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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/10/2026 with respect to amended claims 1 – 7, 14 – 19, and 22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Additionally, Applicants deletion of claim 27 and incorporation of subject matter of claim 1 and deletion of claim 22 and incorporation of subject matter of claim 14 raises new issues since the scope of the claim tree changes i.e. 1/2, 1/3, 1/3/4, 14/15 etc. scope changes.
Applicant has amended claim 14 to overcome the objection to the claim provided in the previous office action.
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:
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 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.
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 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rzeszutek (US PgPub No. 2019/0073559) in view of Kalouche (US PgPub No. 2021/0032034) in view of Medina (US PgPub No. 2019/0325379) in view of Elazary (US PgPub No. 20180005446).
Regarding claim 1, Rzeszutek teaches a manually-operated mobile camera unit for validating SKUs of a stack of products on a platform in a distribution center (the recitation that manually-operated mobile camera unit for validating SKUs of a stack of products on a platform in a distribution center has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951)), comprising: a base (figure 2A item 201, chassis) having a plurality of wheels (figure 2A item 203; locomotive mechanism 203 (e.g. one or more electrical motors driving wheels, tracks or the like)); a support extending upward from the base (figure 2A item 205; mast); at least one camera mounted to the support (paragraph 0032 – 0034; the mast 205 supports seven digital cameras 207-1 through 207-7); at least one processor programmed to collect images from the at least one camera (paragraphs 0034 – 0052; processors 200 and 220 for controlling the system of the device 103; including processing of images e.g. paragraph 0037); and a communication circuit for transmitting the images (paragraph 0024 - 0025, 0028 - 0030 and 0037; transmitting data via a server).
However, Rzeszutek fails to teach a display mounted to the support, and processer programmed to display information to a user on the display, and to display a real-time image from the at least one camera on the display to the user at the mobile camera unit. Kalouche, on the other hand teaches a display mounted to the support, and processer programmed to display information to a user on the display, and to display a real-time image from the at least one camera on the display to the user at the mobile camera unit.
More specifically, Kalouche teaches a display mounted to the support (paragraph 0075 also figure 16A; display mounted), and processer programmed to display information to a user on the display, and to display a real-time image from the at least one camera on the display to the user at the mobile camera unit (paragraph 0075 real time display; from camera i.e. paragraphs 0102 and 0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Kalouche with the teachings of Rzeszutek because Kalouche teaches in at least paragraph 0075, that using the invention provides video may be replayed and/or viewed in real time, thereby providing instant information to Rzeszutek invention for improved processing of data.
However, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche fail to clearly teach a handle extending rearwardly from the support for manual pushing by a user. Medina, on the other hand teaches a handle extending rearwardly from the support for manual pushing by a user.
More specifically, Medina teaches a handle extending rearwardly from the support for manual pushing by a user (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Medina with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche to have a system for easily controlling the device manually, thereby providing improved control of device in Rzeszutek when required.
However, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina fail to clearly teach overlay fiducials on the real-time image to guide the user in aligning the camera with a side of the stack of products on the platform. Elazary, on the other hand teaches overlay fiducials on the real-time image to guide the user in aligning the camera with a side of the stack of products on the platform.
More specifically, Elazary teaches overlay fiducials on the real-time image to guide the user in aligning the camera with a side of the stack of products on the platform (figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Elazary with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina because in at least paragraphs 0004, 0021, 0056 Elazary teaches leverage augmented reality to increase worker skill by providing real-time instruction or information that enhances the capabilities of the worker without the training otherwise needed to develop the applied skills and/or to improve human productivity, thereby providing improved processing and/or alignment control of device in Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches wherein the at least one camera includes an upper camera and a lower camera (figure 2A also paragraph 0032 – 0034; the mast 205 supports seven digital cameras 207-1 through 207-7).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches a mobile device including the at least one processor and the communication circuit, wherein the mobile device is mounted to the support (figure 2B mobile automation apparatus is connected to item 205).
However, Rzeszutek fails to teach the display mounted to the support. Kalouche, on the other hand teaches the display.
More specifically, Kalouche teaches the display (paragraph 0075 also figure 16A; display mounted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Kalouche with the teachings of Rzeszutek because Kalouche teaches in at least paragraph 0075, that using the invention provides video may be replayed and/or viewed in real time, thereby providing instant information to Rzeszutek invention for improved processing of data.
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches at least one light supported by the support (paragraph 0027, depth sensors (e.g. one or more Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensors); also, paragraph 0033, The mast 205 also supports a plurality of illumination assemblies 213, configured to illuminate the fields of view of the respective cameras 207. That is, the illumination assembly 213-1 illuminates the field of view of the camera 207-1, and so on).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches wherein the at least one light includes an upper light and a lower light controlled by the mobile device (figure 2A items 213-1 – 213-7; paragraph 0033, The mast 205 also supports a plurality of illumination assemblies 213, configured to illuminate the fields of view of the respective cameras 207. That is, the illumination assembly 213-1 illuminates the field of view of the camera 207-1, and so on; controlled by processor figure 2B).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches wherein the at least one camera is directed forwardly of the support (figure 2A; camera facing one direction of item 205).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches an RFID reader (paragraph 0032; RFID reader).
Claims 14 – 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rzeszutek (US PgPub No. 2019/0073559) in view of Kalouche (US PgPub No. 2021/0032034) in view of Elazary (US PgPub No. 20180005446).
Regarding claim 14, Rzeszutek teaches a manually operated mobile camera unit for validating SKUs of a stack of products on a platform (the recitation that manually operated mobile camera unit for validating SKUs of a stack of products on a platform has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951)), comprising: a base (figure 2A item 201, chassis) having a plurality of wheels (figure 2A item 203; locomotive mechanism 203 (e.g. one or more electrical motors driving wheels, tracks or the like)); a support extending upward from the base (figure 2A item 205; mast); an upper camera mounted to the support and directed forwardly of the mobile camera unit (paragraph 0032 – 0034; the mast 205 supports seven digital cameras 207-1 through 207-7; each camera is facing forwardly); a lower camera mounted to the support and directed forwardly of the mobile camera unit (figure 2A, paragraph 0032 – 0034; the mast 205 supports seven digital cameras 207-1 through 207-7; each camera is facing forwardly); and a mobile device mounted to the support (figure 2B mobile automation apparatus is connected to item 205), the mobile device including at least one processor (paragraphs 0034 – 0052; processors 200 and 220 for controlling the system of the device 103; including processing of images e.g. paragraph 0037), the mobile device configured to collect images from the upper camera and the lower camera (paragraphs 0034 – 0052; processors 200 and 220 for controlling the system of the device 103; including processing of images e.g. paragraph 0037), the mobile device further including a communication circuit configured to transmit the images (paragraph 0024 - 0025, 0028 - 0030 and 0037; transmitting data via a server).
However, Rzeszutek fails to teach a display mounted to the support, and the mobile device configured to display a real-time image from the upper camera or the lower camera on the display to a user at the mobile camera unit. Kalouche, on the other hand teaches a display mounted to the support, and the mobile device configured to display a real-time image from the camera on the display to a user at the mobile camera unit.
More specifically, Kalouche teaches a display mounted to the support (paragraph 0075 also figure 16A; display mounted), and the mobile device configured to display a real-time image from the camera on the display to a user at the mobile camera unit (paragraph 0075 real time display; from camera i.e. paragraphs 0102 and 0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Kalouche with the teachings of Rzeszutek because Kalouche teaches in at least paragraph 0075, that using the invention provides video may be replayed and/or viewed in real time, thereby providing instant information to Rzeszutek invention for improved processing of data.
However, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche fail to clearly teach wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display instructions on the display to move the mobile camera unit relative to the stack of products on the platform. Elazary, on the other hand teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display instructions on the display to move the mobile camera unit relative to the stack of products on the platform.
More specifically, Elazary teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display instructions on the display to move the mobile camera unit relative to the stack of products on the platform (figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Elazary with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche because in at least paragraphs 0004, 0021, 0056 Elazary teaches leverage augmented reality to increase worker skill by providing real-time instruction or information that enhances the capabilities of the worker without the training otherwise needed to develop the applied skills and/or to improve human productivity, thereby providing improved processing and/or alignment control of device in Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 14, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches a handle extending rearwardly of the support (figure 2A; camera facing one direction of item 205 and there are holding spots extending rearwardly on opposite side of 205 from cameras).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 15, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches at least one light supported by the support (paragraph 0027, depth sensors (e.g. one or more Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensors); also paragraph 0033, The mast 205 also supports a plurality of illumination assemblies 213, configured to illuminate the fields of view of the respective cameras 207. That is, the illumination assembly 213-1 illuminates the field of view of the camera 207-1, and so on).
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 16, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches wherein the at least one light includes an upper light and a lower light, wherein the upper light and the lower light are controlled by the mobile device (figure 2A items 213-1 – 213-7; paragraph 0033, The mast 205 also supports a plurality of illumination assemblies 213, configured to illuminate the fields of view of the respective cameras 207. That is, the illumination assembly 213-1 illuminates the field of view of the camera 207-1, and so on; controlled by processor figure 2B).
Regarding claim 22, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 14, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches an upper camera and a lower camera (figure 2A, paragraph 0032 – 0034; the mast 205 supports seven digital cameras 207-1 through 207-7; each camera is facing forwardly).
However, Rzeszutek fail to clearly teach wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display fiducials on the real-time image on the display to guide the user in aligning the camera with a side of the stack of products on the platform. Elazary, on the other hand teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display fiducials on the real-time image on the display to guide the user in aligning the camera with a side of the stack of products on the platform.
More specifically, Elazary teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display fiducials on the real-time image on the display to guide the user in aligning the camera with a side of the stack of products on the platform (figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Elazary with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche because in at least paragraphs 0004, 0021, 0056 Elazary teaches leverage augmented reality to increase worker skill by providing real-time instruction or information that enhances the capabilities of the worker without the training otherwise needed to develop the applied skills and/or to improve human productivity, thereby providing improved processing and/or alignment control of device in Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzeszutek (US PgPub No. 2019/0073559) in view of Kalouche (US PgPub No. 2021/0032034) in view of Elazary (US PgPub No. 20180005446) in view of Kewley (US Patent No. 4,243,371).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 17, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche fail to teach wherein the upper light is elongated vertically. Kewley, on the other hand teaches wherein the upper light is elongated vertically.
More specifically, Kewley teaches wherein the upper light is elongated vertically (column 2 lines 20 – 25; a vertically elongated multiple flash lamp unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Kewley with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary to have a system for improved illumination when imaging, thereby improving the imaging in Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 16, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Elazary in view of Kewley teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches an RFID reader mounted to the support (paragraph 0032; RFID reader).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 28, 10 – 11, 13, and 23 - 26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a manually-operated mobile camera unit including: a base having a plurality of wheels; a support extending upward from the base; a handle extending rearwardly from the support for manual pushing by a user; at least one camera mounted to the support; a display mounted to the support; at least one processor programmed to collect images from the at least one camera, to display information to a user on the display, and to display a real-time image from the at least one camera on the display to the user at the mobile camera unit; and a communication circuit for transmitting the images; and a server having at least one server processor and non-transitory electronic storage storing instructions which when executed by the at least one server processor cause the server to: a) receive images from the mobile camera unit captured from multiple sides of the same stack of products on a platform; b) analyze the images from the mobile camera unit to identify SKUs associated with each of a plurality of products in the stack in the images; c) compare the SKUs identified in step b) to a list of desired SKUs on an order associated with a store; and d) cause instructions to be displayed to the user if the comparison of step c) indicates an error; in combination with other elements of the claim.
Regarding independent claim 28, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a) manually rolling a mobile camera unit on wheels proximate a first side of a stack of a plurality of products on a pallet, the mobile camera unit including at least one camera, a display and a handle for a user; b) displaying on the display to the user at the mobile camera unit a real-time image from the camera; c) aligning the camera on the first side of the stack of products on the pallet based upon step b), d) after step c) capturing a first image of the first side with the at least one camera; e) repeating steps a) to d) for second, third, and fourth sides of the same stack on the pallet by manually rolling the mobile camera unit around the pallet; f) transmitting the images of the first, second, third, and fourth sides of the stack to a server; g) the server analyzing the images to identify the SKUs associated with each of the plurality of products in the stack; h) the server comparing the SKUs identified in step g) to a list of desired SKUs in an order from a store; and i) the server generating instructions to the user on the display based upon step h); in combination with other elements of the claim.
Regarding claims 10 – 11, 13, and 23 - 26, claims 10 – 11, 13, and 23 - 26 are allowed as being dependent from allowed independent claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adato (US PgPub No. 20190149725) teaches a camera system providing a user with augmented guidance to capture images of products placed on a store shelving unit, the method including using an image sensor of a mobile device to capture and display in real-time a video stream depicting a store shelving unit, augmenting the video stream with a marking identifying an area of the store shelving unit and receiving an image including an area outside the marked area.
Signorelli (US PgPub No. 20140214547) teaches a camera system provide for Augmented Retail Reality (ARR).
Stansell (US PgPub No. 20180150791) teaches a camera system augmented reality-assisted (AR-assisted) product modular arrangement systems and methods for setting up retail spaces and displays and arranging and stocking products.
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 extension fee 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 Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
08/27/2026
Prosecution Insights