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 .
Response to Arguments
ODP rejection has been withdrawn based on the filed TD.
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Element 44 is not a singular stanchion, but rather a plurality. See paragraph 33: “raised projections”. As implemented the compartments containing load cells attach to stanchions in the corners with the load cell 30 on the bottom. See fig. 3. Thus Savage does indeed show load cells between stanchions i.e. the raised projections 44.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
190
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Savage does indeed have channels between the stanchions. But they are called “grooves” (element 48). The broadest reasonable interpretation of groove would encompass a “channel”. A rationale for combination is given in the action. See page 6 of the Non-Final Rejection.
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
146
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below).
Thus while applicant may have one reason to display a logo, the prior art shows another and it need not be the same as applicant’s.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
262
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Kumar shows adjacency. Fig. 1B shows inventory areas without associated load cells being next to each other. 164 even shows non-adjacency (gap between inventory areas). The BRI of “adjacent” reads on arrangements where load cells are in areas next to each other.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
256
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Kumar discloses a plurality of types of sensors capturing forces in different ways (column 6 20-40).
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
176
644
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Kumar discloses a plurality of types of sensors capturing forces in different ways (column 6 20-40).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (US 20150366377 A1) in view of Chila (US 20220104636 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Savage discloses:
1. A modular inventory monitoring system comprising: a receiver (paragraph 24 controller); a carrier (fig. 4 tray);
Savage discloses wiring to allow a receiver to receive weight measurements, but fails to disclose buses coupled to the carrier. However in an analogous art, Chila discloses a communications bus as a means to communicate in an inventory system (paragraph 40, 58, 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Savage by using a wired bus to communicate sensor measurements to the controller. The motivation for the combination is efficient tracking of inventory (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 2, Savage further discloses 2. The system of claim 1, wherein channels extend between the stanchions, each of the channels configured to receive a respective one of the wires
Regarding claim 3, Savage discloses:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein each load cell of the plurality of load cells are configured to analyze a type of force, wherein the type of force is based at least in part on a size of a respective bin coupled to each load cell of the plurality of load cells (paragraph 28-29 a measured weight depends on size of load)
Regarding claim 9, Savage discloses: 9. The system of claim 1, further comprising bins, each of the bins being configured to contain a component (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 10, Savage discloses 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the receiver is configured to collect and store data relating to an inventory condition of the respective bin (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 13, Savage discloses wherein a cabinet is retrofit to be coupled to the carrier (fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Savage discloses A kit comprising: the system of claim 1; a first bin having a first size; and a second bin having a second size, the first size being different from the second size, wherein the plurality of load cells are rearrangeable (fig. 4, paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 15, Savage discloses:
15. The kit of claim 14, wherein the plurality of load cells comprise a first load cell configured to measure a first type of force, and a second load cell configured to measure a second type of force, the first type of force being different from the second type of force (paragraph 28 force sensors, weight sensors).
Regarding claim 16, Savage discloses
16. A method of using the system of claim 1, the method comprising: determining a first configuration of the plurality of load cells based on a size of bins intended to be coupled to the plurality of load cells (paragraph 34 various shapes/outlines by coupling/decoupling); determining a type of force that a respective load cell of the plurality of load cells is configured to measure based at least in part on a size of the respective bin coupled to the respective load cell (paragraph 28 weight based on mass of bin); and arranging the plurality of load cells in the first configuration (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 17, Savage discloses:
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising coupling bins to the plurality of load cells and continuously monitoring an inventory of the bins (fig. 4, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 18, Savage discloses:
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising rearranging the plurality of load cells to be in a second configuration (paragraph 34 various shapes outlines).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (US 20150366377 A1) in view of Chila (US 20220104636 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Soffer (US 20160196454 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Savage as modified fails to disclose wherein the load cells each include a load icon indicating a type of force a respective load cell is configured to measure. Savage does disclose various types of load cells (paragraph 28). In an analogous art, Soffer discloses embossing components with a type identifier icon (paragraph 226 USB logo). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Kumar by embossing icons on components to identify them. The motivation for the combination is part identification.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (US 20150366377 A1) in view of Chila (US 20220104636 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kumar (US 11468400 B1)
Regarding claims 5-8, Savage as modified fails to disclose and Kumar discloses:
wherein two adjacent load cells are configured to
measure a same type of force, and a first bin is coupled to the two adjacent load cells
(column 6 13-40 bins are used, column 16 64-column 17 17 weight can be measured
using combined measurements from the same or different sensor types)
wherein two spaced apart load cells are configured to
measure a same type of force, and a first bin is coupled to the two spaced apart load
cells (column 6 13-40 bins are used, column 16 64-column 17 17 weight can be
measured using combined measurements from the same or different sensor types)
wherein two spaced apart load cells are configured to
measure a different type of force, and a first bin is coupled to the two spaced apart load
cells (column 6 13-40 bins are used, column 16 64-column 17 17 weight can be
measured using combined measurements from the same or different sensor types).
wherein a first set of spaced apart load cells are
configured to measure a first type of force, a second set of spaced apart load cells are
configured to measure a second same of force, the first type of force being different
from the second type of force, and wherein a first bin is coupled to the first set of spaced
apart load cells and the second set of spaced apart load cells (column 6 13-40 bins are
used, column 16 64-column 17 17 weight can be measured using combined
measurements from the same or different sensor types, and see fig. 1B inventory
location 106(A) can have up to four sensor readings that can be the same or different
types of sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Savage as modified. The motivation for the combination is more effective and efficient monitoring of items (column 12 line 62)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (US 20150366377 A1) in view of Chila (US 20220104636 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Reuther (US 20160283898 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Savage as modified fails to disclose and Reuther discloses wherein a receiver is configured to continuously display a current inventory quantity at a monitoring station (paragraph 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Savage as modified by outputting tracked inventory data on a display. The motivation for the combination is to save resources and reduce costs (paragraph 28).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Savage (US 20150366377 A1) in view of Chila (US 20220104636 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Henry (US 20090222359 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Savage as modified fails to disclose and Henry discloses a cabinet (fig. 7A) comprising a drawer having a bottom and a back wall (fig. 7C), wherein the load cells are positioned in the bottom of the drawer (fig. 7C) and the carrier is coupled to the back wall of the drawer (paragraph 31 weight sensor associated with compartment, fig. 7C drawer has back wall). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Savage as modified by deploying sensors in a cabinet drawer. The motivation for the combination is to ensure accurate counting (paragraph 6).
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DesJardien (US 11927472 B1) discloses a modular storage system. O’Neill (US 10466095 B1) discloses a shelf with weight sensors. Varrasso (US 20150088306 A1) discloses an inventory monitoring system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. 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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 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 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights