number of packs of the cigarettes stored in the rack based the position of the shoe along the length of the rack (see e.g. Siegal pusher position indicative of number of product containers on the track col. 7, ln. 55-67).
The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the position determination art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seigal’s shelf/track system that already uses a magnet and sensor strip to derive show/pusher position, with Schodlbauer’s direction-based magnetic position sensing, as shown above, where the advantage of such a combination is to improve position resolution robustness, especially where a simply reed switch array provides coarse location in Seigal. See Schodlbauer at e.g. [0007].
With regard to claims 2, 16, 25, Siegal further discloses to determine the first distance of the shoe from the front end of the rack by: when first angular measurement is within a pre-set range of zero degrees: determine the first distance by multiplying a number of the sensors on the circuit board up to and including the first sensor from the front end of the rack by a pre-selected spacing between each pair of the sensors (Siegal discloses discrete sensor positions along a strip user to infer pusher positions (coarse position indexing by sensor location), so the discrete sensor positions indicate a certain spacing between the sensors that is set, given, and known; Siegal does not disclose the use of angle =0 degree (within range); Schodlbauer provides that the sensor output depends on field direction and an evaluation unit converts that into a path/position signal, which makes the angle near 0 a known/available condition for branching logic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the position determination art before the effective filing date to combine the evenly spaced sensors of Siegal and an angle/direction measurement of Schodlbauer, as the values are known and then the math equation is applied to reach a predictable result. Further, the advantage of such improvement is, as mentioned in Schodlbauer [0007-9], so that the measurement can be made more precisely and accurately.).
With regard to claims 3, 17, 26, Siegal does not disclose claim 3. Schodlbauer teaches that along a trajectory, the local magnetic-field direction changes with location and explicitly discusses the angle between local field direction and trajectory varying with position. Schodlbauer supports the direction/angle values with relative position, as shown throughout Schodlbauer, and the sign convention (plus/minus) is a coordinate choice tied to front/back. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the position determination art before the effective filing date to combine the evenly spaced sensors of Siegal and an angle/direction measurement of Schodlbauer, as the values are known and then the math equation is applied to reach a predictable result. Further, the advantage of such improvement is, as mentioned in Schodlbauer [0007-9], so that the measurement can be made more precisely and accurately.).
With regard to claims 4, 18, 27, Siegal as shown above discloses the concept of known sensor locations along the rack strip and mapping sensor outputs to positions/counts. Siegal does not disclose the rest of claim 4. Schodlbauer, described above, cures the gap in that the evaluation converts direction-dependent output into a signal corresponding to relative position between sensor and magnet along the movement path. Siegal discloses the fixed sensor positions along rack, and Schodlbauer teaches relative magnet to sensor position from direction. Same motivation to combine from above.
With regard to claims 9, 23, 32, Siegal further discloses the memory stores a first thickness of each pack of cigarettes stored in the rack, wherein, for every pack of the cigarettes that is added to the rack, the shoe is configured to move a distance that equals the first thickness; and the processor is configured to determine the number of packs of the cigarettes of the first thickness stored in the rack by dividing the first distance of the shoe from the front end of the rack by the first thickness (Siegal shown above already maps pusher position to number of product containers (inventory count from position)).
With regard to claim 10, Siegal supports multiple sensing points plural sensors along length in multiple directions. Schodlbauer supports computing a position estimate from sensor signals, and explicitly contemplates processing measured voltages through A/D and calculation stage. Neither says averaging the distances, as claimed, but this is a routine estimation/robustmenss technique when two estimates exist. See combination above.
With regard to claim 11, Siegal further discloses magnet is arranged in conjunction with the shoe such that a longitudinal axis of the magnet is perpendicular to the longitudinal circuit board (e.g. Fig. 3 and text).
With regard to claim 12, Siegal further discloses the first signals generated by the sensors comprise voltage signals (see col. 2, ln. 25-40). See also Schodlbauer at e.g. [0019].
With regard to claim 13, Siegal supports mapping pusher position to item count which inherently depends on known item pitch/thickness. Siegal does not explicitly state that sensor spacing equal pack thickness. This is common obvious calibration/design choice, as a design engineer could design the system like this if needed to set sensor pitch equal to standard pack thicksness so count is directly proportional. See combination above.
With regard to claim 14, Siegal does not disclose, and Schodlbauer teaches at e.g. [0017] further discloses where each of the sensors in the plurality of sensors comprises a Hall effect sensor. See combination from claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-8, 19-21, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegal, Schodlbauer, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0012418 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”).
With regard to claims 5-8, 19-22, 28-31, Siegal does not teach the angle-based trigonometry. Schodlbaurer, as shown above, teaches the sensor records the field preferably in direction and magnitude, produced two analog voltage values, and uses a calculation stage to determine local field direction and assign it to the linear motion path. But Schodlbauer does not teach the specific tan (90- positive/negative angle) equations or the vertical distance parameter used in those equations. Johnson at [0059] defines the geometry (magnetic field H forming an angle O, total Distance D, etc.) and then states: “Accordingly, the following equation applies:
PNG
media_image2.png
41
136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is the same math as the claim’s vertical/tan(90-angle) because vertical/tan (90-O) = vertical x tanO.
See further at Johnson [0060] then gives the angle derivation for from components:
PNG
media_image3.png
42
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The relationship between horizontal and vertical components used to compute angle. This maps to the claimed obtain angular measurement concept and provides the explicit trig relationship.
Further, Johnson [0061] makes the known vertical distance point explicit and ties it to the computing the horizontal distance, explaining AZ is known from the geometry/installation, and therefore AX can be determined based on O and AZ using equation (1).
Johnson gives a clean examples of the positive and negative sign terminal from the claims. Johnson [0090] explains a coordinate/sign convention where a direction outward is represented by a negative sign, and inward with a positive sign (in the context of yaw angle). Johnson [0055] explains the sign of a field component changes when crossing over the boundary wire, and that reversal can be used as a digital input/indicator.
Johnson is in the field of magnetic sensing and signal processing to compute a physical position/offset of a magnet/field source relative to a sensor. The claims also relate to a magnetic sensing and signal processing to compute physical position, just applied to a retail rack. Same general field. Further, Johnson is directly about the same technical problem: given a magnetic field angle (derived from components) and a known standoff distance, compute a horizontal/lateral offset via a tan relationship. That’s the same type of computation for claims 5-8, regardless of whether the claims relate to a rack shoe or a mower boundary. Johnson is reasonably pertinent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Siegal and Schodlbauer, to include the known geometrical relationships, as shown in Johnson, where this provides a reliable way to convert angle to a distance offset when the magnet is not exactly centered over a sensor, or when the designer wants/needs a finer than sensor pitch resolution. Johnson provides an explicit, already-known relationship to that conversion. A POSITA would be motivated to adopt Johnson’s geometry because it is predictable (basic trig based on known geometry), directly usable with the same inputs, and improves position estimation without requiring extra hardware.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627