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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 22, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The pending claims comprise 2 groups:
1) Apparatus: 14-20,
2) Method: 1-13.
All appear to have similar scope.
As of 09/22/2023, independent claim 1 is as follows:
A method, comprising:
[1] by a first network node operationally coupled over a network to an optical sensor device having a field of view towards a shelf structure having a set of stocked items and operable to capture an image of the shelf structure and to a set of display devices disposed on the shelf structure with each display device being specific to and proximate a certain stocked item of the shelf structure and operable to display stocked item information of the certain stocked item, with the shelf structure having shelves with each shelf having a portion of the set of stocked items with any of the same stocked items being transversely arranged on that shelf,
[2] obtaining information associated with a current arrangement of the stocked items and the corresponding display devices on the shelf structure so as [3] to determine whether the stocked item information of a certain stocked item on the shelf structure is associated with the stocked item information displayed by the corresponding display device.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals (1)-(3) are added to the beginning of each element.
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 1, 7, 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 20:
Claim categories:
1) Apparatus: 14 and 20, and
2) Method: 1, 7 and 8.
Analysis of Step 1:
System: claims 14 and 20, comprising a system for identifying stocked items on a shelf. (Step 1:Yes).
Method: claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed to a process; i.e., a series of steps or acts, for a method for identifying stocked items on a shelf. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for using an optical sensor to capture an image and then obtain information to determine if an item is stocked on the shelf using a determining step which is a fundamental economic principle or business practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1 recites an abstract idea related to obtaining information and determining if an item is on a shelf, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for planning movements for transporting devices, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] operationally coupled. Human activity.
[2] obtaining information (data). Human activity.
[3] determining if item is on shelf. Mental step.
Step [1] is human activity for the step of looking at a shelf of items.
Step [2] is human activity for getting information and seeing the shelf of items.
Step [3] is a determining step to see what items are on the shelf and if they match the display. These mental steps or well-known business activities for determining if the item is on a shelf.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for evaluating / analyzing a container carrier terminal operation by inputting container carrier entry information and generating an estimated container related birth workload and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recite the additional elements of steps [1]-[3] above.
Steps [1][2] and [3] are for determining what items are on a shelf and if they match a display.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, step [3], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. As for the system claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claims are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 7 and 8, which deal with further details of the determining step of if the correct item is on the shelf, these further limit the abstract idea of the maintenance analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 7 and 8 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 7 and 8 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0258871 to Jones et al. in view of European Patent No. WO2020/051407 to Schumacher et al.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20, the Jones patent teaches a first network node device 76 is operationally coupled over a network to an optical sensor device 74 having a field of view towards a shelf structure 10 having a set of stocked items and operable to capture an image of the shelf structure, with the shelf structure having shelves with each shelf having a portion of the stocked items with any of the same stocked items being transversely arranged on that shelf; and wherein the first network node further includes processing circuitry and a memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the processing circuitry is configured to: obtain information associated with a current arrangement of the stocked items and the corresponding display devices on the shelf structure so as to determine whether the stocked item is on the shelf. See Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0025-0045.
However, the Jones patent lacks a specific teaching that there is an electronic display device on the shelves.
The Schumacher patent teaches a set of shelves 108s with electronic display devices 114 that are connected to cameras 110 that are connected to the displays the are also taking into account inventory. See Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0039-0049.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Jones patent to have the display system connected to the camera system as taught by Schumacher, as it would have been combining known prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of having the display so that the consumer can easily see the product which is being sold on the shelf.
Regarding claim 2, receiving, by the first network node, from the optical sensor device over the network, an indication that includes the current arrangement information of the shelf structure. See Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0025-0045 of Jones.
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: receiving, by the first network node, from the optical sensor device over the network, image data that includes an image of the shelf structure; and determining the current arrangement information of the shelf structure based on the image data. See Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0025-0045 of Jones
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9-13 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0067636 to Shearin et al. teaches inventory using a camera.
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328767 to Bonner et al. teaches a shelf with electronic labels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655