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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 10/01/2025.
Claims 1 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 14, 17 and 19-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-23 have been added.
Claims 1, 5-13, 15-16, 18 and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The base claim (19) has been canceled, claim 21 which is directly dependent on claim (19) (canceled), accordingly claims claim 21 is rejected as incomplete.
For prosecution purposes, the examiner considered claim 21 to be dependent on claim 18.
Amendments to the Claims
Applicant has mistakenly indicated in the claim 8 is “currently amended”, where the claim 8 has not been amended and should indicate “previously presented”. Applicant must make appropriate correction and an update to the status identifiers of the claims.
Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, including the deletion of an existing claim, or submission of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented (including previously canceled and non-entered claims) in the application. After each claim number, the status identifier of the claim must be presented in a parenthetical expression, and the text of each claim under examination as well as all withdrawn claims (each with markings if any, to show current changes) must be presented. The listing will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims in the application.
Status Identifiers: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). The status identifier (withdrawn– currently amended) is also acceptable for a withdrawn claim that is being currently amended. See paragraph (E) below for acceptable alternative status identifiers.
claims added by a preliminary amendment must have the status identifier (new) instead of (original), even when the preliminary amendment is present on the filing date of the application and such claim is treated as part of the original disclosure. If applicant files a subsequent amendment, applicant must use the status identifier (previously presented) if the claims are not being amended, or (currently amended) if the claims are being amended, in the subsequent amendment. Claims that are canceled by a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application are required to be listed and must have the status identifier (canceled) in the preliminary amendment and in any subsequent amendment.
See MPEP 714 Amendments, Applicant’s Action, C. Amendments to the Claims.
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 1, 5-13, 15-16, 18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 5-13, 15-16 and 22 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 18, 21 and 23 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1 and 18 recite the abstract idea of managing inventory. This idea is described by the steps of
capturing visual image data of consumer shelf inventory for determining gap-on-shelf status of inventory; and
determine an out-on-shelf profile based on each of the gap-on-shelf status of inventory and a store inventory operations analysis including one or more of longitudinal transaction data and abnormality identification concerning inventory,
determine a store response register based on each of the out-on-shelf profile and a remote supply chain profile including at least one of remote warehouse data and transportation data,
wherein the remote warehouse data comprises timing and/or availability of inventory in remote warehouse supply,
wherein the transportation data comprises timing and/or availability of inventory that is already in transit,
wherein the store response register comprises store level actionable entries isolated from supply-chain level actionable entries; and
display the store response register for presentation including a prioritization of items for imminent restocking at the store level to the user for prioritizing actionable features
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to monitor shelf inventory in a facility based on image captured and determined gaps on shelves. The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., the images) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a visual image system comprising a camera system, an inventory management control system including at least one processor for executing instructions stored on memory, a display screen arranged in communication with the inventory management control system,
Claim 18: a camera system of a visual image system, an inventory management control system, a display screen,
The claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application. They use generic computer components (processors, cameras, display screens) “as a tool” to implement the abstract of following rules or instructions to monitor shelf inventory in a facility based on image captured and determined gaps on shelves. There is no claimed improvement to computer functionality, image processing, camera operation, or network protocols. The claims are not tied to a particular machine beyond a computing device, camera and a display device which are generic components. There is no “particular machine” or “transformation” of an article beyond information presentation (MPEP 2106.05(b)(C)).
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 5-13, 15-16 and 21-23 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 18 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 5-13, 15-16 and 21-23 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 18 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea. Nothing additional is claimed for consideration at the 2nd prong or step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 5-13, 15-16, 18 and 21-23, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 03/28/2025. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections above in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 5-13, 15-16, 18 and 21-23 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 10/01/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “REJECTION TO THE CLAIMS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 8-10.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the capturing, determining, displaying steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. the claims expressly recite following rules or instructions (capturing data, determining, and displaying), which fall squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of the abstract idea grouping of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), and the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found abstract when claimed at a results-oriented level (Electric Power Group; Content Extraction).
Steps 2A-B: Applicant asserts integration into a practical application based on “claim 1 concerns a system with inventory management control system for determining and presenting a store response register on the basis of particular aspects such as an out-on-shelf profile and a supply chain profile” and “integrates the display screen in communication to display the store response register for presentation to the user for prioritizing actionable features,”, which is merely applying an abstract workflow on a computer, even in real time, does not integrate the exception, absent a specific improvement to technology or computer functioning. The “ordered sequence” is a conventional pipeline (capture-determine-display) and does not constitute an improvement to the underlying technology (contrast McRO, Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory).
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for managing inventory, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627