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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/06/2026 with respect to amended claims 1 – 8, 10 – 11, 13 - 28 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: and directed forwardly of the mobile camera unit and directed forwardly of the mobile camera unit. Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina 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 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 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 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 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 teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Rzeszutek teaches an RFID reader (paragraph 0032; RFID reader).
Claims 27 is 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 McPeters (US PgPub No. 2020/0242797).
Regarding claim 27, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina fail to clearly teach wherein the at least one processor is programmed to 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. McPeters, on the other hand teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to 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, McPeters teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to 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 (abstract, paragraphs 0034, 0038, and figures 2 and 5 – 6).
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 McPeters with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina because in at least paragraph 0030 McPeters teaches object recognition, including feature extraction to extract lines, edges, ridges, or other localized interest points from an image; detection or segmentation to select a specific set of interest points within an image or segment multiple image regions that contain a specific object of interest; image recognition to categorize a detected object into a particular category; noise reduction; contrast enhancement; and/or space scaling, for example; also to have a system for easily aligning required data in an image, thereby providing improved processing and/or alignment control of device in Rzeszutek.
Claims 14 – 17 and 21 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).
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 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.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 14, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche 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 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 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 21, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 14, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kalouche teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display a real time image on the display of an image from the upper camera or the lower camera (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.
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 Kewley (US Patent No. 4,243,371).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 17, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche 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 to have a system for improved illumination when imaging, thereby improving the imaging in Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 16, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche 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).
Claims 20 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 McPeters (US PgPub No. 2020/0242797).
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 14, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
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 a stack of a plurality of products. McPeters, 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 a stack of a plurality of products.
More specifically, McPeters teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display instructions on the display to move the mobile camera unit relative to a stack of a plurality of products (abstract, paragraphs 0034, 0038, and figures 2 and 5 – 6).
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 McPeters with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina because in at least paragraph 0030 McPeters teaches object recognition, including feature extraction to extract lines, edges, ridges, or other localized interest points from an image; detection or segmentation to select a specific set of interest points within an image or segment multiple image regions that contain a specific object of interest; image recognition to categorize a detected object into a particular category; noise reduction; contrast enhancement; and/or space scaling, for example; also to have a system for easily aligning required data in an image, thereby providing improved processing and/or alignment control of device in Rzeszutek.
Regarding claim 22, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 21, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche 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. McPeters, 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, McPeters 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 (abstract, paragraphs 0034, 0038, and figures 2 and 5 – 6).
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 McPeters with the teachings of Rzeszutek in view of Kalouche in view of Medina because in at least paragraph 0030 McPeters teaches object recognition, including feature extraction to extract lines, edges, ridges, or other localized interest points from an image; detection or segmentation to select a specific set of interest points within an image or segment multiple image regions that contain a specific object of interest; image recognition to categorize a detected object into a particular category; noise reduction; contrast enhancement; and/or space scaling, for example; also to have a system for easily aligning required data in an image, thereby providing improved processing and/or alignment control of device in Rzeszutek.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 8: “validation system for preventing errors in platform loading for shipment, the validation system including the mobile camera unit of claim 1 and further including a server having at least one processor and non-transitory electronic storage storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least processor 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) display instructions to the user if the comparison of step b) indicates an error” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Claims 28, 10 – 11, 13, and 23 - 26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
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.
Katae (US PgPub No. 2004/0098146) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
Bohaker (US PgPub No. 2005/0243199) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
Fossier (US PgPub No. 2008/0202856) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
Zimmerman (US Patent No. 7693757) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
Hickman (US Patent No. 8965104) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
Solanki (US Patent No. 9488986) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
Hance (US PgPub No. 2018/0043547) teaches a camera system with camera and movable base.
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
04/08/2026