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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims recite limitations at their end of the correction of erroneous recognition and how such is performed. The Examiner notes that such limitations are not described in the specification to support possession of the invention. The dependent claims are rejected based 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 that the processor extracts the recognition results as the verification target by detecting a case where goods identification information or a goods type that has been recognized (emphasis added) in the first processing is compared with either goods identification information or a goods type that has been recognized in a second processing before the first processing, but the Examiner notes that claim 1 is reciting the first processing, but does not recite limitations on how the goods identification information or a goods type has been recognized by such first processing, so it is unclear how such recognition occurs and the scope of the claim. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Further, the use of the “notwithstanding” clause is unclear to the Examiner. It is unclear if “notwithstanding” is equivalent to “when” the goods type or goods identification information recognized in the first and second processing are identical “and” the next criteria area met. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency. Appropriate clarification is requested.
The independent claims further recite the “first image information of a place area” and a “second image information of a place area” to be processing targets in the first and second processing, but it is unclear what this means as the claim is drawn to the first processing but does not recite limitations on how the first image information is to be determine or what the first image information is and what a place area is and how it is determined. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
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 “notwithstanding” 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.
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.
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 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