DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information disclosure Statement(s) filed 5/8/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
3. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the BRI of a computer readable medium can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).-see MPEP §2106.03 II.
It is recommended that the preamble recite for example, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising…:”
4. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of a method of identifying the freezer; communicating with the electronically controlled lock to unlock the door of the freezer; identifying the one or more frozen food products and initiating a payment process; and optionally communicating with the electronically controlled lock to lock the door of the freezer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention allows for dispensing one or more frozen food products from a lockable top-opening freezer which is a commercial interaction. The mere nominal recitation of with a freezer with a electronically controlled lock and a user mobile device, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements—a freezer and a user mobile device. The mobile device and freezer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic mobile device and freezer ) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 13-15 and hence claims 13, 14 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 14 recites a system comprising and mobile device and one or more processors and claim 15 recites a computer-readable medium that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a mobile device to identify a freezer, and one or more frozen food products, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-12 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-15 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 209819974 (Shanmin et al).
Re-claim 1: Shanmin discloses:
identifying the freezer with a user mobile device (freezer fig. 1, horizontal freezer ¶0009], user scans two dimensional code [0051] [0056];
communicating with the electronically controlled lock to unlock the door of the freezer (communication with electromagnetic lock to open the door through the client- [0057]; client is defined as being a mobile device [0056]);
identifying on the user mobile device the one or more frozen food products and initiating a payment process (identifying the type and number of commodities obtained by a consumer, calculating cost information required to be paid, the user finishes taking the cold food commodity, for example, the user pays the cost through the client-[0054]; client is defined as being a mobile device [0056]; see also [0057]) ;
and optionally communicating with the electronically controlled lock to lock the door of the freezer (lock the door instruction sent to controller; the controller 420 controls the electromagnetic lock 415 to be closed, so as to contact the motion constraint of the door- [0049] [0054], [0058]; [0067]).
Claim 2: Shanmin discloses wherein identifying the freezer with the user mobile device is based on receiving user input indicating an identifier of the freezer (user scans code on freezer using client-[0051]; client is mobile device-[0056]).
Claim 3: Shanmin discloses wherein receiving user input indicating the identifier of the freezer comprises receiving, from a camera of the user mobile device, a digital image of the identifier of the freezer (user scans code on freezer using client-[0051]; client is mobile device-[0056]).
Claim 4: Shanmin discloses wherein receiving the user input indicating the identifier of the freezer comprises receiving, from an input device of the user mobile device, the identifier of the freezer (user scans code on freezer using client-[0051]; client is mobile device-[0056]).
Claim 5: Shanmin discloses wherein communicating with the electronically controlled lock to unlock the door of the freezer comprises generating and sending an instruction to the electronically controlled lock to cause the electronically controlled lock to unlock the door of the freezer (the controller controls the electromagnetic lock to be opened -see [0049] [0054]; [0058]) .
Re-claim 10: Shanmin discloses determining that a pre-determined time period starting from the communicating with the electronically controlled lock to unlock the door of the freezer has elapsed, and based on determining that the pre-determined time period has elapsed, communicating with the electronically controlled lock to lock the door of the freezer. [0054]; [0067].
Re-claim 11: Shanmin discloses wherein the top-opening freezer is a chest freezer, and the door is a slidable door. Figs. 1 and 7.
Re-claim 12: Shanmin discloses wherein the slidable door comprises a first slidable door and a second slidable door, each defining respective portions of the volume accessible by the respective slidable door in use, wherein the lock is configured to be selectively controlled to selectively unlock the first slidable door and/or the second slidable door. -Fig. 5 and [0050].
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
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.
7. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanmin in view of Patel (US 12,648,594).
Re-claim 6. Shanmin fails to disclose wherein identifying on the user mobile device the one or more frozen food products comprises receiving, from the user mobile device, one or more identifiers of the one or more frozen food products.
Patel discloses dispensing system and method including a product identifier such as a barcode or image representing the product may be selected (on the user interface of the display screen 1314) or scanned using the scanning device 1306 and/or on-board scanner 1318 (e.g., by scanning a barcode on a placard 1352, or by scanning a code on a mobile device of the consumer).see col. 22 lines 21-30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the freezer dispensing system of Shanmin the ability to identifying on the mobile device, by receiving an identifier of products from mobile device as taught by Patel since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 7: Shanmin does not specifically disclose wherein receiving, from the user mobile device, the one or more identifiers of the one or more frozen food products comprises receiving, from a camera of the user mobile device, one or more digital images of the one or more identifiers of the one or more frozen food products.
Patel discloses dispensing system and method including a product identifier such as a barcode or image representing the product may be selected (on the user interface of the display screen 1314) or scanned using the scanning device 1306 and/or on-board scanner 1318 (e.g., by scanning a barcode on a placard 1352, or by scanning a code on a mobile device of the consumer).see col. 22 lines 21-30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the freezer dispensing system of Shanmin the ability to identifying on the mobile device, by receiving an identifier of products from mobile device as taught by Patel since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 8: Patel, not Shanmin, discloses wherein the one or more identifiers of the one or more frozen food products are one or more barcodes. (the products may have text and/or barcode/QR labels on the packaging, oriented such that the camera 2102 can image them all at once (due to the text/labels being in the field of view 2120-see col. 33 lines 54-56.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the freezer dispensing system of Shanmin the product identifiers include barcodes as taught by Patel since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanmin in view of Norris et al. (US 12,248,977).
Re-claim 9: Shanmin does not specifically disclose wherein initiating the payment process comprises displaying, on the user mobile device, a payment portal for receiving user payment input associated with the one or more frozen food products. (Fig. 5 shows payment app on mobile device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the freezer dispensing system of Shanmin the ability to display a payment app on mobile device to pay for products as taught by Norris since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0004903 (Lyman)-cited for mobile device completing purchase at vending machine and unlocking vending machine door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights