DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, in light of the claim amendments, there would not be a serious search burden on the Examiner in searching Group I and Group II together. Claim 3 has been amended to recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 9, which would require a search that necessarily overlaps substantially. In addition, claim 13 would require the Examiner to search for similar limitation(s) recited in claim 17. Thus, the search for the amended claims of either group would necessarily cover the same technical features and would uncover the same body of prior art.
This is not found persuasive because it would be a serious search and examination burden to the Examiner to search and examiner Group I and Group II together. Further, Group I (claims 5-8) contains additional technical features that will require additional examination and search that would uncover different body of art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 09/08/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 3, 13, 16 and 17 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims.
Claims 9-20 are being examined for the purpose of this prosecution. Claims 1-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
Claims 9-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for organizing and managing physical items in a closet.
Exemplary claim 9 recites in part,
“receive an input to initiate a transaction for the product;
receive data indicative of an initial topography of the product;
receive data indicative of a post product removal topography of the product;
determine at least one of a type or a quantity of product removed from the cavity based on a difference between the initial topography of the product and the post product removal topography of the product; and
charge the customer based on at least one of the type or the quantity of product removed from the cavity.”
The above limitations recite the steps of:
1) receiving user input to commence a transaction,
2) receiving initial and post product topography,
3) determining initial and post product topography difference,
4) billing a user based on product topography difference.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (”grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Additionally, the above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), in that they recite fundamental economic practices or principles. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of a computing element. The additional computer-related element merely invokes this additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a housing with cavity for storing products, which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered individually or in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The additional computer-related element merely invoke the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim recites the additional element of a housing with cavity for storing products, which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 9, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,567,926 (Asher et al. - hereinafter Asher ‘926), further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,891,755 (Asher et al. – hereinafter Asher ‘755).
Referring to claim 9, Asher ‘926 discloses a merchandiser for storing a product for purchase by a customer, the merchandiser comprising:
a housing defining a cavity, the cavity configured to store product; and [See col. 1, lines 9-21 – A refrigerator has a housing with cavity for storing items.]
a controller configured to: receive an input to initiate a transaction for the product. [See Asher ‘926 col. 1, lines 30-36, lines 43-47; col. 2, lines 11-53; col. 3, lines 6-11]
Asher ‘926 does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
a controller configured to:
receive data indicative of an initial topography of the product;
receive data indicative of a post product removal topography of the product;
determine at least one of a type or a quantity of product removed from the cavity based on a difference between the initial topography of the product and the post product removal topography of the product; and
charge the customer based on at least one of the type or the quantity of product removed from the cavity.
Asher ‘755 teaches a system with the limitations;
a controller configured to: [See col. 2, line 62 – col. 3, line 6]
receive data indicative of an initial topography of the product; [See col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9; col. 2, lines 18-27; col. 2, lines 40-43; col. 3, lines 7-11]
receive data indicative of a post product removal topography of the product; [See col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9; col. 2, lines 18-27; col. 2, lines 40-43; col. 3, lines 7-11]
determine at least one of a type or a quantity of product removed from the cavity based on a difference between the initial topography of the product and the post product removal topography of the product; and [See col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9; col. 2, lines 18-27; col. 2, lines 40-43; col. 3, lines 7-11]
charge the customer based on at least one of the type or the quantity of product removed from the cavity. [See col. 1, lines 55-62; col. 2, lines 10-17; col. 3, lines 12-13]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Asher '926 to have incorporated a payment system as in Asher '755 with the motivation of initiating a payment transaction associated with purchase of one or more items. [See Asher '926 col. 2, lines 11-25]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Asher ‘926 and ‘755 discloses the merchandiser of claim 9, further comprising one or more sensors configured to monitor the product. [See Asher ‘755 col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9; col. 2, lines 18-27; col. 2, lines 40-43; col. 3, lines 7-11]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Asher ‘926 and Asher ‘755 discloses the merchandiser of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to determine an initiation of the transaction for the product based on receiving information regarding a payment card of the customer. [See Asher ‘926 col. 1, lines 30-36, lines 43-47; col. 3, lines 6-11]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Asher ‘926 and Asher ‘755 discloses the merchandiser of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to:
unlock a door of the merchandiser to enable a removal of the product based on receiving the input to initiate a transaction for the product; and [See Asher ‘926 col. 1, lines 9-12; col. 1, line 63 - col. 2, line 7]
lock a door of the merchandiser based on a determined completion of the transaction. [See Asher ‘755 col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9; col. 2, lines 11-53; col. 3, lines 7-11]
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Asher ‘926 and Asher ‘755 discloses the merchandiser of claim 9, further comprising a payment card reader coupled to the controller. [See Asher ‘926 col. 1, line 63 – col. 2, line 7]
Referring to claims 16 and 20, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 9 and 12, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher ‘926 in view of Asher ‘755 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0252091 (Morse et al. – hereinafter Morse).
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Asher '926 and Asher ‘755 discloses the merchandiser of claim 9 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the controller receives data indicative of the initial topography of the product and the post product removal topography from a sensor configured to collect one or more photographs of the product.
Morse teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the controller receives data indicative of the initial topography of the product and the post product removal topography from a sensor configured to collect one or more photographs of the product. [See paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0068, 0069]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Asher '926 and Asher ‘755 to have incorporated an imaging feature as in Morse with the motivation of monitoring items associated with an enclosure. [See Asher '926 col. 1, lines 9- 12; col. 1, line 63-col. 2, line 7; Morse paragraphs 0069]
Referring to claim 18, the combination of Asher ‘926, Asher ‘755 and Morse discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising providing a sensor to collect the data indicative of the initial topography and the post product removal topography. [See Morse paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0068, 0069]
Referring to claim 19, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 11, and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher ‘926 and Asher ‘755 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0150230 (Waddle et al. – hereinafter Waddle).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Asher '926 and Asher ‘755 discloses the merchandiser of claim 9 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the merchandiser is an ice merchandiser and wherein the product is bagged ice. [See paragraph 0022]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Asher '926 to have incorporated an ice storage feature as in Waddle with the motivation of selling items contained within an enclosure. [See Waddle paragraph 0026; Asher '926 col. 1, lines 9- 12; col. 1, line 63-col. 2, line 7]
Referring to claim 17, the combination of Asher ‘926 and Asher ‘755 discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the merchandiser is an ice merchandiser and wherein the product is bagged ice, [See Waddle paragraph 0022]
the method further comprising:
unlocking a door of the merchandiser to enable a removal of the product based on receiving the input to initiate a transaction for the product; and [See Asher ‘926 col. 1, lines 9-12; col. 1, line 63 - col. 2, line 7]
locking a door of the merchandiser based on completion of the transaction. [See Asher ‘755 col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9; col. 2, lines 11-53; col. 3, lines 7-11]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights