DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 17 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 10/27/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 09/26/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.97. The Examiner has considered all references, except where lined through on the attached IDS form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzolo et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0032311A1 (hereinafter, Rizzolo), in view of Shashua et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0042539A1 (hereinafter, Shashua).
Regarding Claim 1, Rizzolo describes a control device, comprising:
-a main memory (memory, Rizzolo, Paragraph 0022); and
-a processor connected to the main memory (processor connected to memory, Rizzolo, Paragraph 0022), wherein the processor:
-controls a wide-range camera installed on a wheeled platform (wide range camera installed on the wheeled platform, Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0160-0161 and 0059-0060) and a plurality of … cameras installed on the wheeled platform and arranged in the height direction (plurality of cameras installed on the wheeled platform and arranged in height (e.g., 40, 42, 44), Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0059-0060 and Figure 1);
-detects position information of a plurality of target objects provided on a merchandise rack based on an image of the merchandise rack captured by the wide- range camera; and (detect position information of objects (e.g., merchandise) on a rack or stand, Rizzolo, Paragraph 0061-0062 and 0086-0087),
-based on the detected position information of the plurality of target objects, controls, for each … camera, the execution and non-execution of capturing by the plurality of … cameras according to traveling of the wheeled platform (based on the detected position information controlling the camera to capture or not capture images (e.g., scan for a desired product when the wheeled platform arrives at a position for which a known product is located), Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0081-0087 and Figure 7).
Rizzolo does not specifically disclose the device to include narrow-range cameras.
Shashua discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Shashua describes a device system the includes narrow-range cameras (Shashua, Paragraphs 0074 and 0079).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Rizzolo to include narrow-range cameras, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Shashua.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having narrow and wide range cameras allows for a device to better detect objects around the vehicle, which can allow for a system to navigate around said objects (Shashua, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 5, Rizzolo, as modified, describes the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs a superimposition determination between the position image of the target object and an image capture range of the narrow-range camera, and sets an image capture flag if the target object is included in the area where the image capture range is superimposed (device matches, for example landmark (i.e., image information) with the current image and can determine if a match of the target object is within the area of the current target capture, Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0116-0119, 0132, and 0085).
Regarding Claim 6, Rizzolo, as modified, describes the control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of narrow-range cameras is oriented in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the wheeled platform (cameras oriented in a direction that is perpendicular to traveling of the wheeled platform, Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0064 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Rizzolo, as modified, describes the control device according to claim 1, wherein the wide-range camera is installed at a central part in a height direction of the wheeled platform (wide range camera can be installed in the central part of the wheeled platform, Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0160-0161 and 0059-0062 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzolo et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0032311A1 (hereinafter, Rizzolo), in view of Shashua et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0042539A1 (hereinafter, Shashua), in further view of Kazuhiro et al. JP5337905B2 (hereinafter, Kazuhiro).
Regarding Claim 3, Rizzolo, as modified, describes the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor detects the position information of the plurality of target objects from the image of the merchandise rack captured by the wide-range camera using a neural network model ((detect position information of objects (e.g., merchandise) on a rack or stand, Rizzolo, Paragraph 0061-0062 and 0086-0087) …
Rizzolo do not specifically disclose, teach, or suggest that the device include generat[ing] an image capture timinq list for the narrow-range cameras based on the position information of the plurality of target objects.
Kazuhiro discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kazuhiro describes a vehicle system wherein the image capture of the camera system is based off a set timing and position of the objects (Kazhuiro, Paragraph 0034).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shashua to include generat[ing] an image capture timinq list for the narrow-range cameras based on the position information of the plurality of target objects, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kazhuiro.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a variety of cameras at different timing sequences allows the vehicle to determine information, such as speed and direction, items which are needed to assist in autonomous or driver assistance control of the vehicle (Kazhuiro, Paragraphs 0004-0009).
Regarding Claim 4, Rizzolo, as modified, describes the control device according to claim 3, wherein the processor manages the necessity of capturing by the plurality of narrow-range cameras in each matrix based on the matrix format of the image capture timing list (ability to capture images based on a matrix format, Rizzolo, Paragraphs 0146 and 0061).
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667