8297117DETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 at page 2, line 11: Replace “are” with – recognized in the current processing and in the processing before the current processing--. The Examiner suggests making the same corresponding changes in the other independent claims for clarity issues. The dependent claims are rejected at least on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims recite “recognize in in current processing” which is vague/ indefinite as it is unclear what is begin referred to (claim 4, p. 2 line 5, claim 5, last line of p.1, claim 6, 4 lines from the bottom of p.2, claim 8, line 8, p. 2).
Additionally, the independent claims recite “a case” first where the goods type or goods identification information are identical to each other, but the next clause (second clause in the “a case” ) recites that the goods type does not match a previous goods type. This appears to be counter to the previous clause and thus renders the claims vague/ indefinite.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations for capture/ obtain data and comparing it to store data to identify if there is match/ a change. The claims are drawn to the abstract idea of data comparison and authorization by comparing stored data to acquired data, and thus falls into the category of mental concepts/ organized human activity ( Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. (Fed Cir, 2020-2044, 8/26/2021). In the instant application, (see independent claims 4, 5, 6, 8), data is obtained by imaging a display shelf, and determines that there is a change in the data. Such steps are merely data acquisition and comparison to stored data for authentication/ matching purposes. The use of a computer (imaging and processing units) is only as a tool in a generic way to collect data and compare the data, though the data could be collected and compared mentally as well. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to a computer, and there are no additional elements belong the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps are merely performed in the mind/ mental or with the use of a generic computer. Re the limitations of a particular type of data (provided and for comparison) the Examiner notes that the claim limitations are merely drawn to data types which are just specifying details of the type of data and are merely describing details of the abstract idea itself. Displaying results is merely post solution activity.
Re the limitations of a displayed goods recognition processing unit and a verification target extraction processing unit, the Examiner notes that such limitations are a series of means plus function recitations (nonces, with no structure before or after the unit “configured to”). Accordingly, the displayed goods recognition processing unit is merely seen as a computer algorithm to select an area of an image and compare it to stored information (element 24 in paragraphs [0045]-[0062]) and thus is a mental step of comparing an image/ portion of an image to stored data.
The extraction of a recognition results to be a verification target (element 29 in paragraphs [0110]-[0113] and FIG. 30) also is a mental step of comparing the data to determine if certain data matches in order to verify a change in the data, which falls under the mental concepts/ mental steps of reviewing and verifying data, and “to detect…” is merely post solution activity or part of the abstract idea similar to displaying the results.
The product tag recognizing (element 25 in paragraph [0066]) performs a mental step of data matching.
The determining the correspondence relationship (element 28 in paragraph [0101]) performs a mental step of determining corresponding/ data matching.
The other independent claims merely specify details of the data as it pertains to the abstract concept and/ or extra solution activity such as notifying in a highlighted manner, which is similar to merely displaying. Appropriate correction is requested.
Re the newly added limitations of a hardware processor, comparisons, the Examiner notes these are generic computer components being applied to an abstract environment/ idea to perform routine data gathering/ processing/ comparisons steps and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Re the newly added limitation of the erroneous recognition being “corrected”, this is sufficiently broad to be read on as a limitation of insignificant post solution activity, absent a more specific limitation that provides a practical application.
The Examiner maintains that the claims are directed toward detecting changes in goods on a shelf and as such are directed towards an abstract idea through the system gathering data, analyzing it, and determining the results based on the analysis. The elements of the claims are directed towards organized human activity/ mental steps of making mental decisions using generic analysis techniques performed by generic computer components, applying fundamental economic principles of inventory monitoring. Various generic computer components are being applied to the abstract idea and thus link it to a field of use and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are merely generic computer components being used as tools applied for the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Re the Applicants arguments that the instant claims are significantly more like Example 36, the Examiner notes that there was a particular structure that aided in overcoming the 101, namely a particular array of sensors, whereas the instant claims merely recite a processing unit/ generic components, and thus are not improvements to a computer, but instead are using the computer as a tool (The patents’ specifications confirm that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea that merely seeks to use computers as a tool, not on an improvement in computer capabilities. See ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 767–68 (relying on “problem facing the inventor” defined in the patent specification as part of the analysis to confirm claims were “directed to” abstract idea); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612 (finding inventor’s “problem” was not “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone” or “how to transmit images via a cellular network,” but “recording, administration and archiving of digital images simply, fast and in such way that the information therefore may be easily tracked”).
Re the Applicants argument that it is not well understood routine conventional activity, the Examiner notes that the limitations are drawn to mental steps that are being performed by generic computer components, namely comparison of data for correspondence to determine a result, which is merely abstract data comparison that is not an improvement to a computer.
Re the Applicants argument that there is a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of the erroneous recognition being corrected is not specific enough to be interpreted as a practical application. The Examiner maintains that using generic computer devices does not improve a computer or improve a technology as they are being applied to an environment to perform the equivalent or mental processes. However, amending to recite a practical application of the correction step could possibly overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876