Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/036,130

MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC SHELF LABEL, AND MANAGEMENT METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 09, 2023
Priority
Nov 16, 2020 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2020042662
Examiner
OBAID, FATEH M
Art Unit
3627
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
528 granted / 779 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
808
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 779 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 09/17/2025. Claims 1-3, 10 have been amended. Claims 4-9 and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 10 and 12 are currently pending and have been examined. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 1-4 and 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada “US 2015/0181126 A1” (Harada) in view of Jenkins “US 2003/0171979 A1” (Jenkins). Regarding Claims 1 and 9-10 and 12: A management apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions and product management information including product information associated with exhibition positions of products; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (at least see Harada Abstract; Fig. 11; [0038]), comprising: acquiring, when accepting exhibition area information for identifying an exhibition area of one or more of products in a product shelf of a fixture, product information of the one or more products associated with the exhibition positions included in the accepted exhibition area (at least see Harada Abstract; Figs. 13-14; [0036]-[0039]); Harada disclose the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose acquiring shelf label identification of a plurality of electronic shelf labels; and setting the acquired shelf label identification in the product management information to one of the plurality of electronic shelf labels associate with the acquired product information of the one or more products. However, Jenkins disclose this (at least see Jenkins Abstract; Figs. 2a-3 and 18-19; [0036] and [0059]); It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Jenkins’s teachings in Harada’s enabled, for the advantage of electronically integrating efficient item assortment and shelf management processes of efficient item assortment planning and shelf management development. Regarding Claim 2: The management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the exhibition area information is fixture identification information for identifying the fixture on which the one or more products is exhibited, or the shelf identification information for identifying a shelf provided in each of the fixtures (at least see Harada Abstract; [0036]). Regarding Claim 3: The management apparatus according to claim 2 wherein the operations further comprising area acceptance means for accepting the exhibition area information, and the area acceptance means accepts, as the exhibition area information, a fixture selected by a user from a screen displaying a layout of a fixture in the store or a shelf selected by a user from a screen displaying a shelf of the selected fixture (at least see Harada Abstract; [0078]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 10 and 12 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. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (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. /FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12670532
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MODELING DISTRIBUTED SERVICE SYSTEMS BY A LEDGER SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12664596
Networked Utility Services and Vehicle Charging Stations
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12635816
MODIFIABLE BAGGING STRUCTURE
3y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12639654
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIMPLIFIED SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
2y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12639745
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR END USER VIEW B2B/B2C MODE
1y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.6%)
3y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 779 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month