DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn, see Election/Restriction section below. The effective filing date of the present application is 5/13/2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
3. Claim 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-16 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A machine vision system for a distribution facility, the system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to capture a field of view of a zone in the distribution facility; and
a control system comprising a controller, a processor, and a memory system comprising instructions, wherein the processor is connected to the memory system and executes the instructions that cause the control system to:
receive sensor input of the captured field of view (observation);
interpret the sensor input to identify one or more items in the zone (evaluation); and
generate, via the controller, a notification based on the interpreted sensor input (opinion).
Claim 1 (is directed to a series of steps for evaluating data in a field of view of a zone in a distribution facility, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sensors, control system, controller, processor, and memory system are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See Specification [0065] discussing the multiple types of generic sensors that could be used. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the sensors, control system, controller, processor, and memory system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements in the dependent claims that are considered as amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component include summoning/commanding of an automated guided vehicle1, reading a computer readable code, Therefore, claims 2-16 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-2, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO 2023/178287 to Goller et al. (“Goller”).
8. With regards to claim 1, Goller disclosed the limitations of,
one or more sensors configured to capture a field of view of a zone in the distribution facility (See [0108] discussing the multiple sensors that can be used to track an item and [0033] discussing using a vision system to for digital triggers.); and
a control system comprising a controller, a processor, and a memory system comprising instructions, wherein the processor is connected to the memory system and executes the instructions that cause the control system (See [0141]-[0144] discussing the computer implementation.) to:
receive sensor input of the captured field of view (See [0082] discussing the sensors receiving data from multiple data sources.);
interpret the sensor input to identify one or more items in the zone (See [0089] discussing combining or aggregating the received data about the product with other product specific data, environmental specific data, consumer behavior data, or other variable and/or fixed data feeds.) ; and
generate, via the controller, a notification based on the interpreted sensor input (See [0109] discussing notification if a callout takes place. ).
9. With regards to claim 2, Goller disclosed the limitations of,
monitor a dwell time of the one or more items in the zone (See [0111] discussing “dwell time” callouts for when an item spends longer or shorter than expected time at a location.);
determine if the dwell time has exceeded a threshold dwell time (See [0111] discussing “dwell time” callouts for when an item spends longer or shorter than expected time at a location.); and
in response to determining that the dwell time has exceeded the threshold dwell time, indicate with the notification that the dwell time has exceeded the threshold dwell time (See [0109] discussing notification if a callout takes place. ).
10. With regards to claim 10, Goller disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the control system identifies the one or more items in the zone by reading a computer readable code on the one or more items (See [0108] discussing the tracking by digital triggers and [0025] discussing the definition of a digital trigger to include bar codes.).
11. With regards to claim 13, Goller disclosed the limitations of,
determine a route for the identified one or more items (See [0112] discussing observing the item is traveling on-site and [0109] discussing the instructions where to move the item.);
determine if the one or more items being in the zone is consistent with the route (See [0112] discussing the tracking of an item and it being placed in a site not typical.); and
in response to determining that the one or more items being in the zone is not consistent with the route, indicate with the notification that the one or more items being in the zone is not consistent with the route (See [0112] discussing the tracking of an item and it being placed in a site not typical for the item resulting in a callout.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Goller in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0215544 to High et al. (“High”).
14. With regards to claim 3, Goller discloses the limitations of,
in response to determining that the dwell time has exceeded the threshold dwell time (See [0111] discussing “dwell time” callouts for when an item spends longer or shorter than expected time at a location.),
Goller is silent on the limitation of,
summon an automated guided vehicle to retrieve the one or more items.
However, High teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sales art to include the summon an automated guided vehicle to retrieve the one or more items. (See [0039] discussing the robotic device receiving instructions to retrieve an object.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sales art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goller to include summon an automated guided vehicle to retrieve the one or more items, as disclosed by High. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification order to perform task without human intervention (High [0002]).
15. With regards to claim 4, Goller discloses the limitations of,
command the automated guided vehicle to transport the one or more items to another location in the distribution facility.
However, High teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sales art to include the command the automated guided vehicle to transport the one or more items to another location in the distribution facility (See [0039]-[0040] discussing the robotic device receiving instructions to retrieve an object and the transporting the object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sales art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goller to include command the automated guided vehicle to transport the one or more items to another location in the distribution facility, as disclosed by High. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification order to perform task without human intervention (High [0002]).
16. With regards to claim 11, Goller is silent the limitations of,
wherein the control system identifies the one or more items in the zone by recognizing unique characteristics of the one or more items.
However, High teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sales art to include the control system identifies the one or more items in the zone by recognizing unique characteristics of the one or more items (See [0039] discussing color analysis of the object compared to the stored attributes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sales art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goller to include the control system identifies the one or more items in the zone by recognizing unique characteristics of the one or more items, as disclosed by High. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform task without human intervention (High [0002]).
17. With regards to claim 12, Goller is silent the limitations of,
wherein the unique characteristics comprise wear patterns on the one or more items.
However, High teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sales art to include the unique characteristics comprise wear patterns on the one or more items (See [0039] discussing Stitching/Registration, Filtering, Thresholding, Pixel counting, Segmentation, Inpainting, Edge detection, Color Analysis, Blob discovery & manipulation, Neural net processing, Pattern recognition, Barcode Data Matrix and “2D barcode” reading, Optical character recognition and Gauging/Metrology of the object compared to the stored attributes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sales art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goller to include the unique characteristics comprise wear patterns on the one or more items, as disclosed by High. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform task without human intervention (High [0002]).
18. With regards to claim 14, Goller is silent the limitations of,
when executed by the processor, cause the control system to summon an automated guided vehicle to retrieve the one or more items from the zone.
However, High teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sales art to include summon an automated guided vehicle to retrieve the one or more items from the zone (See [0039] discussing the robotic device receiving instructions to retrieve an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sales art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goller to include summon an automated guided vehicle to retrieve the one or more items from the zone, as disclosed by High. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification order to perform task without human intervention (High [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
19. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 5-9 and 15-16 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest art, US 11,797,022, does not teach the control system monitoring occupancy of the zone, but that the autonomous mobile device to monitor occupancy around it. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 Examiner notes that the controlling of the vehicle may have potential as eligible subject matter, see Example 46.