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 Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 4/20/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-9 are allowed. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner et.al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0050813), in view of Fisher et. al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0079388) and further in view of Canter et.al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,292,993).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Bonner patent teaches a plurality of racks, wherein each rack stores a plurality of items; a plurality of display devices, wherein each display device is associated with a corresponding rack of the plurality of racks and is positioned in front of the corresponding rack; (see at least Fig. 2-3, [71]),
and a master controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of racks and the plurality of display devices, wherein the master controller comprises: a network interface; (retailer management server, [27], communication circuitry, [29], the enterprise server 155 may store enterprise data and interact with a number of store computing systems or servers associated with a plurality of stores, [42], shelf tags that are affixed, attached, connected, or mounted to an edge of a shelf, [46])
a memory that stores:
a planogram that comprises a plan for product placement of a plurality of types of the packs in the plurality of racks, (shelf tags include barcode encoded identifier, [4]),
wherein the information comprises a rack number of the rack, a UPC associated with a type of the packs expected to be stored in the rack, wherein the type of the packs expected to be stored in the rack is based on the information collected while the rack was loaded with the packs; and for each rack, a code associated with the information relating to the rack, wherein the display device associated with each rack displays the code associated with the information relating to the rack; (Planograms may be changed and/or updated periodically and stored in the planogram library 122, as needed. Planograms include information for placement of products in the store, such as a particular aisle, side of aisle, shelf number, and position on the shelf, [38], FIG. 3, for example, shows a number of products arranged on a shelf 300 along with shelf tags that are affixed, attached, connected, or mounted to an edge of a shelf, e.g., at a location near a corresponding product, [46].
and a processor communicatively coupled to the network interface and the memory, (the network 150 includes a store computing network for communicatively coupling the retailer management server 102 to the portable terminal 140, [43],
wherein the processor is configured to: receive using the network interface a first indication that a scanner has scanned a first code associated with a first rack of the plurality of racks while the scanner is in a product checking mode (scan shelf tag, [38]; in response to receiving the first indication, obtain from the memory: a first rack number of the first rack; and a first UPC associated with the type of the packs expected to be stored in the first rack, wherein the first UPC associated with the first rack matches with the product placement specified for the first rack by the planogram; receive using the network interface from the scanner a second UPC scanned by the scanner, wherein the second UPC is associated with a pack actually stored in the first rack; compare the first UPC associated with the type of the packs expected to be stored in the first rack with the second UPC associated with a pack actually stored in the first rack; determine based on the comparison that the second UPC does not match with the first UPC thereby indicating that a wrong type of pack is actually stored in the first rack; and transmit to the scanner an alert message indicating incorrect product placement in the first rack, (when a price associated with a scanned, display tag (e.g., a printed paper tag attached or affixed to a shelf, a bib tag, etc.) for a product does not match a stored price for that product (e.g., the point of sale (POS) price associated with the product's code (e.g., UPC code) on the package (the price when scanned, e.g., by a checkout scanner)..the hand-held issues an alarm, thereby signaling to or alarming the user of an inconsistency or error….planogram information correlating to the scanned code, i.e., in addition to and beyond just price, may be relayed to the user (e.g., via a display on the hand-held). As such, as the user scans, the hand-held also determines, in real-time, if a location of the shelf price tag being scanned for a particular product (or the location of the product itself) matches the planogram stored in the system.), [25-26, 47, 53-54, 57], if the processor 152 of the hand-held 140 determines an inconsistency or error based on the comparison of the two locations at 208, i.e., the answer is NO, an alert is triggered and issued, [61-63, 66])
(location data of the product and/or hand-held portable terminal and stored planogram data may also be compared, an alert may be issued as a result of an inconsistency or error based upon the comparison, [5], Second, additional information, such as planogram information correlating to the scanned code, i.e., in addition to and beyond just price, may be relayed to the user (e.g., via a display on the hand-held). As such, as the user scans, the hand-held also determines, in real-time, if a location of the shelf price tag being scanned for a particular product (or the location of the product itself) matches the planogram stored in the system, [25], he retailer management server 102 contains a list of active codes (e.g., universal product codes (UPCs)) for products sold by a retailer and/or available in a store, [28], if a user scans a UPC, a button may be pressed to access the data storage 110 and further display information about the product, including, its manufacturer, brand, description, and/or planogram information. In an embodiment, the display 130 is configured to display all information regarding a product after scanning a UPC and/or tag barcode, [49], the tag may include a printed numeric price (e.g., $0.99) and a code (bar code, UPC, etc.) thereon. The tag may be “associated” with a product by way of placement on a display shelf, for example, relative to the location of the product placement on the shelf, [63], the inconsistencies that may cause the system 100 to issue an alert from the terminal 140 include—but are not limited to—GTIN scanned twice, tag scanned twice, GTIN doesn't exist, GTIN doesn't match, promotion has expired, scanning retail doesn't match tag retail, scanning loyalty retail doesn't match tag loyalty retail, scanning and tag retail match but promotion is expired, planogram compliance (or non-compliance), [63], FIG. 9 is a schematic drawing of portable terminal 140 displaying a notification message 137, e.g., “Product UPC and Tag UPC do NOT match” to show the end user the identified type of inconsistency or error, [66]). Bonner expressly teaches scanning both a shelf tag and the product GTIN/UPC and that the management server contains a list of active UPC’s and planogram information. The disclosed server/handheld compares scanned tag information and stored product data and issues an alarm when the compared data is inconsistent. While Bonner teaches price comparison the specification is not limited to price and compared location data and uses UPCs as primary keys into the stored product database. Thus, substituting a UPC for the price comparison shown in examples is a predictable application. A person of ordinary skilled would have been motivated to and would have found it obvious to use the same architecture to verify that UPC at a given rack matches the expected UPC in the planogram and to alert on mismatch (KSR).
Bonner substantially discloses the claimed invention, however does not explicitly disclose packs of cigarettes as items. However, Fisher teaches the technology disclosed can also include logic to generate an alert signal when certain inventory items such as tobacco, cigarettes, alcohol etc. are detected in an inventory event as a result of a change, [138]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute Bonner’s generic products with cigarette packs of Fisher because cigarettes are a known type of retail product that are stored, scanned and tracked using the same inventory systems and such substitute would have yielded predictable results.
Bonner substantially discloses the claimed invention, however does not explicitly disclose planogram comprises UPC stored in planogram associated with the first rack number.. a type of the packs to be stored in the rack such that, for each rack number, the UPC specifies the type of packs to be stored in that rack; during a product loading mode, map the first rack number to a scanned UPC for loading into the first rack and update the information relating to the rack accordingly;
However, Canter teaches storing UPC information for a location identifier in a planogram, (product codes are UPC..scan tray barcode (rack number) and then sequentially the product UPCs..for products loaded within the corresponding tray…inserting into planogram value within products..entries for a selection on the planogram stored within the memory, Col.3 ln 15-20, Col.7 ln 25-67, Claim 11, the route driver stocks the first tray with product..scans barcode affixed to first tray (loading, mapping, updating), Col.7 ln 1-23)). Canter’s planogram defines which products are assigned to each location. See also Claim 11, inserting into a planogram for the vending machine stored within a memory in the vending machine values within product and price entries for a selection in the planogram stored within the memory.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Bonner, to include the above limitations, as taught by Canter, in order to establish proper pricing for different products within different selections. (Canter, Col.1. ln 25-60).
Regarding claims 11, 17, Bonner does not explicitly teach, however, Fisher teaches the memory further stores a confidence indicator relating to the plurality of racks, wherein the confidence indicator indicates a degree of conformance to the planogram, wherein the confidence indicator comprises a numerical value, (The planogram matcher 1065 includes logic to perform planogram compliance, [236], A confidence number indicates the degree of confidence of the CNN in detecting that joint. If the value of confidence number is high, it means the CNN is confident in its detection. An integer-Id is assigned to the joints data structure to uniquely identify it, [124]… updates the locations of existing tracked subjects matched to located subjects by updating their respective joint locations, [126])…see also [215, 236, 239].
Regarding claims 12, 18, Bonner teaches the processor is further configured to: determine that the UPCs associated with packs expected to be stored in a set of racks does not match with respective UPCs associated with packs actually stored in the set of racks; and in response, however does not explicitly teach update the value of the confidence indicator, wherein the processor is configured to assign a lower numerical value to the confidence indicator for a higher number of racks with incorrect product placements. Fisher teaches the planogram matcher 1065 includes logic to perform planogram compliance, [236], A confidence number indicates the degree of confidence of the CNN in detecting that joint. If the value of confidence number is high, it means the CNN is confident in its detection. An integer-Id is assigned to the joints data structure to uniquely identify it, [124]… updates the locations of existing tracked subjects matched to located subjects by updating their respective joint locations, [126]. …see also [215, 236, 239].
Regarding claims 13, 19, Bonner does not explicitly teach, however, Fisher teaches the processor is further configured to: in response to determining that the second UPC does not match with the first UPC, update the confidence indicator by lowering the numerical value of the confidence indicator by a pre-configured amount, (if the value corresponding to the left-ankle joint is highest in the confidence array for that image element, then the value of the joint number is “1”, [123]). …see also [215, 236, 239].
Regarding claims 14, 20, Bonner teaches receive using the network interface a second indication that the scanner has scanned a second code associated with a second rack; in response to receiving the second indication, obtain from the memory: a second rack number of the second rack; and a third UPC associated with the type of packs expected to be stored in the second rack, wherein the third UPC associated with the second rack matches with the product placement specified for the second rack by the planogram; receive from the scanner a fourth UPC scanned by the scanner associated with a pack actually stored in the second rack; compare the third UPC with the fourth UPC; determine based on the comparison that the fourth UPC matches with the third UPC; and transmit to the scanner a message indicating correct product placement in the second rack, ([25-26, 47, 53-54, 57, 61-66]). Bonner does not explicitly teach; however, Fisher teaches cigarettes.
Regarding claims 15, Bonner does not explicitly teach, however, Fisher teaches in response to determining that the fourth UPC matches with the third UPC, update the confidence indicator by raising the numerical value of the confidence indicator by a pre-configured amount, [124]. …see also [215, 236, 239].
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 10-20, applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues improper combination:
Examiner does not agree. KSR does not require that references be combinable in their entirety. The Examiner uses Canter’s structural scanning workflow – scan rack identifier, scan product UPC, store mapping, not Canter’s entire system architecture. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would extract Canter’s workflow and implement it within Bonner’s existing architecture as an additional data entry pathway. Adding a software-based loading mode to Bonner’s handheld terminal requires no physical redesign. Bonner teaches that planograms may be changed or updated periodically, [38], which shows planogram updates similar to encompassing field-level data entry.
Applicant argues motivation is vending machine specific:
Examiner does not agree because while the “proper pricing” language was drawn from Canter’s background the motivation “accurately mapping product identifiers to rack positions before verification” applies to any inventory management system regardless of whether it is vending machine or retails store and KSR permits applying a known solution from one field to a known problem in another.
Applicant argues combination renders Bonner unsatisfactory:
The Examiner disagrees because adding a product loading mode does not degrade Bonner’s verification function – both modes can coexist within the same system. Bonner again acknowledges planograms may be changed and or updated.
Applicant argues the cited art teaches away from the proposed combination:
Fisher teaches that tobacco products are a known product category and substituting a known retail product type into a known retail inventory system of Bonner yields predictable results. No structural modification to Bonner is required to apply its shelf verification system to cigarette racks.
Applicant argues that combination does not disclose the newly incorporated limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 1 additionally recites: wherein the alert message further comprises information relating to a type of packs associated with a UPC that is mapped in the planogram to the first rack number, and wherein the processor is further configured to search the planogram for one or more rack numbers that are designated to store packs associated with the second LJPC and transmit to the scanner a rack number of a corresponding rack designated to store the packs actually stored in the first rack.
Claims 10 and 16 do not contain this language. Claim 10 uses generic “items” not cigarettes. The “reverse planogram lookup and alert message indication are limitations that no combination of prior art was found.
Applicant argues the cited references do not disclose the confidence indicator:
Fisher teaches “the planogram matcher 1065 includes logic to perform planogram compliance. The system includes logic to initiate a process to determine compliance of planogram with the planogram. Planogram of a store provides the visual representation of a store's products and how those products are displayed on different shelves. Shopping stores can have their internal planograms which can be used by the system as in input along with their product list. Planograms can be stored in the planogram database 140”, [236]. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would combine these teachings to implement a numerical score for planogram compliance. Fisher teaches the high-resolution images can increase the confidence score of classifications, [215] (confidence indicator reflecting conformance accuracy). Fisher teaches SKU drift indicates changes in locations of inventory items (or an SKU) in the area of space, [239] which is similar to tracking planogram conformance over time.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights