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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mok does not disclose:
in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, determining that placement of the article is suspect in a third case where a second positional correlation between (i) the article area, (ii) the display section, and (iii) the intermediate section satisfies a second predetermined condition
In response, Mok’s tolerance range for placement (the set “intermediate section”) may also be viewed as a three-level placement determination including a) correct placement (“ideal location”, zero positional error), b) suspect placement (correct placement within the tolerance range—tolerable or otherwise “suspect” placement) and c) misplaced (outside the tolerance range).
Further as to the “in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, determining that the placement of the article is suspect”, note that because mis-placement within the tolerance range is considered to be acceptable, as per [0075]. Moreover, acceptability that is barely or merely within the tolerance range of minimum acceptability is fairly construed as “suspect placement” or correct placement within the tolerance range or tolerable, “suspect” placement.
Alternatively, see the detection of product orientation in [0039], [0041], [0075]-[0079], [0083] in which a correctly placed product (“in a first case …”) is further examined to determine incorrect orientation such as the detection illustrated in Fig. 8 showing a correctly placed product that is then detected as leaning to the left and otherwise incorrectly oriented. Such incorrect orientation detection is also considered “suspect placement” and is performed after determining that the product is correctly placed.
Still further, the plain meaning of the phrases “suspect placement” and “suspected of being misplaced” is broad and includes products that are slightly misplaced or otherwise tolerably placed within a tolerance range due to positional variations. Even further, these phrases also encompass a product that is actually misplaced--- just as a person who actually stole a car is also suspected of stealing the car. In other words, suspected misplacement is a general category that also includes misplacement as well as correct placement within the tolerance range or tolerable, “suspect” placement.
Note also that suspect positional variations may be caused by product orientation variations such as shown in Fig. 8 in which the leaning/askew orientation of the product also affects its position on the shelf.
Alternatively, see also [0083] indicating differentiated compliance issues indicating categories of product misalignment with the planogram and [0085]-[0090] thus further disclosing concepts of “suspected misplacement”. For example, Mok discloses therein detecting whether products have been apparently switched on the shelf which is a differentiated compliance issue based on correct product position wherein a product is determined to be in the correct position but suspected as being misplaced because the incorrect product is at the detected (correct) position. As such, Mok clearly discloses the concept of differentiated product placement designations that meet the broadly worded claim language of detecting “suspect” placement. Further, product switch suspect placement occurs after and the determination of correct placement and thus also meets the “in the first case…correctly placed, determining that the placement of the article is suspect.
Lastly, it is noted that in response to Applicant’ arguments Mok has been reevaluated and expanded in its application to the pending claims. As such, the thrust of the prior art rejections has changed enough that this office action is being made non-final to give Applicant a fair opportunity to respond.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 20210027452 A1) and Takenaka (US 2018/0122062 A1).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Mok discloses a monitoring device for monitoring placement of an article, {Mok discloses a variety of computer-vision based product compliance verification methods including methods for monitoring articles/products on a store shelf for compliance with a planogram specifying placements (position and/or orientation) of various articles on the store shelves to detect misplacements of such articles as per Figs. 1, 3, 8 (copied below), [0001], [0015]-[0016}. As such, Mok monitors the same type of articles for correct product placement fully consistent with the instant specification as well as the more broadly-recited claims}, the monitoring device comprising:
a processor; and a memory including a program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations {see [0092]-[0101]},
the operations including
acquiring an image in which the article is imaged when the article is placed
{Fig. 3 including camera(s) 206 acquiring images of articles (products) 304 placed on a store shelf (product display 302, [0029], [0033]-[0036]};
setting a display section in the image, the display section being a section in which the article is to be placed
{Mok employs a planogram that defines the particular locations (sets a display section) for each of the products on the store shelf 302, [0075]-[0078]. As shown in Fig. 8 (copied below), system 100 identifies/sets a region 806 (e.g. any of regions 806-1 through 806-3 shown in fig. 8 is a “display section” that is set in the image and associated with and otherwise used to verify compliance with (satisfy) criteria 804 (predetermined conditions) including product positional information (designated locations and/or orientations). Moreover, the system set/designates regions 806 (display sections) of the image in which each product is expected using the planogram, [0077]-[0078]};
PNG
media_image1.png
604
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
setting an intermediate section adjacent to the display section in the image, the intermediate section being used for determining suspect placement of the article
{the product/article placement criteria include tolerances for each of the product placement regions 806 including “acceptable distances from ideal locations” and a margin for error for placement as per [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088]. In other words, tolerance ranges (intermediate sections on each side of the object) are set that are adjacent to the region 806 (display section) and are used for determining “suspect placement” wherein suspect placement is considered to be correct placement within the tolerance range—tolerable or otherwise “suspect” placement that is not ideal placement (“correctly placed”)}
detecting an article area in the image, the article area being an image area of the article
{See [0078] including defining/setting a region of interest where a particular product is identified or recognized, [0080]-[0081] including initial matching to determine where each product is located in the image frame. See also Fig. 9 including step 906, [0087]-[0090]}; and
determining that the article is correctly placed in a first case where a first positional correlation between (i) the article area and (ii) the display section combined with the intermediate section satisfies a first predetermined condition, and that the article is misplaced in a second case where the first positional correlation does not satisfy the first predetermined condition
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error for detecting correct placement, misplacement, and suspected misplacement wherein when the detected article area is evaluated relative to the “display section”/expected area for product detection 806 and the “intermediate section” (tolerance range).
Mok’s system 100 determines that the article is correctly placed (“ideal location on the shelf” [0075] in a first case where the positional correlation between the detected article area and the display section 806 combined with the intermediate section (tolerance range) satisfies a first predetermined condition (e.g. location within tolerance range) and misplaced when the first positional correlation does not satisfy the first predetermined condition (e.g. outside tolerance range). See also misplacement when the detected article area is partially outside and not fully within the expected region 806; in other words the detected article area may partially extend into the tolerance/margin of error region such that, depending on the product width and size of the margin of error, can result in the first degree of overlap (with the expected area) being 40% while the second degree of overlap (with the margin of error) being 60% thus indicating “suspected” misplacement within the broadly worded claim.
Lastly, Mok discloses determining these categories/levels of positional error by employing both a “display section” 806 and “intermediate section” (tolerance range) as well as the broadly recited “combined” display and intermediate sections which broadly corresponds to using both the display section region 806 and the tolerance for the placement determinations which is also done by Mok.}
in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, determining that placement of the article is suspect in a third case where a second positional correlation between (i) the article area, (ii) the display section, and (iii) the intermediate section satisfies a second predetermined condition
{Mok’s tolerance range for placement (the set “intermediate section”) may also be viewed as a three-level placement determination including a) correct placement (“ideal location”, zero positional error), b) suspect placement (correct placement within the tolerance range—tolerable or otherwise “suspect” placement) and c) misplaced (outside the tolerance range).
Further as to the “in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, determining that the placement of the article is suspect”, note that because mis-placement within the tolerance range is considered to be acceptable, as per [0075]. Moreover, acceptability that is barely or merely within the tolerance range of minimum acceptability is fairly construed as “suspect placement” or correct placement within the tolerance range or tolerable, “suspect” placement.
Alternatively, see the detection of product orientation in [0039], [0041], [0075]-[0079], [0083] in which a correctly placed product (“in a first case …”) is further examined to determine incorrect orientation such as the detection illustrated in Fig. 8 showing a correctly placed product that is then detected as leaning to the left and otherwise incorrectly oriented. Such incorrect orientation detection is also considered “suspect placement” and is performed after determining that the product is correctly placed.
Still further, the plain meaning of the phrases “suspect placement” and “suspected of being misplaced” is broad and includes products that are slightly misplaced or otherwise tolerably placed within a tolerance range due to positional variations. Even further, these phrases also encompass a product that is actually misplaced--- just as a person who actually stole a car is also suspected of stealing the car. In other words, suspected misplacement is a general category that also includes misplacement as well as correct placement within the tolerance range or tolerable, “suspect” placement.
Note also that suspect positional variations may be caused by product orientation variations such as shown in Fig. 8 in which the leaning/askew orientation of the product also affects its position on the shelf.
Alternatively, see also [0083] indicating differentiated compliance issues indicating categories of product misalignment with the planogram and [0085]-[0090] thus further disclosing concepts of “suspected misplacement”. For example, Mok discloses therein detecting whether products have been apparently switched on the shelf which is a differentiated compliance issue based on correct product position wherein a product is determined to be in the correct position but suspected as being misplaced because the incorrect product is at the detected (correct) position. As such, Mok clearly discloses the concept of differentiated product placement designations that meet the broadly worded claim language of detecting “suspect” placement. Further, product switch suspect placement occurs after and the determination of correct placement and thus also meets the “in the first case…correctly placed, determining that the placement of the article is suspect.}; and
Takenaka is an analogous reference from the same field of planogram compliance determination including setting a state monitoring area on the captured image of a product, detecting a product with a product detector 33 and evaluating a display state of the products using various indices relating to display disorder including product misplacements.
Takenaka also teaches
in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, determining that placement of the article is suspect in a third case where a second positional correlation between (i) the article area, (ii) the display section, and (iii) the intermediate section satisfies a second predetermined condition; and
{See abstract, Figs. 1-3, 5, 6 including display state evaluator 34, product present detector 45, alignment degree calculator 47 and occupancy calculator 49.
Product detection unit 33 detects the position of the product in the state monitoring area based on an image of the state monitoring area, [0078]-[0086] while display state evaluation unit 34 evaluations the display state of the product in the state monitoring area including alignment degree calculator 47 to determine three differentiated states of alignment (appropriate state, mild disorder state, and severe disorder state). See also Figs. 6, 10, [0109]-[0117], [0066], [0139] discussing the alignment degree determination process in further detail. In sum, Takenaka determines an alignment degree which is an evaluation index indicating various degrees or levels to which products on store shelf are positionally aligned including (aligned, “first case”), mild disorder state (suspected of being misplaced, “second case”), and severe disorder state (misaligned), “third case”.}
in the second case and the third case, outputting a notification that distinguishes between whether the article is misplaced and whether the placement of the article is suspect.
{see above mappings and explanations concluding that Takenaka determines an alignment degree which is an evaluation index indicating various degrees or levels to which products on store shelf are positionally aligned including (aligned, “first case”), mild disorder state (suspected of being misplaced, “second case”), and severe disorder state (misaligned), “third case”. Further as to outputting notification, see Figs. 1, 6 including monitor/display 7 and printer 8 and display information generator 37. See also
Figs. 14, 15 output notification display, [0080]-[0093], [0139] teaching outputting notifications that distinguish between three different states/cases/stages of positional alignment referred to as appropriate display state (aligned), mild disorder state (suspected of being misplaced), and severe disorder state (misaligned)}
It 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 to have modified Mok which already discloses a three-level determination of article placement determination including determining a) correct placement (“ideal location”, zero positional error), b) suspect placement (correct placement within the tolerance range—tolerable or otherwise “suspect” placement) and c) misplaced (outside the tolerance range) and the use of “display sections” 308, intermediate sections (tolerance range), and predetermined conditions (values of the tolerance ranges), and wherein Mok also already discloses a) determining that the article is correctly placed in a first case where a first positional correlation between (i) the article area and (ii) the display section combined with the intermediate section satisfies a first predetermined condition, and that the article is misplaced in a second case where the first positional correlation does not satisfy the first predetermined condition and b) in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, determining that placement of the article is suspect in a third case where a second positional correlation between (i) the article area, (ii) the display section, and (iii) the intermediate section satisfies a second predetermined condition such that
in the second case and the third case, outputting a notification that distinguishes between whether the article is misplaced and whether the placement of the article is suspect as taught by Takenaka because doing so provides a more granular output notifying the user (e.g. store staff) of product placement compliance with the planogram thus enabling more efficient and granular evaluation of such compliance as well as more detailed and granular notifications to better enable staff to remedy the placement issues, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Mok discloses wherein the processor determines that the article is correctly placed in the first case when the article area entirely overlaps a combined section obtained by combining the display section and the intermediate section {see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error for detecting correct placement wherein when the detected article area is misplaced relative to the “display section” expected area for product detection 806. Mok’s system 100 determines that the article is not misplaced (correctly placed) when the detected article area overlaps or is otherwise within the combined section obtained by combining the region 806 with the intermediate section (tolerance/margin of error region). In other words, the detected object area is within the expected region 806 and within the tolerance/margin of error surrounding the region 806}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Mok discloses wherein the processor determines that the article is correctly placed in the first case when at least a part of the article area overlaps the combined section obtained by combining the display section and the intermediate section
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error for detecting correct placement wherein when the detected article area is misplaced relative to the “display section” expected area for product detection 806. Mok’s system 100 determines that the article is not misplaced (correctly placed) when at least part (e.g. the whole detected article area) overlaps the combined section obtained by combining the region 806 with the intermediate section (tolerance/margin of error region). In other words, the detected object area is fully within the expected region 806 and within the tolerance/margin of error surrounding the region 806}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Mok discloses wherein the processor determines whether the placement of the article is suspect in the third case based on a degree of overlap of the article area with respect to the display section and the intermediate section
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error for detecting correct placement wherein when the detected article area is misplaced relative to the “display section” expected area for product detection 806. Mok’s system 100 determines that the article is misplaced (and suspected of misplacement) based on a degree of overlap of the detected article area with respect to the region 806 (display section) and the intermediate section (tolerance/margin of error region). In other words, the detected object is misplaced (and suspected of misplacement) when there is no overlap (degree of overlap = 0) of the detected object region with the expected region 806 or tolerance/margin of error surrounding the region 806}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Mok discloses wherein the processor determines that the placement of the article area is not suspect in the third case when a first degree of overlap is equal to or greater than a second degree of overlap, the first degree of overlap being a degree of overlap of the article area with respect to the display section, the second degree of overlap being a degree of overlap of the article area with respect to the intermediate section
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error for detecting correct placement wherein when the detected article area is not misplaced (not suspect) relative to the “display section” expected area for product detection 806. Mok’s system 100 determines that the article is not misplaced (not suspect) when the detected article area is fully within the expected region 806 and does not extend into the tolerance/margin of error region in which case the first degree of overlap is 100% while the second degree of overlap is 0% thus indicating correct placement (not misplaced)}.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Mok discloses wherein the processor determines that the placement of the article is suspect in the third case when a first degree of overlap is smaller than a second degree of overlap, the first degree of overlap being a degree of overlap of the article area with respect to the display section, the second degree of overlap being a degree of overlap of the article area with respect to the intermediate section
{see the mapping of claims 1 and 5 above which also addresses the limitations of claim 6}.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Mok discloses wherein when at least two article areas are included in the intermediate section, the processor determines that the at least two article areas are misplaced {see above cites while noting that Mok’s process is clearly applied to detecting misplacement of plural articles as illustrated in Fig. 8 and operates in an iterative fashion for each expected area for product detection 806. Moreover, each display section 806 includes an associated tolerance/margin of error area. As such, when one or two articles articles/products and their corresponding detection areas are within the intermediate section (tolerance/margin of error area around each display section 806) and extend beyond this intermediate section then Mok’s system determined that the article areas are misplaced}.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Mok discloses wherein when the processor detects that the article area of the article to be placed in the display section and a second article area of a second article to be placed in a second display section adjacent to the display section are swapped, the processor determines that the article is misplaced regardless of the first positional correlation between (i) the article area and (ii) the display section combined with the intermediate section {see [0039], [0083] which determine whether products have been switched/swapped, Mok’s system determine that the product is misplaced regardless of the positional correlation because it is based on product recognition (wrong article/product) in expected position including the intermediate/margin of error section}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Mok discloses wherein the processor sets a first width of the intermediate section overlapping a second display section adjacent to the display section to not exceed a width of the second display section
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error (intermediate section) for detecting correct placement. Fig. 8 illustrates adjacent display sections 806-1, 806-2, and 806-3. Given the close spacing (mirroring close spacing of products on a store shelf), the width of the tolerance/margin of error of display section 806-2 would not exceed a width of the adjacent display section 806-3 because otherwise a larger width of the tolerance/margin of error would thus supplant or otherwise interfere with the successful detection of a product within the adjacent area 806-3}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Mok discloses wherein the processor sets a first width of the intermediate section overlapping a second display section adjacent to the display section to not exceed a width of the second display section
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error (intermediate section) for detecting correct placement. Fig. 8 illustrates adjacent display sections 806-1, 806-2, and 806-3 each having a tolerance/margin of error region (intermediate section) for successful detection of product placement}. In this alternative rejection of claim 9 it is assumed, in arguendo, that the relative width feature of claim 9 is not disclosed by Mok.
It 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 to have modified the relative size of Mok’s object detection areas (display sections) 806 and corresponding tolerances/margins of error regions (intermediate sections) around each area 806 such that Mok’s system sets a first width of the intermediate section overlapping a second display section adjacent to the display section to not exceed a width of the second display section because Mok motivates flexibly arranging the location and size of the areas 806 to match a Planogram wherein the expected product arrangement and corresponding sizes and placements of the areas 806 may also be determined by scanning a verified product display in [0079] wherein such verified product displays vary widely in retail stores and/or because the sizes and relative of the detection areas and corresponding tolerance areas are merely routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, at least the general conditions are disclosed because Mok discloses variable sizes for the detection areas 806 and the corresponding tolerance areas to accommodate different product placement schemes and desired accuracy level represented by the size of the tolerance area relative to the size of the detection area, wherein different conventional product layouts (e.g. a pyramid of cans) may require more positional precision than others (e.g. shelf of rather formless potato chip bags whose size/shape may vary as opposed to identical cans).
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Mok discloses wherein the processor sets the first width of the intermediate section overlapping the second display section to be
{see above cites including [0001], [0015], [0019], [0066], [0075]-[0078], [0088] and particularly the tolerances and margins of error (intermediate section) for detecting correct placement. Fig. 8 illustrates adjacent display sections 806-1, 806-2, and 806-3 each having a tolerance/margin of error region (intermediate section) for successful detection of product placement}.
It 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 to have modified the relative size of Mok’s object detection areas (display sections) 806 and corresponding tolerances/margins of error regions (intermediate section) around each area 806 such that Mok’s system sets the first width of the intermediate section overlapping the second display section to be equal to the second width of the second display section because Mok motivates flexibly arranging the location and size of the areas 806 to match a Planogram wherein the expected product arrangement and corresponding sizes and placements of the areas 806 may also be determined by scanning a verified product display in [0079] and/or because the sizes and relative of the detection areas and corresponding tolerance areas are merely routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, at least the general conditions are disclosed because Mok discloses variable sizes for the detection areas 806 and the corresponding tolerance areas to accommodate different product placement schemes and desired accuracy represented by the size of the tolerance area relative to the size of the detection area, wherein different conventional product layouts (e.g. a pyramid of cans) may require more positional precision than others (e.g. shelf of potato chip bags whose size/shape may vary as opposed to identical cans).
Claim 11
In regards to claim 11, Mok discloses wherein the processor determines a second display section corresponding to the article area, and outputs a determination result of misplacement for the article in accordance with a determination result of misplacement for the display section corresponding to the article area {Fig. 9 including steps 908-910 that generate and output determination results (compliance verification data) to a monitoring system, [0088]-[0090]}.
Claims 12 and 13
The rejection of device claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of method claim 12 and computer readable medium claim 13 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. For the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claim 10 see [0092]-[0094]}.
Claim 14
In regards to claim 1, Mok discloses wherein the operations further include: outputting a notification when the placement of the article is suspect in the third case
{see above cites including [0082]-[0084] in which compliance verification data representative of a variety of compliance issues 808 (808-1 through 808-5) is generated and provided to the monitoring system such that proper corrective action may be taken to fix the various detected compliance issues. These different notifications include different notifications for suspected misplacement including suspected misplacement due to position compliance issues 808-1, product switch compliance issue 808-2, product orientation or presentation compliance issue 808-3}.
Claim 15
In regards to claim 15, Mok discloses wherein the operations further include: outputting a different notification for each reason in which the placement of the article is determined as suspect in the third case {see above cites including [0082]-[0084] in which compliance verification data representative of a variety of compliance issues 808 (808-1 through 808-5) is generated and provided to the monitoring system such that proper corrective action may be taken to fix the various detected compliance issues. These different notifications include different notifications for suspected misplacement including suspected misplacement due to position compliance issues 808-1, product switch compliance issue 808-2, product orientation or presentation compliance issue 808-3}.
Claim 16
In regards to claim 6, Mok discloses wherein the operations further include:
in the first case of determining that the article is correctly placed, confirming that the article is correctly placed in a fourth case where the second positional correlation between (i) the article area, (ii) the display section, and (iii) the intermediate section does not satisfy the second predetermined condition {see above mappings and explanations for claim 1. The confirmation of correct placement may correspond to alignment within tolerance values, product switch, and/or product orientation/presentation determinations}.
Claim 17
In regards to claim 17, Mok discloses wherein the operations further include:
setting a combined section in the image, the combined section including the display section and at least one of the intermediate section adjacent to the display section {see above including a setting a display section for each of the products on the store shelf 302, [0075]-[0078]: system 100 identifies/sets a region 806 (e.g. any of regions 806-1 through 806-3 shown in fig. 8 is a “display section” that is set in the image and associated with and otherwise used to verify compliance with (satisfy) criteria 804 (predetermined conditions) including product positional information (designated locations and/or orientations). The combined section includes the region 806 and its associated tolerance range (intermediate sections on each side of the object) that are set adjacent to the region 806 (display section)}
the processor determines whether the article is correctly placed in the first case based on the first positional correlation of the article area with respect to the combined section, the combined section is divided into the display section and the at least one of the intermediate section, and the processor determines whether the placement of the article is suspect in the third case based on the second positional correlation of the article area with respect to the display section and the at least one of the intermediate section {see above mapping for claim 1 in which the “combined section” includes the region 806 and its associated tolerance range which and are used for determining correct placement and “suspect placement” wherein suspect placement is considered to be correct placement within the tolerance range—tolerable or otherwise “suspect” placement that is not ideal placement (“correctly placed”)}.
Claim 18
In regards to claim 18, Mok discloses wherein the combined section includes the display section between two of the intermediate section {the combined section includes the region 806 and its associated tolerance range (intermediate sections) on each side of the object that are set adjacent to the region 806 (display section) on each side thereof such that the region 806 is between two of the tolerances ranges on each sided thereof.
Claim 19
In regards to claim 19, Mok discloses wherein a width of a first one of the two of the intermediate section on a left side of the display section is equal to or smaller than a width of the display section and equal to a width of a second one of the two of the intermediate section on a right side of the display section {see mapping of claim 18 while noting that the tolerance range is a small range of acceptable positional displacement that is smaller than the width of the display section (detection area 806) as also illustrated in Fig. 8. Since the tolerance range is disposed around the detection area the intermediate section on a left side (tolerance on left) is the same tolerance value (equal to a width) of the right side intermediate section (tolerance on the left)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bogolea (US 20200013007) discloses a system for detection mis-oriented products on a shelf that employs detection areas and tolerance ranges similar to those in Mok and which read on the pending claims. See Figs. 1, 4, [0058]-[0060], [0097]-[0100].
Zaremski (US 2017/0177969 A1) discloses a planogram compliance system that determines a distance score metric for each product based on distance between expected and actual locations and misplacement degrees of individual products as per [0089]-[0102].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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 ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
