DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 8/27/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 9/28/2020.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 13 are machines (systems or devices) and claim 12 is processes (methods).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 12 and 13) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
An information processing device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a change in display state of a product on a product shelf, wherein the change in display state is a change in weight of the product shelf (observation);
determine a cumulative amount of changes in weight of the product shelf within a predetermined period of time from the time in a case where the change in weight of the product shelf is detected (evaluation);
determine whether the change in display state is a change made by a store clerk in a case where the cumulative amount of changes is a predetermined weight, wherein the predetermined weight is a multiple of a weight of the product (evaluation); and
generate shelf allocation information when the change in display state is a change made by the store clerk (opinion).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 12 and 13) is directed to a series of steps detecting and notifying if a store clerk changed a shelf display, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because memory, processor, and on-transitory computer-readable recording medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination memory, processor, and on-transitory computer-readable recording medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 12, are 13 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 7-10 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 3-4 and 7-10 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by .S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0002109 to Yamashita (“Yamashita”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0187189to Camp (“Camp”).
7. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claims 12 and 13), Yamashita disclosed the limitations of,
a memory storing instructions (See [0029] discussing the product management device as a CPU and [0031] discussing storage unit being part of the product management device.); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (See [0029] discussing the product management device as a CPU.) to:
detect a change in display state of a product on a product shelf, wSee [0041] discussing the use of facial imaging to identify a clerk and [0054] discussing the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods.);
generate shelf allocation information when the change in display state is a change made by the store clerk (See [0054]-[0055] discussing the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods and the prescribe numeric values representing the number of rows and the number of columns for allocating products on each shelf .).
Yamashita is silent on,
wherein the change in display state is a change in weight of the product shelf;
determine whether the change in display state is a change made by a store clerk in a case where the cumulative amount of changes is a predetermined weight, wherein the predetermined weight is a multiple of a weight of the product; and
determine a cumulative amount of changes in weight of the product shelf within a predetermined period of time from the time in a case where the change in weight of the product shelf is detected
However, Camp teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the shelving art to include wherein the change in display state is a change in weight of the product shelf (See [0032] discussing the price of the merchandise being determined and displayed based on weight.); determine whether the change in display state is a change made by a store clerk in a case where the cumulative amount of changes is a predetermined weight, wherein the predetermined weight is a multiple of a weight of the product (See [0031] discussing changing the pricing based on how many pieces of merchandise are supported by the shelf and [0052] discussing determining how many pieces of merchandise are on the shelf by weight.) ; and determine a cumulative amount of changes in weight of the product shelf within a predetermined period of time from the time in a case where the change in weight of the product shelf is detected (See [0044] discussing using a weigh measurement device to detect an increase or decrease weight on a shelf, [0049] discussing correlating the change in weight to identifier data received in approximately the same time frame as the change in weight, and [0025] discussing using particular time to measure weight.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the shelving art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yamashita to include wherein the change in display state is a change in weight of the product shelf; determine whether the change in display state is a change made by a store clerk in a case where the cumulative amount of changes is a predetermined weight, wherein the predetermined weight is a multiple of a weight of the product; and determine a cumulative amount of changes in weight of the product shelf within a predetermined period of time from the time in a case where the change in weight of the product shelf is detected, as disclosed by Camp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine identifying data of items on the shelf (Camp [0011]).
8. With regards to claim 3, Yamashita is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the change in weight is an increase in weight of the product shelf.
However, Camp teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the shelving art to include the change in weight is an increase in weight of the product shelf (See [0044] discussing using a weigh measurement device to detect an increase or decrease weight on a shelf.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the shelving art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yamashita to include the change in weight is an increase in weight of the product shelf, as disclosed by Camp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine identifying data of items on the shelf (Camp [0011]).
9. With regards to claim 4, Yamashita disclosed the limitations of,
determine that the change in display state is a change made by the store clerk by discriminating the store clerk from a captured image (See [0041] discussing the use of facial imaging to identify a clerk and [0054] discussing the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods.).
10. With regards to claim 7, Yamashita disclosed the limitations of,
identify products displayed on the product shelf based on an image of the display state in a case where the change in display state is detected (See [0054] discussing product recognition part suing image recognition for the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods.),
generate the shelf allocation information about the displayed products in a case where the displayed products acquired are identical (See [0054]-[0055] discussing the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods and the prescribe numeric values representing the number of rows and the number of columns for allocating products on each shelf .).
11. With regards to claim 8, Yamashita disclosed the limitations of,
identify products displayed on the product shelf based on an image of the display state in a case where the change in display state is detected (See [0054] discussing product recognition part suing image recognition for the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods.); and
notify the store clerk (See [0056] discussing outputting an error list for the clerk.),
in a case where a plurality of individual products is identical among the displayed products acquired by the identification means, generate a shelf allocation information candidate about the identical products (See [0056] discussing generating of error list for allocations.), and
notify the store clerk of the generated shelf allocation information candidate (See [0056] discussing generating of error list for allocations.).
12. With regards to claim 9, Yamashita disclosed the limitations of,
identify products displayed on the product shelf based on an image of the display state in a case where the change in display state is detected (See [0054] discussing product recognition part suing image recognition for the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods.); and
notify the store clerk in a case where a plurality of products acquired is different (See [0056] discussing outputting an error list for the clerk.).
13. With regards to claim 10, Yamashita disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the product shelf is divided into a plurality of regions (See [0030] discussing the sectioning of shelves into rows and columns.), and
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the shelf allocation information for a region in which the change in display state is detected among the plurality of regions ([0054] discussing the allocation status determination part that identifies proper or improper status of goods in rows and columns.).
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/27/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,4,7-10, and 12-13 under §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under §103 for claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 12-13 is made in view of Camp.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
15. Applicant's arguments with respect to §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that an “improvement of the work process of store clerks in stores” is significantly more. Examiner disagrees. The improvement is a business problem and the solution is a business solution. The improvement is not technical improvement. The claims do not improve the function of the computer or technical field. Examiner maintains position.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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 on (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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov