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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8,10-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckett (US 2020/0202294, previously cited) in view of Ben-Dor, et al. (US 2019/0362556, herein Ben-Dor).1 Regarding claims 1, 11 and 21, Duckett teaches an item organisation system, non-transitory computer readable medium and storage label including: one or more storage labels (paragraph 0039: label 500), each including a two-dimensional label region containing: a storage attribute code including visible machine-readable indicia encoding data (paragraph 0039: QR code 512); and a receptacle identifier, the receptacle identifier including a string of one or more human-readable alphanumeric characters, wherein the data encoded by the visible machine-readable indicia includes the receptacle identifier (paragraph 0039: unique identifier 504); and a computer program including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to capture an image of the storage attribute code and to decode the data encoded therein to generate decoded data (paragraph 0040). Duckett does not explicitly teach the alphanumeric characters uniquely identifying a storage receptacle. Ben-Dor teaches the alphanumeric characters uniquely identifying a storage receptacle (paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Duckett and Ben-Dor, because uniquely identifying a storage receptacle aids in properly tracking the receptacle (paragraph 0008 of Ben-Dor). Regarding claims 2 and 12, Duckett further teaches the instructions further cause the electronic device to: process the decoded data to obtain a storage image associated with a receptacle identified by the receptacle identifier (paragraph 0054); and display the storage image on the electronic device (paragraph 0055). Regarding claims 3 and 13, Duckett further teaches processing the decoded data includes: submitting the decoded data as a search query to an item storage database associated with the item organisation system (paragraph 0039); and receiving the storage image at the electronic device as a search result of the search query (paragraph 0039). Regarding claims 4 and 14, Duckett further teaches the storage image depicts items stored in the receptacle (paragraph 0038). Regarding claims 5 and 15, Duckett further teaches the storage image is captured by a user of the item organisation system and stored in a user account maintained for the user in the item organisation system (paragraph 0039). Regarding claims 7 and 17, Duckett further teaches the instructions further cause the electronic device to: receive a storage search query at the electronic device (paragraph 0039); process the storage search query to generate a search query result, the search query result including the or each receptacle identifier that identifies a receptacle storing an item referenced in the storage search query (paragraph 0039); and display the search query result on the electronic device (paragraph 0039). Regarding claims 8 and 18, Duckett further teaches the instructions further cause the electronic device to: retrieve from a data storage one or more storage images stored in the data storage for a user of the item organisation system (paragraph 0039); display the one or more storage images on the electronic device (paragraph 0039); receive at the electronic device a selection of at least one of the displayed storage images (paragraph 0039); process the or each selected storage image to obtain a receptacle identifier list that includes the respective receptacle identifier associated with each selected storage image (paragraph 0039); and display the receptacle identifier list on the electronic device (paragraph 0039). Regarding claims 10 and 20, Duckett further teaches the receptacle identifier is disposed amongst the visible machine-readable indicia (paragraph 0039).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckett in view of Ben-Dor and in further view of Didear (US 2021/0083992, previously cited).2 Regarding claims 6 and 16, Duckett in view of Ben-Dor teaches the system and method of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above. Duckett in view of Ben-Dor does not explicitly teach the instructions further cause the electronic device to render an augmented reality display on the electronic device, the augmented reality display including the storage image displayed on an incoming video feed capturing the storage attribute code. Didear teaches the instructions further cause the electronic device to render an augmented reality display on the electronic device, the augmented reality display including the storage image displayed on an incoming video feed capturing the storage attribute code (paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Duckett in view of Kadaba and Ben-Dor, because such a combination eases use for the user (paragraph 0005 of Didear).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckett in view of Ben-Dor and in further view of Hamid (US 2019/0205874, previously cited).3 Regarding claims 9 and 19, Duckett in view of Ben-Dor teaches the system and method of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above. Duckett in view of Ben-Dor does not explicitly teach the one or more storage attribute codes are digitally signed by an administrator of the electronic device using a private encryption key. Hamid teaches the one or more storage attribute codes are digitally signed by an administrator of the electronic device using a private encryption key (paragraph 0157). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Duckett in view of Ben-Dor and Hamid, because such a combination increases the security of the system and method (paragraph 0008 of Hamid).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Ben-Dor has been used to teach the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 11:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.4
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 G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
2 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
3 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
4 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights