DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-30 are currently being examined.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor or the Applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 contains one or more limitations that recite the phrase "current location” that is confusing because there is no clear definition for the phrase “current location” in any of the limitations or in the dependent claims. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 contains one or more limitations with the phrases “closest” and “closest to” that are subjective limitations. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “closest” or “closest to”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
Independent Claim 1 contains a limitation that recites the phrase "a change history” that is confusing because there is no clear definition for the phrase “a change history” in any of the limitations or in the dependent claims. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 contains limitations with the phrase “the same aisle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
Independent Claim 11 contains one or more limitations that recite the phrase "current location” that is confusing because there is no clear definition for the phrase “current location” in any of the limitations or in the dependent claims. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 11 contains one or more limitations with the phrases “closest” and “closest to” that are subjective limitations. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “closest” or “closest to”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
Independent Claim 11 contains a limitation that recites the phrase "a change history” that is confusing because there is no clear definition for the phrase “a change history” in any of the limitations or in the dependent claims. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 11 contains limitations with the phrase “the same aisle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
Independent Claim 21 contains one or more limitations that recite the phrase "current location” that is confusing because there is no clear definition for the phrase “current location” in any of the limitations or in the dependent claims. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 21 contains one or more limitations with the phrases “closest” and “closest to” that are subjective limitations. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “closest” or “closest to”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
Independent Claim 21 contains a limitation that recites the phrase "a change history” that is confusing because there is no clear definition for the phrase “a change history” in any of the limitations or in the dependent claims. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 21 contains limitations with the phrase “the same aisle” that lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights