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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 18-82 are cancelled.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This Application is continuation of application 17929163.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 10/31/2025.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17929163 filed on September 25, 2021 now U.S. Patent 11783251 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP§201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last
paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent
Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents
cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of
record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the
information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this
application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the
prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g.,
Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant
to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Arguments
USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 7 that the claimed invention does not recite an abstract idea, the Applicant states,
The independent claims have been amended to recite processes not
practically performed in the human mind, namely "with a data analysis software module, analyze, using one or more of the image analysis techniques selected from the list consisting of: object recognition, object detection, image segmentation, feature extraction, optical character recognition (OCR), object-based image analysis, shape region techniques, edge detection techniques, pixel-based detection, artificial neural networks, convolutional neural networks." This aspect is found, for example, in paragraph [0070] of the specification. Such processing techniques are not easily performed in the human mind and therefore, provide significantly more that an abstract idea and the claimed subject matter is patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s amendments merely state additional elements that are used to carryout the abstract idea of analyzing. Analyzing an image does not require a computer, but is merely a data manipulation step. The additional elements of object recognition, object detection, image segmentation, feature extraction, optical character recognition (OCR), object-based image analysis, shape region techniques, edge detection techniques, pixel-based detection, artificial neural networks, and convolutional neural networks are invoked as a tool to implement instructions of the abstract idea and it merely limits the abstract idea in a field of use/particular technology which does not provide practical application/significantly more to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
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 1-17 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-17 are directed to the statutory category of a system.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-17 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recite the limitations of
…access information describing a desired placement of products of a certain product type on at least one store shelf; receive image data…the image data including a plurality of images captured at different times and depicting the at least one store shelf; analyze…from among the plurality of images, a first image captured at a first time to determine that a first quantity of products of the certain product type at the first time exceeds a quantity threshold associated with the information describing the desired placement of products; analyze, from among the plurality of images, a second image captured at a second time later than the first time to determine that a second quantity of products of the certain product type at the second time is below the quantity threshold associated with the information describing the desired placement of products; based on the determination that the first quantity of products of the certain product type at the first time exceeds the quantity threshold, avoid initiating an unscheduled action to cause restocking the at least one store shelf with products of the certain product type at least until a third time later than the second time; analyze, from among the plurality of images, a third image captured at the third time to determine that a third quantity of products of the certain product type at the third time is also below the quantity threshold associated with the information describing the desired placement of products; and based on the determination that the second quantity of products of the certain product type at the second time and the third quantity of products at the third time are below the quantity threshold, provide information indicative of a product shortage at the at least one store shelf.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of accessing, determining/analyzing, and providing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of processor, the claim language simply encompasses accessing product information, analyzing data to determine product shortages, and taking an action based on if there is a shortage or not. The shortage determination is done with respect to a threshold. These steps are just mere data manipulation steps. Determining product shortages is not novel and has been done before the technological age. Given a real-world example, manager at a retail location can look and see if a product stock is low and take appropriate action.
The claims also deal with the product management which includes product shortages (See para 0006 in Applicant’s specification). Managing product shortages is a business problem. The claims also deal with employee task management (See para 0085 in Applicant’s specification). These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims recite the additional elements of system, processor, handheld image capture device, data analysis software module, object recognition, object detection, image segmentation, feature extraction, optical character recognition (OCR), object-based image analysis, shape region techniques, edge detection techniques, pixel-based detection, artificial neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and mobile device.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or 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. For example, the additional elements are merely automating a manual process of determining product shortage. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe additional variables such as a restocking event and number of products in a storage area of the retail location.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
System, processor, mobile device, data analysis software module, object recognition, object detection, image segmentation, feature extraction, optical character recognition (OCR), object-based image analysis, shape region techniques, edge detection techniques, pixel-based detection, artificial neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and handheld image capture device.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic, the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0064 and 0076
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0064 and 0076. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Connell (US20090204512A1) Discloses a method and system for determining a restocking state of a product in a retail store.
Cheruku (US20180060804A1) Discloses apparatuses and methods that are provided herein useful to monitoring retail products. In some embodiments, there is provided a system for monitoring retail products including: one or more shelf image capturing devices disposed within a retail shopping facility.
Woodbeck (US20220189140A1) Discloses systems and methods for analyzing trends in image data is disclosed. A trend query is received relating to an object category and defining two or more groups of interest for which trend data is to be determined with a defined time period.
Sachdeva (20200380876) Discloses a system and a method for optimizing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) based warehouse management, where an optimized path for UAV is generated in real time based on the density of inventory.
Opalach (20090059270) Discloses Image analysis techniques, including object recognition analysis, are applied to images obtained by one or more image capture devices deployed within inventory environments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625