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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of May 26, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on August 24, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Double Patenting Claim Rejections
In response to Applicant’s request to hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance without filing a Terminal Disclaimer until allowable subject matter is identified by the Patent Office, the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer should not be held in abeyance as doing so is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims. MPEP §804.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 15, line 3 should be removed because its limitations are already subsumed by those recited in claim 8 from which claim 15 depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,646,112 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Independent claim 13 of the '112 Patent discloses all the limitations of present independent claim 1. For convenience, the Examiner has underlined limitations in independent claim 13 of the '112 Patent in the below claim chart that map to corresponding limitations of present independent claim 1.
Present Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 13 of the '112 Patent (with underlined limitations corresponding to limitations in present independent claim 1)
A method, comprising:
detecting, using a sensor of an imaging device, that a vibration of a unit housing a set of inventory items meets a threshold, the set of inventory items including an inventory item;
in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold, changing a state of the imaging device from a wait state to an active state to capture images of the set of inventory items based on the vibration; and
detecting a physical retrieval of the inventory item from the unit based on the images;
wherein detecting the physical retrieval of the inventory item comprises:
enumerating visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a first image captured using an image sensor of the imaging device to determine a first enumeration of the set of inventory items;
enumerating the visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a second image captured using the image sensor after the first image to determine a second enumeration of the set of inventory items;
determining that the inventory item has been physically retrieved from the unit based on a difference between the first enumeration and the second enumeration; and
identifying the inventory item that was physically retrieved based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration.
A method, comprising:
receiving, at a server device, an indication of a health care task to be performed using an inventory item;
capturing, using an image sensor of an imaging and tracking device coupled to a furniture unit, a first image of inventory items stored within the furniture unit at a first time;
detecting, using a processor of the imaging and tracking device, one or more visual characteristics of the inventory items the first image to determine that a subset of the inventory items are all of a given item type;
determining a first count of enumerations of the subset of the inventory items;
determining, using the processor of the imaging and tracking device, for the imaging and tracking device to remain in a wait state based on first sensor measurements produced using one or more other sensors of the imaging and tracking device and representing a vibration detected at the furniture unit at a second time after the first time not meeting a threshold, wherein resources of the imaging and tracking device are preserved while in the wait state by the imaging and tracking device restricting image capture using the image sensor while in the wait state;
determining, using the processor of the imaging and tracking device, for the imaging and tracking device to change from the wait state to an active state based on second sensor measurements produced using one or more other sensors of the imaging and tracking device and representing a vibration detected at the furniture unit at a third time after the second time meeting the threshold;
capturing, using the image sensor of the imaging and tracking device, a second image based on the change from the wait state to the active state;
detecting, using the processor of the imaging and tracking device, a physical retrieval of one of the subset of the inventory items from the furniture unit based on a second count of enumerations of the subset of the inventory items determined based on the second image not matching the first count of enumerations of the subset of the inventory items;
generating, using the processor of the imaging and tracking device, a signal including data associated with the retrieved inventory item, wherein the retrieved inventory item is associated with the inventory item in the health care task to be performed;
transmitting, from the imaging and tracking device, the signal to the server device, wherein the server device runs a software application to cause an automatic update to a database record associated with the retrieved inventory item; and
generating, by the server device, an alert to a client device indicating that the health care task is being performed with the retrieved inventory item.
While claim 13 of the ‘112 Patent does not appear to disclose identifying the inventory item that was physically retrieved based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration, Kumar teaches (2:2-22, 6:8-27) that it was known in the inventory management art to obtain first and second images of inventory items on a shelf using one or more cameras, identify various characteristics (e.g., shape, color, wording, etc.) of the items in the first and second images (determining first and second enumerations in the first and second images), and determine and identify a removed one of the items based on a difference between the visual characteristics (i.e., the first and second enumerations) of the first and second images to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items (Abstract; 6:36-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the inventory item that was physically retrieved in claim 13 of the ‘112 Patent based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration as taught by Kumar to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
The remaining claims are rejected in view of the claims of the '112 Patent (and Kumar) as set forth below:
Present Claims
Claims of the '112 Patent
2
13
3
13
4
13
5
13
7
2
8
1
9
4
10
1
12
1
13
1
14
1
15
1
17
13
20
13
In relation to present claim 7 which is directed to a "method," the Examiner notes that the system of claim 2 of the '112 Patent also necessarily involves a "method."
In relation to present claim 12, independent claim 1 of the '112 Patent recites how the imaging/tracking device remains in the wait state when the first sensor measurements (vibrations) do not meet the threshold which would therefore prevent false positive determinations in which the unit is exposed to vibrations unrelated to accessing of the unit.
In relation to present independent claim 17 which is directed to "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations," the Examiner notes that the method of independent claim 13 of the '112 Patent recites use of a processor of an imaging and tracking device which would necessarily include use of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (e.g., memory) storing instructions operable to cause the processor to perform operations.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,646,112 ("the '112 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,151,692 to Breed ("Breed"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 6, the combination of claim 13 of the '112 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 6 except for wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to detect the vibration of the unit.
Nevertheless, Breed teaches (47:61-65; 48:4-9) that it was known in the imaging and asset monitoring art to detect an entry event into a container via a vibration sensor (including an accelerometer per 46:42-54) triggering on vibrations of an amplitude and/or frequency signature indicative of such entry into the container (vibrations of a unit meeting a threshold), the container/unit storing objects/inventory items per the beginning of claim 6, the vibration sensor being coupled to an optical imager and thus being "of the imaging device" per claim 7, and to change a state of monitoring devices/optical images from a sleep state to a wake/active state to obtain images of objects in the inside of the container based on detecting the entry event (45:61-46:13; claim 6) which, as noted above, is based on the detected vibrations meeting the amplitude/frequency signature (threshold) to advantageously derive information from the objects in the container in a manner that avoids unnecessary usage of system components such as when the container is idle and the like (56:19-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the vibration sensor of the combination of claim 13 of the '112 Patent and Kumar to be an accelerometer as taught by Breed because accelerometers are common low cost devices for measuring movements/vibrations of objects. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Regarding present claim 19, the combination of claim 13 of the '112 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 19 except for the operations further comprising: cause the set of inventory to be illuminated with a light source.
Nevertheless Breed teaches (claims 11-13) that it was known in the inventory management art for a light source to illuminate the interior of the container (which contains objects/inventory items per claim 1) to advantageously facilitate imaging of the objects/inventory items by imaging devices and therefore identification of such objects/inventory items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operations of the combination of claim 13 of the '112 Patent and Kumar to further include causing the set of inventory to be illuminated with a light source as taught by Breed to advantageously facilitate imaging of the objects/inventory items by imaging devices and therefore identification of such objects/inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 (in the case of claim 11) and claim 13 and 20 (in the case of present claim 18) of U.S. Patent No. 11,646,112 ("the '112 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0337040 to Debusk et al. ("Debusk"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 11, the combination of claim 1 of the '112 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 11 except for wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
update a database record with a time of the physical retrieval.
Nevertheless, Debusk teaches ([0053]) that it was known in the inventory management art to log user access and exit events and associate items removed from the inventory with the dates/times each user accessed the inventory space (updating a database record with a time of the physical retrieval)). This arrangement advantageously facilitates monitoring/tracking of the inventory items and allows for reconciliation in the case of misplaced inventory items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more processors of the combination of claim 1 of the '112 Patent and Kumar to be further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: update a database record with a time of the physical retrieval as taught by Debusk to advantageously facilitate monitoring/tracking of the inventory items and allows for reconciliation in the case of misplaced inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding present claim 18, the combination of claims 13 and 20 of the '112 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 18 except for the notification signal specifically being transmitted to a client device associated with a health care provider.
Nevertheless, Debusk teaches that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to display ([0048]) a list of the selected/removed items on screen 19 of customer computer 18 for viewing by the user which can be a physician's office per [0029] which would advantageously allow the physician/health care provider to monitor health care item inventory for their patients and allow replenishment requests to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the notification signal to a client device associated with a health care provider in the combination of claims 13 and 20 of the '112 Patent and Kumar as taught by Debusk to advantageously allow the physician/health care provider to monitor health care item inventory for their patients and allow replenishment requests to be made. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,646,112 ("the '112 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0278129 to Cote et al. ("Cote"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 16, the combination of claim 1 of the '112 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 16 except for wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: process the images to identify an expiration date of the inventory item; and update a database record with the expiration date.
Nevertheless, Cote teaches (Figure 1 and Claims 1 and 3) that it was known in the inventory management art to process images of products on shelves obtained by image sensors to obtain expiry dates of the products and store the expiry dates in a database to advantageously facilitate monitoring of expiration dates of limited shelf life products/items to allow for necessary removal/replenishment therefore thereby improving user safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more processors of the combination of claim 1 of the '112 Patent and Kumar to be further configured to execute instructions stored in one or more memories to process the images to identify an expiration date of the inventory item; and update a database record with the expiration date similar to as taught by Cote to advantageously facilitate monitoring of expiration dates of limited shelf life products/items to allow for necessary removal/replenishment therefore thereby improving user safety. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,627 ("the '627 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Independent claim 7 of the '627 Patent discloses all the limitations of present independent claim 1. For convenience, the Examiner has underlined limitations in independent claim 7 of the '627 Patent in the below claim chart that map to corresponding limitations of present independent claim 1.
Present Independent Claim 1
Claims 7-9 of the '627 Patent
A method, comprising:
detecting, using a sensor of an imaging device, that a vibration of a unit housing a set of inventory items meets a threshold, the set of inventory items including an inventory item;
in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold, changing a state of the imaging device from a wait state to an active state to capture images of the set of inventory items based on the vibration; and
detecting a physical retrieval of the inventory item from the unit based on the images;
wherein detecting the physical retrieval of the inventory item comprises:
enumerating visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a first image captured using an image sensor of the imaging device to determine a first enumeration of the set of inventory items;
enumerating the visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a second image captured using the image sensor after the first image to determine a second enumeration of the set of inventory items;
determining that the inventory item has been physically retrieved from the unit based on a difference between the first enumeration and the second enumeration; and
identifying the inventory item that was physically retrieved based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration.
7. A method comprising:
receiving an identification of a health care task associated with an inventory item;
detecting, by a sensor of an imaging device, a vibration at a furniture unit housing a set of inventory items including the inventory item, wherein the imaging device is removably coupled to an interior surface of the furniture unit, and wherein detecting the vibration at the furniture unit comprises:
determining that the vibration exceeds a threshold; and
in response to determining that the vibration exceeds the threshold, waking the imaging device from a low power state to capture an image of the images;
in response to detecting the vibration at the furniture unit, capturing, by the imaging device, images of the set of inventory items;
determine, based on at least some of the images, that the inventory item has been retrieved based on the images of the set of inventory items;
obtaining data associated with the inventory item using a machine learning model that is trained to identify the inventory items;
generating a first signal that includes the data associated with the inventory item; and
based on the first signal, updating a database record associated with the inventory item within a database and transmit a second signal to a client device, wherein the second signal includes information associated with the updated database record, and wherein the second signal includes an alert that the health care task is being performed with the inventory item.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: capturing a first image of the set of inventory items at a first time; capturing a second image of the set of inventory items at a second time; and determining that the inventory item was retrieved based on a comparison of the first image and the second image.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: detecting one or more visual characteristics of the set of inventory items in the first image to determine a first count of enumerations of a subset of the set of inventory items; and detecting one or more visual characteristics of the set of inventory items in the second image to determine a second count of enumerations of the subset of the set of inventory items, wherein the comparison of the first image and the second image includes comparing the first count of enumerations to the second count of enumerations.
While claims 7-9 of the ‘627 Patent does not appear to disclose identifying the inventory item that was physically retrieved based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration, Kumar teaches (2:2-22, 6:8-27) that it was known in the inventory management art to obtain first and second images of inventory items on a shelf using one or more cameras, identify various characteristics (e.g., shape, color, wording, etc.) of the items in the first and second images (determining first and second enumerations in the first and second images), and determine and identify a removed one of the items based on a difference between the visual characteristics (i.e., the first and second enumerations) of the first and second images to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items (Abstract; 6:36-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the inventory item that was physically retrieved in claims 7-9 of the ‘627 Patent based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration as taught by Kumar to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
The remaining claims are rejected in view of the claims of the '627 Patent (and Kumar) as set forth below:
Present Claims
Claims of the '627 Patent
2
7
3
7
4
8
5
9
7
11
8
1
10
1
12
1
13
1
14
1
15
1, 3
17
12
20
12
In relation to present claim 12, independent claim 1 of the '627 Patent recites how the imaging/tracking device wakes up from a lower power state to capture images when the vibrations exceeds the threshold which would therefore prevent false positive determinations in which the unit is exposed to vibrations unrelated to accessing of the unit whereby vibrations do not exceed the threshold
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 (in the case of claim 6) and claim 12 (in the case of claim 19) of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,627 ("the '627 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,151,692 to Breed ("Breed"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 6, the combination of claim 7 of the '627 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 6 except for wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to detect the vibration of the unit.
Nevertheless, Breed teaches (47:61-65; 48:4-9) that it was known in the imaging and asset monitoring art to detect an entry event into a container via a vibration sensor (including an accelerometer per 46:42-54) triggering on vibrations of an amplitude and/or frequency signature indicative of such entry into the container (vibrations of a unit meeting a threshold), the container/unit storing objects/inventory items per the beginning of claim 6, the vibration sensor being coupled to an optical imager and thus being "of the imaging device" per claim 7, and to change a state of monitoring devices/optical images from a sleep state to a wake/active state to obtain images of objects in the inside of the container based on detecting the entry event (45:61-46:13; claim 6) which, as noted above, is based on the detected vibrations meeting the amplitude/frequency signature (threshold) to advantageously derive information from the objects in the container in a manner that avoids unnecessary usage of system components such as when the container is idle and the like (56:19-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the vibration sensor of the combination of claim 7 of the '627 Patent and Kumar to be an accelerometer as taught by Breed because accelerometers are common low cost devices for measuring movements/vibrations of objects. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Regarding present claim 19, the combination of claim 12 of the '627 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 19 except for the operations further comprising: cause the set of inventory to be illuminated with a light source.
Nevertheless Breed teaches (claims 11-13) that it was known in the inventory management art for a light source to illuminate the interior of the container (which contains objects/inventory items per claim 1) to advantageously facilitate imaging of the objects/inventory items by imaging devices and therefore identification of such objects/inventory items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operations of the combination of claim 12 of the '627 Patent and Kumar to further include causing the set of inventory to be illuminated with a light source as taught by Breed to advantageously facilitate imaging of the objects/inventory items by imaging devices and therefore identification of such objects/inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,627 ("the '627 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0147966 to Aversa et al. ("Aversa"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 9, the combination of claim 1 of the '627 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 9 except for wherein the imaging device includes an image sensor having an adjustable field of view to capture the set of inventory items.
Nevertheless, Aversa teaches ([0046]) that it was known in the inventory management art to utilize control logic to control servomotors to reposition cameras imaging shelf inventory to advantageously obtain different views of the shelf inventory (adjustable field of view) which would allow for improved tracking thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging device of the combination of claim 1 of the '627 Patent and Kumar to have an adjustable field of view as taught by Aversa to advantageously allow for improved tracking of the inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 (in the case of claim 11) and claim 12 (in the case of present claim 18) of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,627 ("the '627 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0337040 to Debusk et al. ("Debusk"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 11, the combination of claim 1 of the '627 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 11 except for wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
update a database record with a time of the physical retrieval.
Nevertheless, Debusk teaches ([0053]) that it was known in the inventory management art to log user access and exit events and associate items removed from the inventory with the dates/times each user accessed the inventory space (updating a database record with a time of the physical retrieval)). This arrangement advantageously facilitates monitoring/tracking of the inventory items and allows for reconciliation in the case of misplaced inventory items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more processors of the combination of claim 1 of the '627 Patent and Kumar to be further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: update a database record with a time of the physical retrieval as taught by Debusk to advantageously facilitate monitoring/tracking of the inventory items and allows for reconciliation in the case of misplaced inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding present claim 18, the combination of claim 12 of the '627 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 18 except for the notification signal specifically being transmitted to a client device associated with a health care provider.
Nevertheless, Debusk teaches that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to display ([0048]) a list of the selected/removed items on screen 19 of customer computer 18 for viewing by the user which can be a physician's office per [0029] which would advantageously allow the physician/health care provider to monitor health care item inventory for their patients and allow replenishment requests to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the notification signal to a client device associated with a health care provider in the combination of claim 12 of the '627 Patent and Kumar as taught by Debusk to advantageously allow the physician/health care provider to monitor health care item inventory for their patients and allow replenishment requests to be made. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,627 ("the '627 Patent") in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0278129 to Cote et al. ("Cote"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding present claim 16, the combination of claim 1 of the '627 Patent and Kumar discloses all the limitations of present claim 16 except for wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: process the images to identify an expiration date of the inventory item; and update a database record with the expiration date.
Nevertheless, Cote teaches (Figure 1 and Claims 1 and 3) that it was known in the inventory management art to process images of products on shelves obtained by image sensors to obtain expiry dates of the products and store the expiry dates in a database to advantageously facilitate monitoring of expiration dates of limited shelf life products/items to allow for necessary removal/replenishment therefore thereby improving user safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more processors of the combination of claim 1 of the '627 Patent and Kumar to be further configured to execute instructions stored in one or more memories to process the images to identify an expiration date of the inventory item; and update a database record with the expiration date similar to as taught by Cote to advantageously facilitate monitoring of expiration dates of limited shelf life products/items to allow for necessary removal/replenishment therefore thereby improving user safety. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites how the detecting the physical retrieval includes comparing a first image captured before the physical retrieval with a second image captured after the physical retrieval. However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, now recites how detecting the physical retrieval is based on a difference between a first enumeration determined based on a first image and a second enumeration determined based on a second image, where first and second images are necessarily respectively before and after the physical retrieval which leads to the difference in the first and second enumerations. Therefore, claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites how detecting the physical retrieval includes enumerating the set of inventory items in the images based on visual characteristics and identifying a change in the enumeration indicating the physical retrieval. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, now recites how detecting the physical retrieval is based on a difference between a first enumeration determined based on enumerating visual characteristics in a first image and a second enumeration determined based on enumerating visual characteristics in a second image which is the same as enumerating the set of inventory items in the images based on visual characteristics and identifying a change in the enumeration indicating the physical retrieval as recited in claim 5. Therefore, claim 5 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites processing the images to identify the inventory item to detect the physical retrieval. However, claim 8, from which claim 10 depends, now recites how detecting the physical retrieval is based on a difference between a first enumeration determined based on enumerating visual characteristics in a first image and a second enumeration determined based on enumerating visual characteristics in a second image which amounts to processing the images to identify the inventory item to detect the physical retrieval as called for in claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependency from rejected claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0337040 to Debusk et al. ("Debusk") in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,151,692 to Breed ("Breed"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”):
Regarding claim 1, Debusk discloses a method, comprising:
…
…capture images of the set of inventory items ([0034] and [0037] discuss inventory sensors 24 that capture images (and thus amount to an “imaging device”) of medical items ("set of inventory items") as they are removed from or added to an inventory space ("unit")) … ; and
detecting a physical retrieval of the inventory item from the unit based on the images (removal of one of the inventory item from an inventory space (unit) is detected based on the images per [0034] and [0037]).
However, Debusk appears to be silent regarding:
detecting, using a sensor of the imaging device, that a vibration of the unit housing the set of inventory items meets a threshold; and
in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold, changing a state of the imaging device from a wait state to an active state, such that the captured images are based on the vibration.
Nevertheless, Breed teaches (47:61-65; 48:4-9) that it was known in the imaging and asset monitoring art to detect an entry event into a container via a vibration sensor triggering on vibrations of an amplitude and/or frequency signature indicative of such entry into the container (vibrations of a unit meeting a threshold), the container/unit storing objects/inventory items per the beginning of claim 6, the vibration sensor being coupled to an optical imager and thus being "of the imaging device" per claim 7, and to change a state of monitoring devices/optical images from a sleep state to a wake/active state to obtain images of objects in the inside of the container based on detecting the entry event (45:61-46:13; claim 6) which, as noted above, is based on the detected vibrations meeting the amplitude/frequency signature (threshold) to advantageously derive information from the objects in the container in a manner that avoids unnecessary usage of system components such as when the container is idle and the like (56:19-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected, using a sensor of the imaging device, that a vibration of the unit housing the set of inventory items meets a threshold and changed a state of the imaging device from a wait state to an active state in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold such that the captured images are based on the vibration in the system of Debusk as taught by Breed to advantageously derive information from the objects in the container in a manner that avoids unnecessary usage of system components such as when the unit is idle and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, the Debusk/Breed combination appears to be silent regarding wherein detecting the physical retrieval of the inventory item comprises:
enumerating visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a first image captured using an image sensor of the imaging device to determine a first enumeration of the set of inventory items;
enumerating the visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a second image captured using the image sensor after the first image to determine a second enumeration of the set of inventory items;
determining that the inventory item has been physically retrieved from the unit based on a difference between the first enumeration and the second enumeration; and
identifying the inventory item that was physically retrieved based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration.
Nevertheless, Kumar teaches (2:2-22, 6:8-27) that it was known in the inventory management art to obtain first and second images of inventory items on a shelf using one or more cameras (which necessarily include image sensors), identify various characteristics (e.g., shape, color, wording, etc.) of the items (enumerating visual characteristics) in the first and second images (which necessarily amounts to first and second enumerations in the first and second images), and determine and identify a removed one of the items based on a difference between the visual characteristics (i.e., the first and second enumerations) of the first and second images to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items (Abstract; 6:36-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the physical retrieval detection of the Debusk/Breed combination to include enumerating visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a first image captured using an image sensor of the imaging device to determine a first enumeration of the set of inventory items; enumerating the visual characteristics of each of the set of inventory items in a second image captured using the image sensor after the first image to determine a second enumeration of the set of inventory items; determining that the inventory item has been physically retrieved from the unit based on a difference between the first enumeration and the second enumeration; and identifying the inventory item that was physically retrieved based on the first enumeration and the second enumeration similar to as taught by Kumar to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 2, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including:
generating a signal indicative of the physical retrieval of the inventory item ([0008] of Debusk notes that the sensors generate inventory signals indicative of the removal; [0048] notes how the sensors/imaging devices provide selection data (signal) indicative of medical item selection from the inventory space to inventory client application 20; and [0037] notes how inventory client application 20 processes images from sensors to provide identification information indicating the item; accordingly, there is a signal generated including data associated with the retrieved item); and
transmitting the signal to a server device over a network ([0037] of Debusk notes how the inventory client application 20 of customer computer/server 18 identifies retrieved items from the images which is necessarily based on the signal being transmitted to the customer computer/server 18 via network 12 while [0048] notes how the selection data sensed by the sensors is provided to the client application)).
Regarding claim 3, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including:
updating a database record associated with the inventory item based on the detected physical retrieval ([0050] of Debusk notes how the inventory client application 20 saves data regarding the removal of items from inventory which necessarily requires updating some database record associated with the detected physical retrieval within a database).
Regarding claim 4, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein detecting the physical retrieval comprises:
comparing a first image captured before the physical retrieval with a second image captured after the physical retrieval (Kumar teaches (2:2-22, 6:8-27) obtaining first and second images of inventory items on a shelf using one or more cameras, identifying various characteristics (e.g., shape, color, wording, etc.) of the items in the first and second images, and determining/identifying a removed one of the items based on a difference between the visual characteristics of the first and second images (comparing first and second images respectively captured before and after physical retrieval to detect the physical retrieval) to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items (Abstract; 6:36-55); similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the physical retrieval detection of the Debusk/Breed combination to include comparing a first image captured before the physical retrieval with a second image captured after the physical retrieval as taught by Kumar to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Regarding claim 5, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein detecting the physical retrieval comprises:
enumerating the set of inventory items in the images based on visual characteristics; and
identifying a change in the enumeration indicating the physical retrieval (Kumar teaches (2:2-22, 6:8-27) obtaining first and second images of inventory items on a shelf using one or more cameras, identifying various characteristics (e.g., shape, color, wording, etc.) of the items (enumerating the inventory items in the images based on visual characteristics) in the first and second images, and determining/identifying a removed one of the items based on a difference between the visual characteristics (i.e., the first and second enumerations) of the first and second images (identifying a change in the enumeration indicating the physical retrieval) to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items (Abstract; 6:36-55); similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the physical retrieval detection of the Debusk/Breed combination to include enumerating the set of inventory items in the images based on visual characteristics; and identifying a change in the enumeration indicating the physical retrieval as taught by Kumar to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Regarding claim 6, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including:
wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to detect the vibration of the unit (46:42-54 of Breed; similar to as discussed previously, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected, using an accelerometer of the imaging device, that a vibration of the unit housing the set of inventory items meets a threshold and changed a state of the imaging device from a wait state to an active state in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold such that the captured images are based on the vibration in the system of Debusk as taught by Breed to advantageously derive information from the objects in the container in a manner that avoids unnecessary usage of system components such as when the unit is idle and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Regarding claim 7, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including:
generating a signal identifying the inventory item ([0037] of Debusk discloses processing the captured images and providing identification information regarding the removed item (generating a signal identifying the inventory item); also, [0048] discloses how data regarding the selected/removed item is sent to the client application 20 (which requires initial generation of a signal)); and
transmitting the signal to a client device for display in a graphical user interface ([0048] of Debusk discloses how data regarding the selected/removed item (the signal) is sent (transmitted) to the client application 20 and then displayed on a display screen (GUI)).
Regarding claim 8, Debusk discloses a system (system 10), comprising:
one or more memories (the customer computer 18 necessarily includes one or more memories); and
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (the customer computer 18 necessarily includes one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in memory).
The remaining limitations are disclosed by the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 8, further including wherein to detect the physical retrieval, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
process the images to identify the inventory item ([0037] of Debusk discloses processing the images to identify the inventory item).
Regarding claim 11, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 10, further including wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
update a database record with a time of the physical retrieval ([0053] of Debusk discloses logging user access and exit events and associating items removed from the inventory with the dates/times each user accessed the inventory space (updating a database record with a time of the physical retrieval)).
Regarding claim 12, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 10, further including wherein the threshold is configured to prevent false positive determinations in which the unit is exposed to a vibration unrelated to accessing of the unit (as noted above, 48:4-9 of Breed discloses how the vibration sensor triggers on vibrations of an amplitude and/or frequency signature indicative of entry into the container; accordingly, when the vibration sensor senses vibrations that do not meet the amplitude and/or frequency signature indicative of entry into the container, then false positive determinations in which the container/unit is exposed to a vibration unrelated to accessing/entry of the container/unit would be prevented via the signature; similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected, using a sensor of the imaging device, that a vibration of the unit housing the set of inventory items meets a threshold (the threshold configured to prevent false positive determinations in which the unit is exposed to a vibration unrelated to accessing of the unit) and changed a state of the imaging device from a wait state to an active state in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold such that the captured images are based on the vibration in the system of Debusk as taught by Breed to advantageously derive information from the objects in the container in a manner that avoids unnecessary usage of system components such as when the unit is idle and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 13, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 8, further including wherein the imaging device is coupled to a surface of the unit ([0008] of Debusk discloses how the inventory sensors (imaging device per [0037]) are disposed on the storage structure (coupled to a surface of the unit)).
Regarding claim 15, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 8, further including wherein to detect the physical retrieval, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
comparing enumerations of the set of inventory items in a first image and a second image (Kumar teaches (2:2-22, 6:8-27) obtaining first and second images of inventory items on a shelf using one or more cameras, identifying various characteristics (e.g., shape, color, wording, etc.) of the items in the first and second images, and determining/identifying a removed one of the items based on a difference between the visual characteristics of the first and second images (comparing enumerations of the set of inventory items in a first image and a second image) to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items (Abstract; 6:36-55); similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the physical retrieval detection of the Debusk/Breed combination to include comparing enumerations of the set of inventory items in a first image and a second image as taught by Kumar to advantageously facilitate automated monitoring of inventory items and generation/presentation of relevant information regarding retrieved inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id);
generate a signal identifying the inventory item ([0008] of Debusk notes that the sensors generate inventory signals indicative of the removal; [0048] notes how the sensors/imaging devices provide selection data (signal) indicative of medical item selection from the inventory space to inventory client application 20; and [0037] notes how inventory client application 20 processes images from sensors to provide identification information indicating the item; accordingly, there is a signal generated including data associated with the retrieved item); and
transmit the signal to a server device for real-time inventory tracking ([0050] of Debusk discloses sending items usage data (signal identifying the inventory item) to billing/claims computer system 28 (server device) for claim generation (which necessarily involves tracking/monitoring/processing of the inventory item); furthermore, as movement in the field of view of the imaging devices triggers the imaging devices to capture images which are then processed to determine retrieved items per [0037] and then item usage data is sent to the patient billing/claims computer for further processing per [0050], then such inventory tracking is in "real-time"; also see steps 54, 55, 56, 58, 64 in Figure 2 of Debusk).
Regarding claim 17, Debusk discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations ([0058] discloses how the steps of Figures 2 and 3 can be performed by the inventory client application 20 and inventory server application 32 working individually and/or together, where computers/servers are known to have or more non-transitory computer-readable media/memory storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations).
The remaining limitations are disclosed by the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination as discussed above in relation to claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the computer-readable media of claim 17, further including the use of lighted display devices disposed adjacent the inventory space ([0040] of Debusk).
While Debusk does not appear to disclose the operations to further include causing the set of inventory to be illuminated with a light source, Breed nevertheless teaches (claims 11-13) that it was known in the inventory management art for a light source to illuminate the interior of the container (which contains objects/inventory items per claim 1) to advantageously facilitate imaging of the objects/inventory items by imaging devices and therefore identification of such objects/inventory items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operations of Debusk to further include causing the set of inventory to be illuminated with a light source as taught by Breed to advantageously facilitate imaging of the objects/inventory items by imaging devices and therefore identification of such objects/inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 20, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, further including the operations further comprising:
generating a signal indicative of the physical retrieval of the inventory item ([0008] of Debusk notes that the sensors generate inventory signals indicative of the removal; [0048] notes how the sensors/imaging devices provide selection data (signal) indicative of medical item selection from the inventory space to inventory client application 20; and [0037] notes how inventory client application 20 processes images from sensors to provide identification information indicating the item; accordingly, there is a signal generated including data associated with the retrieved item);
transmitting the signal to a database ([0050] of Debusk notes how the inventory client application 20 saves data regarding the removal of items from inventory which necessarily requires updating some database record associated with the detected physical retrieval within a database and therefore transmitting of the signal indicative of the removal to the database); and
updating a database record of the database and associated with the inventory item based on the detected physical retrieval ([0050] of Debusk notes how the inventory client application 20 saves data regarding the removal of items from inventory which necessarily requires updating some database record associated with the detected physical retrieval within a database).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0337040 to Debusk et al. (“Debusk”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,151,692 to Breed ("Breed") and U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0147966 to Aversa et al. ("Aversa"):
Regarding claim 9, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 8, further including wherein the imaging device includes an image sensor having [a] field of view to capture the set of inventory items ([0037] of Debusk discloses how the imaging devices (which necessarily have image sensors) have a field of view).
However, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination appears to be silent regarding the field of view being adjustable.
Nevertheless, Aversa teaches ([0046]) that it was known in the inventory management art to utilize control logic to control servomotors to reposition cameras imaging shelf inventory to advantageously obtain different views of the shelf inventory (adjustable field of view) which would allow for improved tracking thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging device of the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination to have an adjustable field of view as taught by Aversa to advantageously allow for improved tracking of the inventory items. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0337040 to Debusk et al. (“Debusk”) in view U.S. Patent No. 9,151,692 to Breed ("Breed") and U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0278129 to Cote et al. ("Cote"):
Regarding claim 16, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the system of claim 8, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
process the images to identify an expiration date of the inventory item; and
update a database record with the expiration date.
Nevertheless, Cote teaches (Figure 1 and Claims 1 and 3) that it was known in the inventory management art to process images of products on shelves obtained by image sensors to obtain expiry dates of the products and store the expiry dates in a database to advantageously facilitate monitoring of expiration dates of limited shelf life products/items to allow for necessary removal/replenishment therefore thereby improving user safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more processors of the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination to be further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to process the images to identify an expiration date of the inventory item; and update a database record with the expiration date similar to as taught by Cote to advantageously facilitate monitoring of expiration dates of limited shelf life products/items to allow for necessary removal/replenishment therefore thereby improving user safety. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0337040 to Debusk et al. (“Debusk”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,151,692 to Breed ("Breed") and U.S. Patent No. 10,546,204 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,733,565 to Stephens et al. ("Stephens"):
Regarding claim 18, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination discloses the computer-readable media of claim 17, further including wherein detecting the physical retrieval comprises:
…;
generating a notification signal based on the physical retrieval ([0008] of Debusk notes that the sensors generate inventory signals indicative of the removal); and
transmitting the notification signal to a client device associated with a health care provider ([0048] notes how a list of the selected/removed items can be displayed on screen 19 of customer computer 18 for viewing by the user which can be a physician's office per [0029]).
However, the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination might be silent regarding detecting the physical retrieval including analyzing the images using a machine learning model trained to recognize the inventory item.
Nevertheless, Stephens teaches (2:57-65; 4:29-35) that it was known in the inventory management art to utilize a trained ML model to generate output data indicative of inventory item removal events to advantageously provide for automated inventory item removal detection in a manner that can improve in accuracy over time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for detecting the physical retrieval in the Debusk/Breed/Kumar combination to include analyzing the images using a machine learning model trained to recognize the inventory item as taught by Stephens to advantageously provide for automated inventory item removal detection in a manner that can improve in accuracy over time. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Statement Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility
When currently pending claims 1-20 are considered in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, and as supported by relevant case law), the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
For instance, while independent claims 1, 8, and 17 recite certain limitations that include a “mental process” abstract idea (e.g., detecting that a vibration meets a threshold and detecting a physical retrieval of an inventory item based on images) because they can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper), the claims recite additional limitations that amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea and/or are “significantly more” than the abstract idea. For instance, at least the additional limitations of changing a state of an imaging device from a wait state to an active state to capture images of a set of inventory items based on the vibration in response to detecting that the vibration meets the threshold together with the above-noted limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, when viewed as a whole, integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application of the at least one abstract idea by improving the functioning of a computer and other technology. MPEP 2106.05(a).
For instance, as discussed at least at [0070] and [0071] of the present specification, the recited specific manner in which the imaging and tracking device remains in a "wait" or "low power" state (e.g., in which image capture is restricted) when vibrations have not reached a threshold and transitions into an "active" state in which images are captured when vibrations have reached the threshold improves the functioning of the imaging device by limiting resource (e.g., power) expenditure and limiting false positive situations in which the unit is exposed to parameters (e.g., vibrations) unrelated to an inventory item being added to or removed from the unit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights