DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 18-37 in application number 19/215,727. Claims 18-37 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
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 18-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claimed element is taught by the reference.
Following is a table showing equivalent claims:
19215727
U.S. Patent 12,333,487 (17708218)
18, 25 and 32
A system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by the processor to:
1
An inventory management system comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions causing the processor to:
equivalent
18, 25 and 32
obtain, from a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader operating in an item storage facility, RFID tag data associated with a plurality of detected items of a certain item type; determine a count of the plurality of detected items using the RFID tag data;
1
obtain radio frequency identification (RFID) tag data associated with a plurality of items from at least one RFID tag reader to determine an item count values,
equivalent
18, 25 and 32
generate a confidence score for the plurality of detected items based at least partially on the count of the plurality of detected items;
1
calculate a confidence score, wherein the confidence score is based on at least a location of the plurality of items;
//Examiner holds that a detection of RFID tags using an RFID tag reader inherently detects items in a particular location and inherently detects a particular number of items//
18, 25 and 32
and in response to the confidence score satisfying a threshold value, apply a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules to the plurality of detected items,
1
compare the confidence score against a confidence threshold value and in response to the confidence score equaling or exceeding the confidence threshold value, apply a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules, via a PISOS manager, to the plurality of items;
equivalent
18, 25 and 32
the application of the PISOS rules comprising: in response to the count of the plurality of detected items being greater than an on-hand value associated with the certain item type at the item storage facility, automatically adjusting the on-hand value upward to match the count of the plurality of detected items;
1
and adjust, automatically, the current on-hand inventory count values associated with a second set of items in the plurality of items upward based on detected item count values in response to: a first condition where the detected item count values associated with the second set of items exceeds the current on-hand inventory count values associated with the second set of items,
equivalent
18, 25 and 32
and in response to the count of detected items being less than the on-hand value, automatically adjusting the on-hand value downward to match the count of the plurality of detected items upon determining that the certain item type qualifies as in-scope for downward adjustment based on a PISOS indicator associated with the certain item type.
1
send the detected item count values associated with a second sub-set of items within the first set of items for downward adjustment of the current on-hand inventory count values of the second sub-set of items, wherein the second sub-set of items is in-scope for the downward adjustment of the current on-hand inventory count values based on the application of the set of PISOS rules;
//Examiner holds that "send the detected item count values… for downward adjustment" is equivalent to "adjusting the on-hand value downward" and "wherein the second sub-set of items is in-scope for the downward adjustment of the current on-hand inventory count values based on the application of the set of PISOS rules" is equivalent to "upon determining that the certain item type qualifies as in-scope for downward adjustment based on a PISOS indicator associated with the certain item type"//
19, 26 and 33
The system of claim 18, wherein the PISOS indicator is based at least partially on a level of accessibility of the certain item type in the item storage facility.
6
verify the detected item count value represents instances of a selected item located within an item display area accessible to users, wherein detected item count values associated with items within an item storage area are rejected for downward on-hand inventory adjustments
equivalent
20, 27 and 34
The system of claim 19, wherein a high level of accessibility qualifies the certain item type as being in-scope for downward adjustment and a low level of accessibility disqualifies the certain item type from being in-scope for downward adjustment
6
verify the detected item count value represents instances of a selected item located within an item display area accessible to users, wherein detected item count values associated with items within an item storage area are rejected for downward on-hand inventory adjustments
equivalent
21, 28 and 35
The system of claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to apply the PISOS rules to: in response to the count of the detected items being less than the on-hand value, and upon determining that the certain item type does not qualify as in-scope for downward adjustment based on the PISOS indicator, employ a default downward adjustment rule to maintain the on- hand value.
1
the set of PISOS rules comprising: determine a first set of items within the plurality of items having detected item count values lower than a current on-hand inventory count values; reject a downward adjustment of the current on-hand inventory count values for a first sub-set of items within the first set of items identified as out-of-scope based on application of the set of PISOS;
//Examiner holds that rejecting an adjustment is equivalent to maintaining a value//
22, 29 and 36
The system of claim 18, wherein, the threshold value is a percentage or a subset of a number of items of the certain item type expected to be found in the item storage facility; and the confidence score is based on the count of the items detected relative to the number of items of the certain item type expected to be found in the item storage facility.
1 and 2
calculate a confidence score wherein the confidence score is based on at least a location of the plurality of items AND a guardrail component that compares the detected item count value associated with a selected item to an expected item count value associated with the selected item, wherein a scan for instances of the selected item is complete if a difference between the detected item count value and the expected item count value is within a store-item threshold range.
//Examiner holds that a detection of RFID tags using an RFID tag reader inherently detects items in a particular location and inherently detects a particular number of items and, further, a threshold value is functionally equivalent to "guardrail component" because both represent the accuracy of the RFID scan and number of good scans versus number of expected scans//
23, 30 and 37
The system of claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: determine whether the certain item type should be associated with the RFID tag data based on a RFID eligible rule.
3
a data storage device comprising a set of indicators, wherein an eligibility component checks the set of indicators associated with a selected item indicating whether the selected item is eligible for automatic downward inventory adjustment using the RFID tag data based on a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules, wherein the set of indicators comprises an RFID eligibility indicator indicating whether instances of the selected item are expected to be RFID tagged.
equivalent
24 and 31
The system of claim 18, wherein the confidence score is further based on locations of the plurality of detected items within the item storage facility.
1
calculate a confidence score wherein the confidence score is based on at least a location of the plurality of items
equivalent
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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
Claims 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claim 18 and dependent claims 19-24 recite a system (machine). Independent Claim 25 and dependent claims 26-31 recite a method (process) and Independent Claim 32 and dependent claims 33-37 recite a medium (manufacture), thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Claim 18 (and similarly in Claims 25 and 32):
A system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by the processor to: obtain, from a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader operating in an item storage facility, RFID tag data associated with a plurality of detected items of a certain item type; determine a count of the plurality of detected items using the RFID tag data; generate a confidence score for the plurality of detected items based at least partially on the count of the plurality of detected items; and in response to the confidence score satisfying a threshold value, apply a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules to the plurality of detected items, the application of the PISOS rules comprising :in response to the count of the plurality of detected items being greater than an on-hand value associated with the certain item type at the item storage facility, automatically adjusting the on-hand value upward to match the count of the plurality of detected items; and in response to the count of detected items being less than the on-hand value, automatically adjusting the on-hand value downward to match the count of the plurality of detected items upon determining that the certain item type qualifies as in-scope for downward adjustment based on a PISOS indicator associated with the certain item type.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
These elements recite acquiring information relating to the quantity of items from two sources, comparing the two quantities and using rules to determine actions based on the comparison. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Mental Processes because, other than general purpose RFID equipment and computer equipment, using rules to compare quantities of items can be done in the human mind. These elements further represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because, other than general purpose RFID equipment and computer equipment, it is a common commercial activity to take inventory of items for sale and ensure the accuracy of the quantity counted by comparing redundant counts. Examiner notes that in U.S. Patent 12,333,487, with similar claims, Applicant also claimed detail of the determination of confidence scores and detail of specific rules, and *the combination of elements* was found to be a specific improvement to an inventory management technology that solved the problem of overcounts and undercounts by using probability and logical rules relating to specific item attributes to take specific mitigation steps relating to resolving the inaccuracies related to using RFID technology.
Claims 18, 25 and 32 thus recite an abstract idea. Dependent Claims 19-24, 26-31 and 33-37 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 18, 25 and 32, respectively. Accordingly Claims 18-37 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, Claim 18 (and similarly Claims 25 and 32) also recites the following additional elements:
processor: Applicant defines processor in their specification at [0027] as general
purpose processor with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies.
media/medium: Applicant defines memory in their specification at [0028] as general purpose memory with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies.
radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader: Applicant defines RFID tags in their specification at [0033] as general purpose RFID tag reader with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
As discussed, the additional elements processor, media/medium and RFID tag reader are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 18-37 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of acquiring information relating to the quantity of items from two sources, comparing the two quantities and using rules to determine actions based on the comparison. As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of: processor, media/medium and RFID tag reader.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed processor, media/medium and RFID tag reader are hardware recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus processor, media/medium and RFID tag reader are not significantly more.
The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 19-21, 23, 26-28, 30, 33-35 and 37 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1 and further limit the abstract idea by further limiting rules.
Dependent Claims 22, 24, 29, 31 and 36 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1 and further limit confidence score.
Claims 18-37 are not patent eligible.
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 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0189760 (Brooks) in view of NPL Kang, Y. K. (2004). Information inaccuracy in inventory systems (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (Kang).
Regarding Claims 18, 25 and 32:
Brooks teaches a system that improves perpetual inventory using RFID tags. Brooks
teaches: (New) A system comprising: a processor; ([0021] "the system 200 may comprise a control circuit or processor module 212").
and a computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by the processor to: ([0024] “media” and [0021] “memory 214”).
obtain, from a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader operating in an item storage facility, RFID tag data associated with a plurality of detected items of a certain item type; ([0019] "radio-frequency identifier (RFID) tag readers").
determine a count of the plurality of detected items using the RFID tag data; ([0025] “determined inventory counts”). Examiner is interpreting this element to mean the quantity of items actually detected from RFID signals.
generate a confidence score for the plurality of detected items based at least partially on the count of the plurality of detected items; and in response to the confidence score satisfying a threshold value, apply a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules to the plurality of detected items, the application of the PISOS rules comprising: Examiner is interpreting Applicant's current on-hand value to be equivalent to perpetual inventory (PI) of Brooks because these are both the previously stored quantity of inventory. Brooks teaches comparison of previously stored inventory values and actually detected inventory values and teaches in [0027] "overstated perpetual inventory (OPI)" and "understated perpetual inventory (UPI). Examiner notes that Applicant does not appear to define a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules and from the context of Applicant's [0022-0023] this term may generally relate to confidence of accuracy of the physical count. Examiner notes that Brooks teaches rules generally relating to confidence level in at least ([0031] "confidence level") and [0038] "application of the one or more second rules”). Examiner holds that a detection of RFID tags using an RFID tag reader inherently detects items in a particular location and inherently detects a particular number of items.
and in response to the count of detected items being less than the on-hand value, automatically adjusting the on-hand value downward to match the count of the plurality of detected items upon determining that the certain item type qualifies as in-scope for downward adjustment based on a PISOS indicator associated with the certain item type. Brooks teaches this element: ([0035] "In the example of FIG. 3, the PI engine identifies that PI of a first product that is over stated and based on a first rule ("R_") reduces the PI count for a first product").
While Brooks teaches rules to make upward and downward adjustments to inventory when stored inventory amounts overstated or understated ([0039] "rules are defined to continue to cause adjustments to be initiated until an error in an opposite direction (e.g., from overstated to understated, from understated to overstated, etc.), and then make one or more compensating adjustments in the opposite direction") but Brooks does not specifically teach: in response to the count of the plurality of detected items being greater than an on-hand value associated with the certain item type at the item storage facility, automatically adjusting the on-hand value upward to match the count of the plurality of detected items; Kang, in the same field of art teaches this: Examiner is interpreting this element to teach that if quantity detected is more than the quantity previously stored then increase the quantity previously stored. This interpretation is reasonable based on Applicant's specification at [0020] "This enables on-hand inventory to be corrected to reflect the actual number of items detected during a scan. If on-hand inventory shows eight instances of an item and RFID scans detect nine instances of the item, it is unlikely that detected number is incorrect. An item which has been scanned is most likely actually present. Therefore, adjusting inventory upward for all items improves reliability and accuracy of on-hand inventory". Kang, in the same field of art, teaches [on page 70, bottom] "One important characteristic of this measurement error is that while the RFID system can miss reading some of the tagged objects, it does not identify an object that does not exist. Therefore, the measurement by Auto-ID can only understate the actual quantity". Kang also teaches rules that enforce this [page 73, bottom] "For example, if xk is 1 at the beginning of time k and no order was placed during the period k (uk = 0), then the probability that xk+l will remain unchanged is 1 only when there is zero demand and zcro stock loss. This transition probability is rl,1(0) = WoTo. Similarly, xk will drop to 0 at the beginning of k + 1 if the sum of wk and vk is at least one. This transition probability is T~,~(=0)1 - WoTo. The probability that xk+1 will increase to 2 is zero since nothing is ordered" and see [page 76] equation 6.13 where from equation 6.7 on [page 73] we know that Z sub k = i is the detected quantity and X sub k =j is the actual quantity. Thus Equation 6.13 says that if the detected quantity is less than or equal to the actual quantity you enter a reduced quantity using the fraction equation but if the detected quantity is more than the actual quantity you do not reduce the quantity and just use the detected one.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the inventory adjustment system taught by Brooks could be predictably improved by avoiding unnecessary calculations for highly likely scenarios which is suggested by Kang [on page 72, top] "Therefore it is of interest for us to look for an alternative system state which would have smaller dimension than I sub k and yet provide all the essential content of I sub k that is necessary for control purposes. Such quantities are known as sufficient statistics".
Regarding Claims 18, 19, 25, 26, 32 and 33:
Brooks in view of Kang teach all of the elements of Claims 18, 25 and 32. Brooks also
teaches: (New) The system of claim 18, wherein the PISOS indicator is based at least partially on a level of accessibility of the certain item type in the item storage facility. (New) The system of claim 19, wherein a high level of accessibility qualifies the certain item type as being in-scope for downward adjustment and a low level of accessibility disqualifies the certain item type from being in-scope for downward adjustment. ([0042] "filtering may be applied relative to a difficulty to stock a particular item (e.g., when a stocking difficulty level is greater than a threshold the PI engine may evaluate inventory levels and implement adjustment actions, while preventing adjustment actions and/or requesting shopping facility validation when the stocking difficulty level is less than the threshold)").
Regarding Claims 21, 28 and 35:
Brooks in view of Kang teach all of the elements of Claims 18, 25 and 32. Brooks also
teaches: (New) The system of claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to apply the PISOS rules to: in response to the count of the detected items being less than the on-hand value, and upon determining that the certain item type does not qualify as in-scope for downward adjustment based on the PISOS indicator, employ a default downward adjustment rule to maintain the on- hand value. Examiner is interpreting Applicant's current on-hand value to be equivalent to perpetual inventory (PI) of Brooks because these are both the previously stored quantity of inventory. Examiner is interpreting Applicant's count of the detected items to be equivalent to "determined inventory counts" as taught by Brooks in [0025] because these are the quantity of items actually detected from the RFID signals. Brooks teaches comparison of previously stored inventory values and actually detected inventory values and teaches in [0027] "overstated perpetual inventory (OPI)" and "understated perpetual inventory (UPI). Examiner is interpreting Applicant's a second set of items having detected item count values lower than the current on-hand inventory count values to be equivalent to Brooks "overstated perpetual inventory (OPI)" because they both describe the situation in which the quantity detected is less than the quantity previously stored. Examiner notes that Applicant does not appear to define a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules and from the context of Applicant's [0022-0023] this term may generally relate to confidence of accuracy of the physical count. Examiner notes that Brooks teaches rules generally relating to confidence level in at least ([0031] "confidence level"). Examiner is interpreting this element to mean if quantity detected is less than the quantity previously stored apply a rule and the rule may prohibit making an inventory adjustment under certain circumstances. Brooks teaches this in [0038] "application of the one or more second rules may result in that no subsequent action should be taken". See also ([0040] "listing of products relative to one or more shopping facilities that are not authorized to have inventory adjustment activity automatically applied").
Regarding Claims 22, 29 and 36:
Brooks in view of Kang teach all of the elements of Claims 18, 25 and 32. Brooks also
teaches: (New) The system of claim 18, wherein, the threshold value is a percentage or a subset of a number of items of the certain item type expected to be found in the item storage facility; and the confidence score is based on the count of the items detected relative to the number of items of the certain item type expected to be found in the item storage facility. ([0031] "confidence level" and [0038] "one or more first rules identify inventory count was really
high (e.g., above a threshold determined based on associate feedback and/or other data points).
one or more second rules may direct the reduction of the inventory count"). Examiner holds that a detection of RFID tags using an RFID tag reader inherently detects items in a particular location and inherently detects a particular number of items and, further, a threshold value is functionally equivalent to "guardrail component" because both represent the accuracy of the RFID scan and number of good scans versus number of expected scans.
Regarding Claims 23, 30 and 37:
Brooks in view of Kang teach all of the elements of Claims 18, 25 and 32. Brooks also
teaches: (New) The system of claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: determine whether the certain item type should be associated with the RFID tag data based on a RFID eligible rule. ([0014] "The first set of
inventory evaluation rules are applied to determine a type of inventory count error relative to the
determined inventory count of the product at one or more shopping facilities. An inventory
adjustment action can be determined that is to be implemented based on the product and the
determined error type" and [0016] "automatically initiate inventory adjustment activities to
manage perpetual inventory of these products, often without human interaction and typically
without need for human authorization").
Regarding Claims 24 and 31:
Brooks in view of Kang teach all of the elements of Claims 18, 25 and 32. Brooks also
teaches: (New) The system of claim 18, wherein the confidence score is further based on locations of the plurality of detected items within the item storage facility. Examiner is interpreting Applicant's current on-hand value to be equivalent to perpetual inventory (PI) of Brooks because these are both the previously stored quantity of inventory. Brooks teaches comparison of previously stored inventory values and actually detected inventory values and teaches in [0027] "overstated perpetual inventory (OPI)" and "understated perpetual inventory (UPI). Examiner notes that Applicant does not appear to define a set of product in-scope out-of-scope (PISOS) rules and from the context of Applicant's [0022-0023] this term may generally relate to confidence of accuracy of the physical count. Examiner notes that Brooks teaches rules generally relating to confidence level in at least ([0031] "confidence level") and [0038] "application of the one or more second rules”). Examiner holds that a detection of RFID tags using an RFID tag reader inherently detects items in a particular location and inherently detects a particular number of items.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights