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 .
Claims 1-40 are pending.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,182,803 (herein the ‘803 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. As shown in the claim chart below, the claims of the ‘803 patent render the claims of the instant application obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B). Moreover, the remaining dependent claims also recite similar, overlapping subject matter.
Instant claim 1
‘804 patent claim 1
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing an electronically activated locking device capable of granting or denying access to a fixture;
A system providing self-service access to locked merchandise comprising:
(a) providing a fixture that restricts access to the locked merchandise, wherein the fixture can automatically lock or unlock, allowing or restricting access to the locked merchandise;
(b) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the fixture; and
(b) providing a means of uniquely identifying an individual attempting to access the merchandise;
(c) instructing the electronically activated locking device to grant or deny access to the fixture, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as an interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system.
(f) providing an algorithm which determines future access privileges of the individual to the fixture based on a set of variables, wherein the system is capable of deploying a set of real time deterrents once a suspicious behavior threshold is crossed.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,216,827 (herein the ‘827 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. As shown in the claim chart below, the claims of the ‘827 patent render the claims of the instant application obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B). Moreover, the remaining dependent claims also recite similar, overlapping subject matter.
Instant claim 1
‘827 patent claim 1
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing an electronically activated locking device capable of granting or denying access to a fixture;
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing a merchandise display comprising locked merchandise, wherein the merchandise display can allow or restrict access to the locked merchandise;
(b) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the fixture; and
(b) providing a means of uniquely identifying an individual attempting to access the locked merchandise, wherein the means of uniquely identifying the individual is at least one selected from the group consisting of biometric identification methods, loyalty cards, RFID, NFC, bar codes, QR codes, user ID and passwords, credit or bank cards, driver's licenses, smart phone apps, and cell phones;
(c) instructing the electronically activated locking device to grant or deny access to the fixture, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as an interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system.
(d) assessing whether the set of behaviors of the individual are suspicious or not relative to a set of suspicious event thresholds.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,631,089 (herein the ‘089 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. As shown in the claim chart below, the claims of the ‘089 patent render the claims of the instant application obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B). Moreover, the remaining dependent claims also recite similar, overlapping subject matter.
Instant claim 1
‘089 patent claim 1
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing an electronically activated locking device capable of granting or denying access to a fixture;
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing a fixture comprising locked merchandise, wherein the fixture can allow or restrict access to the locked merchandise;
(b) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the fixture; and
(b) providing a means of uniquely identifying an individual attempting to access the locked merchandise;
(c) instructing the electronically activated locking device to grant or deny access to the fixture, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as an interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system.
(c) measuring a set of behaviors of the individual during a time when the individual is in proximity of or interacting with the fixture; and
(d) assessing whether the set of behaviors of the individual are suspicious or not relative to a set of suspicious event thresholds, wherein the fixture is a case with at least one door allowing access to the merchandise inside.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 11,599,891 (herein the ‘891 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. As shown in the claim chart below, the claims of the ‘891 patent render the claims of the instant application obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B). Moreover, the remaining dependent claims also recite similar, overlapping subject matter.
Instant claim 1
‘891 patent claim 1
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing an electronically activated locking device capable of granting or denying access to a fixture;
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing a merchandise display comprising locked merchandise, wherein the merchandise display can allow or restrict access to the locked merchandise;
(b) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the fixture; and
(b) providing a means of uniquely identifying an individual attempting to access the locked merchandise;
(c) instructing the electronically activated locking device to grant or deny access to the fixture, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as an interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system.
(c) measuring a set of behaviors of the individual during a time when the individual is in proximity of or interacting with the merchandise display; and
(d) assessing whether the set of behaviors of the individual are suspicious or not relative to a set of suspicious event thresholds, wherein the merchandise display is a retail showcase having at least one door allowing access to the merchandise inside, further wherein the merchandise display contains a locking mechanism consists of at least one from the group consisting of magnetic locks, solenoid locks, electronic locks, or any locking mechanism which can be externally triggered to lock and unlock.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,910 (herein the ‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. As shown in the claim chart below, the claims of the ‘910 patent render the claims of the instant application obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B). Moreover, the remaining dependent claims also recite similar, overlapping subject matter.
Instant claim 1
‘910 patent claim 1
A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
(a) providing an electronically activated locking device capable of granting or denying access to a fixture;
A self-service method for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the method comprising:
(a) providing a merchandise display comprising locked merchandise, wherein the merchandise display can allow or restrict access to the locked merchandise;
(b) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the fixture; and
(c) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the merchandise which is correlated to their opt-in data;
(c) instructing the electronically activated locking device to grant or deny access to the fixture, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as an interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system.
(d) a means of authenticating an individual has previously opted into the self-service method and is contained in the database;
(e) automatically enabling access to the merchandise to individuals who are authenticated by the self-service method.
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 7:00 AM ET - 4:30 PM ET, Friday 7:00 AM ET - 11:00 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.1
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 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.