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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
313
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Paragraph 39 says the mobile devices “verifies that the goods are in the 3D environment”. There is no explanation this verification is based on size, distance or colour.
Paragraph 40 mentions size, distance and colour. But there is no suggestion that these parameters are used to verify the 3D environment.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
….
PNG
media_image3.png
164
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Restricting a field of view and validating a field of view based on spoof detection are two entirely different problems. There’s no reason why Miller’s steps could not be preceded by a step that determines the scene is real and not spoofed.
Other arguments are based on the one above and are disagreed with for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It’s not clear what portion of the spec supports these claims. While those parameters are discussed, it’s not clear they are used for “verifying….that the goods is in the 3D environment”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 10268892 B1) in view of Yang (US 20180089848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses:
1. A method for tracking goods of a value chain originating from a location, the method comprising: capturing, by a device, depth information of a scene with goods at the location (column 3 59-column 4 line 5 capture depth information about an object); verifying, by the device, that the goods is in a 3D environment at the location (column 9 lines 40-55 user activates and focus system on item using brackets, column 6 29-30), capturing, by the device, an image of the goods at the location when the goods is verified to be in the 3D environment (fig. 8A 204), and obtaining, by the device, location data of the image taken at the location where the image is captured and associating the location data to the image (fig. 8A 206. Fig. 8A 216), wherein the location of the goods is tracked (column 4 50-55).
Miller fails to disclose and Yang discloses verifying including determining if the goods in the scene is in 2D or 3D based on the depth information and capturing only when goods are verified to be in the 3D environment (fig. 9, paragraph 75, abstract “to capture at least one image based on at least one indication of distance”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Miller by capturing images only when object is in a 3D scene and not too flat of a profile indicative of spoofing. The motivation for the combination is to prevent spoofing (paragraph 5, 8).
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein verifying the goods is in the 3D environment comprises determining the depth of perception of the scene that the goods is in (fig. 8A 204 distance information).
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses:
3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising generating a verification data when the goods is verified to be in the 3D environment and associating the verification data to the image (fig. 8A 210 user verifies computer generated result and 216 associates result to the image).
Regarding claim 4, Miller discloses:
4. The method according to claim 1, further comprising classifying the goods into at least one category, generating one of more quantity data of the goods in each of the at least one category, and associating the one or more quantity data of the goods to the image (fig. 8A 212 various things that can read on category are determined as is a count data, fig. 8A 216 object data is associated to image).
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses:
5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising generating a unique mark and overlaying the unique mark onto the image (column 4 30-65 augmented reality overlayed).
Claims 9-13, 17 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-5 and see fig. 3.
Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses:
18. (New) The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining based on the image at least one of a number of items of the goods, a weight of the goods, a size of the goods, a condition of the goods, and a grade of the goods (column 6 60-67 volume = size).
Regarding claim 19, Miller discloses: 19. (New) The method according to claim 1, wherein the verification data comprises data used to verify that the goods is in the 3D environment (column 4 62-column 5 13 brackets used to indicate objects in field of view of 3D camera).
Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses: 20. (New) The method according to claim 19, wherein the verification data comprises an origin location of the goods (column 6 6-22 selecting location of good to be selected).
Claim(s) 6-8, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 10268892 B1) in view of Yang (US 20180089848 A1) and further in view of Perry (US 20160300178 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Miller further discloses:
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the devices is a mobile device (102) and the method further comprises generating a form configured to input the image and the data associated to the image and storing the form in the mobile device (fig. 8A touchscreen controlled mobile terminal collects image data and user is able to input to modify various aspects).
Miller suggests object data being related to alerts sent to workers (fig. 8B), but fails to disclose:
wherein the form is transferrable from the mobile device to another mobile device, wherein when transferring the form, the image and the data associated to the image are transferred to the another mobile device at the same time.
However Perry discloses task information is transferrable form a mobile device to another mobile device, wherein when transferring the form, the object information are transferred to another mobile device at the same time (fig. 5 516). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Miller as modfieid by transferring data to an appropriate mobile worker so that restocking may be accomplished. The motivation for the combination efficient task completion (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 7, Miller as modified fails to disclose and Perry discloses further comprising obtaining location data of the another mobile device and associating it to the form when the form is received by the another mobile device (paragraph 6 task assigned based on employee location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Miller by transferring data to an appropriate mobile worker so that restocking may be accomplished. The motivation for the combination efficient task completion (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 8, Miller further discloses
generating a task when an input is received by the form (fig. 8B, inputs received fig. 8A). Miller as modified fails to disclose and Perry discloses assigning the task to another mobile device (fig. 5 516). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Miller by transferring data to an appropriate mobile worker so that restocking may be accomplished. The motivation for the combination efficient task completion (paragraph 60).
Claims 14-16 are rejected for the same reasons as above but applied to claim 9.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 10268892 B1) in view of Yang (US 20180089848 A1) and further in view of Zou (US 20210049391 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23, Miller as modified fails to disclose the additional subject matter of claims 21-23. However, in an analogous art, Zou discloses:
Measuring, by the device, a size, distance and/or color of something (paragraphs 24, 31, 82, 104);
And verifying, by the device, that the thing is in the 3D environment at the location is further based on the measured distance, size and/or color (paragraphs 24, 31, 82, 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Miller as modified by validating the object is real using size, distance, and/or color. The motivation for the combination is improved security by preventing spoofing (paragraph 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goenka (US 11699127 B2) discloses traceability tracking through a textile supply chain. Hanebeck (US 20210272037 A1) discloses a blockchain database for storing supply chain information. Bodorik (US 20200211005 A1) discloses a system for tracking the provenance of goods in a supply chain. Hodges (US 20190147397 A1) discloses a system that captures images of goods at various stages of the supply chain. Maijala (US 20180211207 A1) discloses tracking products in a value chain. Beier (US 20120005105 A1) discloses a system for enabling traceability in a supply chain using mobile devices.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627