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 .
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.
Claims 4-8 recite the term “verification target” which is vague/ indefinite because the specification at paragraph [0019]+ states the target can be the place area but paragraph [0123]+ states the target can be the goods. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear because the term is unclear as to what it means, especially as there are two extracting of two different verification results in two different conditions (change in goods information and identical goods information). The Examiner suggests differentiating the two different types of verification targets and clarify how/ why there are two different ways to obtain them. Finally, it is unclear which of the two types of targets are corrected at the end of the independent claims and how the verification is performed.
Throughout claims 4-8 the term “product tag” is used, but based on the Applicants specification, this appears to be a tag that is on a shelf and not a product itself and is more commonly referred to as a “shelf tag” and in order to be less vague/ indefinite, the Examiner suggests clarifying either the product tag is on a shelf or changing it to a shelf tag.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the information" in line 6, “goods identification information” in line 8, “information indicating the goods” in line 11, and “goods identification information” in lines 20, 22, 25, 29, 45, 48, 50, and 51. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the Examiner suggests changing the terms to “information indicating goods” as per line 4 of claim 4. The Examiner suggests making the same corresponding changes in the claims 5-8 where appropriate.
Claim 4 recites at line 9+ that processor extracts the recognition results to be a verification target by detecting a change in the information indicating goods has been recognized (emphasis added) from the first image information, which renders the claim indefinite because a change in a single image cannot determine a change without comparing it to something. Claims 5-8 include the same issue, and appropriate correction is requested.
Claim 4 (at line 9) recites extracting a verification result when there is a change in the information indicating goods, but at lines 18+ continues to explain extraction of the verification target to include goods identification information being identical to each other (and therefore not a “change” as recited at lines 9+. This renders the claim vague/ indefinite as it appears to be contradicting what is previously descried as a verification target. Claims 5-8 have the same corresponding issue.
The independent claims at the end thereof, recite limitations of how to correct erroneous recognition, but it is unclear to the Examiner if the verification target (goods) are what is corrected. The erroneous recognition appears to have been properly made and therefore it is unclear on how a recognition would be corrected, if it correctly recognized an error. It appears that the recognition was proper and that the recognizing would not be corrected, but instead, the goods information would be corrected (relating to the verification target). It is also unclear how receiving and storing data solves the error and the Examiner also suggests clarification/ correction. Claims 5-8 have the same corresponding issue.
Even further, the Examiner notes it is unclear on how/ why if a verification target is extracted, and the claims recite purported limitations to ensure a proper verification target is extracted, how/why is an erroneous target extracted in the first place, if there are limitations in place to ensure proper verification target extraction, namely if the limitations prevent the incorrect extraction of a verification target by providing additional steps, it is unclear how/ why is the erroneous extraction made when safeguards are in place.
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 stored data to identify if there is match/ a change. Therefore, 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), information is obtained by imaging a display shelf of goods and determining a verification target due to a change in the image information 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.
The recognizing of product tag information from image information and determining a correspondence is merely mental steps/ organized human activity performed by generic computer components as discussed above.
The determining of a correspondence relationship between a goods type and the tag are mental steps/ organized human activity performed by generic computer components.
The limitations recited of the first and second processing resulting in information identical to each other again is mental processes/ organized human activity.
The “even when” clause is drawn to determining a change between the tag and goods type between the first and second processing and a change between the first and second image information of a place area, which again falls under mental processes/ organized human activity performed by generic computer components.
The examining of the verification target limitation also falls under mental processes.
The newly added limitation of correction of erroneous recognition is broadly recited and is the equivalent of “applying” it, and thus falls under insignificant post solution activity and/ or routine data gathering using generic computer components. Berkheimer evidence is provided by US 20240412505 at paragraph [0083]+ which teaches correcting a production identification by generating learning data, which implies receiving and storing data.
The Examiner notes that the claims do not include additional elements besides a generic computer processor performing data collection, analysis, comparison, and displaying of results as it applies to the above mentioned limitations. Re the limitations of correcting the erroneous recognition, the Examiner notes that similar to Longitude Licensing Ltd v. Google LLC (Fed Cir, 2024-1202, 4/30/2025), such limitations are merely using the computer as a tool, without explaining how the result is achieved in terms of how it improves the functionality for image recognition processing technology for display shelf monitoring, and is unlike McRo which was limited to rules with specific characteristics. In the instant claims, a generic computer processor is performing steps of routine data gathering and comparison to find a difference and when a difference is recognized data for correction is received/ stored, without specifying how such corrected information is created, and therefore rescanning, getting another input, asking the user to pick correct input, etc. would fall under mental steps/ organized human activity.
Further, 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.
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. Merely applying the abstract idea into a generic computer environment cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Finally, the recitations recite various data acquisition steps and comparison steps to come to a final result, but the Examiner notes that the steps involve routine data collection and non-specific data output results of comparisons such as detect matches/ not matches, and then applying those in a generic environment using generic computer components is not significantly more than routine data gathering, and mental steps as part of organized human activity relating to stocking and inventory management.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner maintains the 101 for the reasons discussed above. The recited correction of erroneous recognition as claimed is not seen as a practical application. While the Applicant argues McRO, the Examiner notes that McRo was seen as an improvement in computing because the claim conditions provided how the claimed process improves upon prior systems and was limited to rules with specific characteristics, whereas the instant application claims do not provide the same degree of specificity as those in McRO, and instead implement longstanding activities and mental processes using data and generic computer components without reciting how they result in more than the abstract idea. Namely, the instant claims use the computer as a tool by essentially reciting the function but not providing adequate detail beyond a showing of abstract steps (see Longitude Licensing v. Google as discussed above). The Examiner notes that specifying details of abstract ideas still result in an abstract claim, even if it is applied to a generic computer environment.
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 of mental processes.
Additional Remarks
The Examiner notes that an telephonic interview could be helpful to clarify the issues in the instant claims, such as going through the limitations to clarify and explain in an attempt to expedite prosecution. For example, describing an example scenario that follows the system limitations as recited could possibly expedite prosecution by possible clarifying amendments, because at least the extracting the verification target appears to be contradictory by stating a change in information indicating goods but later clarifying there is no change as they are identical, and thus an example explanation conducted in an interview could be beneficial.
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
Prosecution Insights