DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary Amendment has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2-7, 10, and 13-15 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.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “at least one object”. Is this the same “at least one object” referred to in the independent claims from which these claims depend?
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 recite “a respective hierarchic order”. Is this the same “hierarchic order” referred to in the independent claims from which these claims depend?
Claims 2, 4, 13 and 15 recite “a level of occupancy”. Is this the same “level of occupancy” recited in the independent claims from which these claims depend?
Claims 4 and 15 recite “a first level of occupancy” and “a second level of occupancy. Is this the same “first level of occupancy” and “second level of occupancy” recited in the independent claims from which these claims depend?
Claim 10 recites “a sensor system”. Is this the same “sensor system” recited in claim 1?
Claim 7 recites “identify, for at least one zone of the plurality of zones” and “indicate, for at least one zone of the plurality of zones”. Is this referring to the same zone twice, or different zones?
Claims 5 and 6 recite “the first threshold” and “the second threshold” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (CN 109086921 A). Annotations relate to numbered paragraphs of provided annotated translation.
Regarding independent claim 12, Sun discloses a method for monitoring a storage space comprising a plurality of items, wherein the method comprises registering occupancy of at least one object in a plurality of zones of the storage space, wherein each zone of the plurality of zones is associated with a respective hierarchic order, A, B, C, wherein a level of occupancy of the at least one object of a first zone of a first hierarchic order, A, is predicted to be higher than a level of occupancy of the at least one object of a zone of a second hierarchic order, B, (see at least paras. 0070 – 0073; 0095)) during a predetermined time interval, wherein the first hierarchic order, A, is higher than the second hierarchic order, B, determining a level of occupancy of the at least one object in at least two zones as a function of time, wherein the at least two zones comprise a first zone of the first hierarchic order, A, and a second zone of the second hierarchic order, B, (see at least paras. 0072, 0096) and comparing a first level of occupancy of the at least one object of the first zone with a second level of occupancy of the at least one object of the second zone during a predetermined time interval, (see at least paras. 0077, 0096) determining an unpredicted or unexpected state in which the first level of occupancy of at least one object of the first zone of the first hierarchic order, A, is lower than the second level of occupancy of at least one object of the second zone of the second hierarchic order, B, whilst the first hierarchic order, A, is higher than the second hierarchic order, B, (see at least paras. 0078-0081, 0101) generating an alarm signal if the unpredicted or unexpected state is determined (see at least para. 0069, “network communication function”).
Regarding claims 13-15, Sun discloses that each zone of the plurality of zones is associated with a respective hierarchic order, A, B, C, based on a predetermined setting of the plurality of zones (see at least paras. 0121-0122). Each zone of the plurality of zones is associated with a respective hierarchic order, A, B, C, based on the steps of registering occupancy of the at least one object in the plurality of zones of the storage space during a nominal time interval (see at least paras. 0121-0126), determining a level of occupancy of the at least one object in at least two zones as a function of time (see at least paras. 0121-0126), comparing a first level of occupancy of the at least one object of the first zone with a second level of occupancy of the at least one object of the second zone, during the nominal time interval, if the first level of occupancy of the at least one object of a first zone is higher than the second level of occupancy of the at least one object of the second zone, associating the first zone with a first hierarchic order, A, and associating the second zone with a second hierarchic order, wherein the first hierarchic order, A, is higher than the second hierarchic order, B (see at least paras. 0121-0126).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 11 are allowed.
Claims 2-7, 10, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wurman et al. (US 8,965,562) and Croy et al. (US 10,387,947) disclose similar systems for positioning objects in a space based on the usage of the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights