DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 2-21 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 10/6/2017.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claims 2, 4-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4, 7, 13, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because difference in scope is minor and patentably indistinct between the claims being compared.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 14-20 are processes (methods), and claims 2-13 and 19-21 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 2 (similarly claims 14 and 191) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
2. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause performance of operations comprising:
receiving one or more signals generated by one or more sensors associated with a storage device where items of a first type are stored (observation);
determining, based on the one or more signals, a quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device (evaluation);
comparing the determined quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device with a specified threshold (judgment); and
automatically generating, based on the comparing indicating that the determined quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device is less than the specified threshold, a request to refill the storage device with additional quantities of the items of the first type (opinion).
Claim 2 (similarly claims 14 and 19) is directed to a series of steps for ordering products, which is a commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sensors, processor, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See Specification [0021] discussing the multiple types of generic sensors that could be used. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the sensors, processor, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 2, 14, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-13, 15-18, and 19-21 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Describing the chassis of the storage device is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Designating the type of senor and wirelessly communicating are merely applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 2, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0247113 to Radermaker (“Radermaker”).
10. With regards to claim 2 (Similarly claims 14 and 19), Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
receiving one or more signals generated by one or more sensors associated with a storage device where items of a first type are stored (See [0126] discussing the system’s ability to monitor multiple variables. See further [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs. The examiner is interpreting tracking to be monitoring.);
determining, based on the one or more signals, a quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device;
comparing the determined quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device with a specified threshold (See [0058] discussing the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level. The examiner is interpreting level as threshold.); and
automatically generating, based on the comparing indicating that the determined quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device is less than the specified threshold, a request to refill the storage device with additional quantities of the items of the first type (See [0058] discussing the automatic ordering of a product after a certain level has been reached.).
11. With regards to claim 8, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the storage device comprises a display that is configured to display a description of the items of the first type or the determined quantity of the items of the first type (See Fig, 5 depicting a display with descriptions of items.).
12. With regards to claim 10, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the operations further comprise determining a specific point in time at which the quantity of the items of the first type is determined, wherein the request to refill the storage device comprises a time period following the specific point in time during which the storage device should be refilled with the additional quantities of the items of the first type (See [0126] discussing the system’s ability to monitor multiple variables and, [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs, the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level, automatic ordering of a product after a certain level has been reached, and factoring in preparation time. See also [0063]. The examiner is interpreting tracking to be monitoring, the monitoring of eggs over time as a rate of change, and level as threshold.).
13. With regards to claim 11, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the specified threshold is adjustable based on one or more factors that comprise: a rate of consumption of the first type of items, an amount of time for processing the request to refill the storage device, an amount of time for shipping the additional quantities of the items of the first type to refill the storage device, an anticipated need for the items of the first type within a future timeframe, or a size or an available space of the storage device (See [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs, the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level, automatic ordering of a product after a certain level has been reached, and factoring in preparation time..
14. With regards to claim 13, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the operations further comprise wirelessly communicating the request to refill the storage device to a remote entity (See further [0005] discussing the transmission of the order wirelessly.).
15. With regards to claim 16, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
the items comprise a plurality of discrete items (See [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs, the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level.); and
the estimating comprises estimating a number of the discrete items in the storage location (See [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs, the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level.).
16. With regards to claim 18, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
calculating an amount of time needed to exhaust the amount of the items in the storage location if the items are not re- supplied (See [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs and the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level,. The examiner is interpreting the monitoring of eggs over time as exhaustion in an amount of time.).
17. With regards to claim 21, Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
automatically generate a re-stocking request based on the determination that the total amount of the product in the storage device is less than the predefined threshold product (See [0058] discussing the automatic ordering of a product after a certain level has been reached.); and
wirelessly communicate the automatically generated re-stocking request to a controller entity (See [0108] discussing the system’s ability to wirelessly communicate and [0005] discussing the transmission of the order wirelessly.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Radermaker.
20. With regards to claim 6 (Similarly claim), Radermaker disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the display is further configured to display (See Fig, 5 depicting a display with descriptions of items.) a rate of consumption of the items of the first type or an estimated time at which the items of the first type will be depleted from the storage device (See further [0058] discussing the tracking of the number of eggs and the determination that a product inventory has fallen below a certain level.).
Rademarker does not explicitly teach the displaying of rate of consumption; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include displaying data that is already been calculated.
21. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Radermaker in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0087545 to Deketele et al. (“Deketele”).
22. With regards to claim 3, Radermaker is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the one or more sensors are accessible via a chassis of the storage device.
However, Deketele teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the one or more sensors are accessible via a chassis of the storage device (See [0013] discussing the configuration of the device with the opening sensor and [0016] discussing the multitude of sensors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rademaker to include the one or more sensors are accessible via a chassis of the storage device, as disclosed by Deketele. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to monitor repositories (Deketele [0016]).
23. With regards to claim 5, Radermaker is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the one or more signals are associated with an addition or a removal of a subset of the items of the first type to or from the storage device.
However, Deketele teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the one or more signals are associated with an addition or a removal of a subset of the items of the first type to or from the storage device (See [0021] discussing updating the records when additional products are provided.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rademaker to include in the one or more signals are associated with an addition or a removal of a subset of the items of the first type to or from the storage device, as disclosed by Deketele. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maximum stock quantity of each product in the basket having defined limit (Deketele [0021]).
24. With regards to claim 7, Radermaker is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the one or more sensors include a force-sensing resistor or capacitor, a load cell, a linear variable transformer, an optical encoder, a closable switch, a machine vision, or an electromechanical counter.
However, Deketele teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the one or more sensors include a force-sensing resistor or capacitor, a load cell, a linear variable transformer, an optical encoder, a closable switch, a machine vision, or an electromechanical counter (See [0016] discussing the opening sensors as magnetic switch and other generic sensors as open/closed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rademaker to include the one or more sensors include a force-sensing resistor or capacitor, a load cell, a linear variable transformer, an optical encoder, a closable switch, a machine vision, or an electromechanical counter, as disclosed by Deketele. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to monitor repositories (Deketele [0016]).
25. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Radermaker in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20040230503 to Lucas (“Lucas”).
26. With regards to claim 5, Radermaker is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the specified threshold is determined via a machine learning process.
However, Lucas teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the specified threshold is determined via a machine learning process (See [0026] discussing modifying minimum in-stock thresholds at the particular location to reflect supply usage that is anticipated based on the inventory usage model.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rademaker to include the specified threshold is determined via a machine learning process, as disclosed by Lucas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to refine data (Lucas [0026]).
27. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Radermaker in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0087545 to Sizer et al. (“Sizer”).
wherein the storage location comprises a storage container wherein the information corresponds to an amount of weight exerted by the items to the storage container.
However, Sizer teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the storage location comprises a storage container wherein the information corresponds to an amount of weight exerted by the items to the storage container (See [0004] discussing using sensors that use weight measurements to calculate quantity.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Radermaker to include the storage location comprises a storage container wherein the information corresponds to an amount of weight exerted by the items to the storage container, as disclosed by Sizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that only the proper dose is withdrawn therefrom (Sizer [0004]).
Subject Matter Distinguished over the Prior Art
28. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for subject matter distinguished over the prior art of claims 4, 6, 17, and 20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest art, Radermaker 2016/0247113 and Sizer 2019/0087545, does not teach signals are associated with a force exerted by the quantity of the items of the first type in the storage device and wherein the items of the first type comprise a fluid, and wherein the one or more signals are associated with a level of the fluid within the storage device. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 Examiner notes that claims 14 and 19 use synonym language with the same scope as claim 2 and therefore, are rejected for the same reasoning.
Prosecution Insights