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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The end of the claim is missing a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 10, and 14 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.
Dependent claim 21 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 2.
The following claim 2 elements are vague and indefinite:
2. ( Currently Amended) The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: detect the number of articles in the shopping container according to the image of the articles in the shopping container, wherein when the number of articles determined corresponding to the classification result is less than or equal to the first threshold, take the number of articles detected determined number of articles.
The following claim 10 elements are vague and indefinite:
10. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: detecting a number of articles in the shopping: container according: to the image of the articles in the shopping container; and
when the number of articles corresponding to the classification result is less than or equal to the first threshold, taking the number of articles detected in the shopping container to be the determined number of articles.
The following claim 14 elements are vague and indefinite:
14. (New) The electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: detect the number of articles in the shopping container according to the image of the articles in the shopping container,
wherein when the number of articles corresponding to the classification result is less than or equal to the first threshold, set the determined number of articles in the shopping container to be the detected number of articles.
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 1-4, and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In its recent decision, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. {“Alice Corp.’’), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._(2012) {Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract idea. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). The basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Next, determine if the claim is directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). The two-part test provided in Alice Corp. to determine whether a claim directed towards an abstract idea is statutory under § 101 requires an evaluation to determined 1) whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas reference in Alice Corp. include:
- Fundamental economic principles
- Certain methods of organizing human activities
- An idea of itself
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
In accordance with judicial precedent, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
The claims 1-4, 6-21 recite a process of receiving images of items in a shopping cart using an imaging device, counting the number items in the shopping cart, comparing the number of items to a threshold rule, therefore it recites at least one of the enumerated categories, a process, eligible subject matter in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-21 satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A(i) -Focus of the Claim
As a result, the claims 1-4, 6-21 will be reviewed under Step 2A(i) to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claims recite reviewing items in a shopping cart, determining that a number of items in the shopping cart is above or below thresholds, therefore organization of human activity such as reviewing shopping items during a customer’s checkout.
The court have ruled that receiving and authenticating identity data to permit access was abstract since the functions were claimed generically rather than offering a "'concrete, specific solution" See Prisnz Technologies LLC v. T-Afobile USA, 696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir.2017). Abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, storing the data in memory, and notifying the user of the results. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"). Moreover, the reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of information and analysis of information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset, such as rules) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
The process of receiving images of shopping items, and outputting a response or alert based on the number of items is a method of organizing human activity, as considered under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-18 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii) -Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In this instance, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely detect a number of objects in images, and compare the number of objects to thresholds. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer or image analysis technical field; the claims are not implemented with or used with a particular machine; the claims do not transform an article to a different state or thing when counting objects in images; and the claims do not provide a meaningful way of analyzing image regions in the image analysis technical environment.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05( d), only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look under Step 2B to determine; (3) whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (WURC) in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Having determined claims 1-4, 6-18 is directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination, add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Revised Guidance.
It is possible that a claim that does not ‘‘integrate’’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element. Along these lines, the Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test because the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘‘significantly more’’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as nonexclusive examples:
- Improvements to another technology or technical field
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Examples that are not enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive example:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry
The additional elements recited in claims 1-4, 6-18 are well-understood, routine, and conventional steps in image analysis and product shopping. The claims 1-4, 6-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to viewing an image and determining the number of objects.
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F .3d at 1340 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F .3d at 1372 (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.").
The claims 8, 14-16 states detecting a number of articles using an electronic device. However, the claim merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer elements to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter."); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],' either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps").
In claims 1-4, and 6-18, the steps of receiving images of a shopping container, detecting and classifying items in the shopping container, and comparing the number of items to thresholds is not an improvement to a fundamental practice and/or method of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than generalized steps well-known and routine in the art such as image detection and object counting. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, with steps that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 1-4, and 6-18 are ineligible. Claims 19, 20, and 21 are eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al. (US 2022/0318868) in view of Wright et al. (US 2019/0287113).
Regarding claim 1, Brosnan teaches a system for detecting the number of articles, the system comprising: a memory (see figure 8);
a processor (see figure 8); and
a camera, the camera being configured to capture an image of articles in a shopping container, (see para. 0031, Brosnan discusses camera capturing images of a shopping receptacle);
the processor being coupled to the memory and the camera, obtaining the image of the articles in the shopping container from the camera and being configured to:
detect a shopping container in the image (see para. 0031, Brosnan discusses camera capturing images of a shopping receptacle);
classify an image of articles in the shopping container by using a classifier, and determine a number of articles corresponding to a classification result (see claim 1, para. 0027, Brosnan discusses determining the number of items detected).
Wright teaches take the number of articles corresponding: to the classification result as a determined number of articles in the shopping container in response to the number of articles corresponding to the classification result being greater than a first threshold (see figure 7, figure 11, figure 14, para. 0082-0084, Wright discusses compares a number of items to a voided threshold, or unknown scanned items threshold, if the thresholds are violated, a second detecting device is used to scan the items).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan with Wright to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brosnan in this manner in order to improve object quantity summation by taking into account the classification of the objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brosnan, while the teaching of Wright continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating an object category type before counting the objects to prevent improper object counting. The Brosnan and Wright systems perform object detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Wright teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: detect the number of articles in the shopping container according to the image of the articles in the shopping container, wherein when the number of articles determined corresponding to the classification result is less than or equal to the first threshold, take the number of articles detected as the determined number of articles (see figure 7, figure 11, figure 14, para. 0060, Wright discusses if approval of the basket contents is not approved without partial verification of the contents, the system obtains second scan data from a second scan device).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan with Wright to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
Regarding claim 3, Brosnan teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a difference between the determined number of articles and a scanning value, wherein the scanning value is the number of articles obtained by scanning the articles in the shopping container by a scanner (see claim 1, para. 0031, Brosnan discusses determining the number of items scanned).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan with Wright to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
Regarding claim 4, Brosnan teaches wherein, the processor is further configured to compare the difference with a second threshold, and generate alarm information when the difference is greater than or equal to the second threshold (see claim 1, para. 0033, Brosnan discusses determining the number of items scanned and comparing the difference to a threshold to generate an audit alert).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan with Wright to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
Regarding claim 6, Wright teaches wherein, the larger the determined number of articles, the larger the second threshold (see figure 14, para. 0062, Wright discusses the matching threshold is based on the number of items).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan with Wright to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
Regarding claim 7, Wright teaches wherein, each category of the classification result corresponds to a different predetermined number of articles (see para. 0057-0058, Wright discusses image recognition of items can be performed using pattern matching algorithms to identify a package shape, color, identifying marks, labels, size etc., and calculating the number of items in the basket; see para. 0048, Wright discusses items in the plurality of items can include any type of items, such as, but not limited to comestibles, automotive parts, pet care items, clothing items, toys, electronics, footwear, or any other type of items. Comestibles can include dairy items, produce items, can goods, frozen foods, or any other type of edible items).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan with Wright to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding electronic device.
Claim 9 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding electronic device.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding electronic device.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding electronic device.
Claims 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al. (US 2022/0318868) in view of Wright et al. (US 2019/0287113) in view of Yebes Torres et al. (US 2023/0005286).
Regarding claim 17, Brosnan and Wright do not expressly disclose wherein the classifier is trained using training sample images in which a range of the number of articles is marked. However, Yebes teaches wherein the classifier is trained using training sample images in which a range of the number of articles is marked (see para. 0075, 0091, 0167, Yebes discusses training a classifier with images).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan and Wright with Yebes to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brosnan and Wright in this manner in order to improve object quantity summation by taking into account the classification of the objects based on an image trained classifier. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brosnan and Wright, while the teaching of Yebes continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating an object category type using an image trained classifier before counting the objects to prevent improper object counting. The Brosnan, Wright, and Yebes systems perform object detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 19, Brosnan and Wright do not expressly disclose wherein the classifier comprises a Residual Network (ResNet) structure. However, Yebes teaches wherein the classifier comprises a Residual Network (ResNet) structure (see para. 0075, Yebes discusses a residual neural network ResNet).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan and Wright with Yebes to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brosnan and Wright in this manner in order to improve object quantity summation by taking into account the classification of the objects based on an image trained classifier. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brosnan and Wright, while the teaching of Yebes continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating an object category type using an image trained classifier before counting the objects to prevent improper object counting. The Brosnan, Wright, and Yebes systems perform object detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 21, Brosnan and Wright do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to utilize a You Only Look Once (YOLO) algorithm to detect the number of articles. However, Yebes teaches wherein the processor is configured to utilize a You Only Look Once (YOLO) algorithm to detect the number of articles (see para. 0167, Yebes discusses You Only Look Once (YOLO) algorithm for object detection).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan and Wright with Yebes to derive at the invention of claim 21. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brosnan and Wright in this manner in order to improve object quantity summation by taking into account the classification of the objects based on an image trained classifier. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brosnan and Wright, while the teaching of Yebes continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating an object category type using an image trained classifier before counting the objects to prevent improper object counting. The Brosnan, Wright, and Yebes systems perform object detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al. (US 2022/0318868) in view of Wright et al. (US 2019/0287113) in view of Hagen et al. (US 2023/0146179).
Regarding claim 18, Brosnan and Wright do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine the number of articles corresponding to the classification result by mapping a category number output by the classifier to a specific numerical value within a predetermined range. However, Hagen teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the number of articles corresponding to the classification result by mapping a category number output by the classifier to a specific numerical value within a predetermined range (see para. 0084, Hagen discusses a controller determines whether the correlated data is within threshold ranges of the product information).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan and Wright with Hagen to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brosnan and Wright in this manner in order to improve object quantity summation by taking into account the classification of the objects based on an image trained classifier. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brosnan and Wright, while the teaching of Hagen continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating an object category type using an image trained classifier before counting the objects to prevent improper object counting. The Brosnan, Wright, and Hagen systems perform object detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al. (US 2022/0318868) in view of Wright et al. (US 2019/0287113) in view of Datar et al. (US 2022/0414378).
Regarding claim 20, Brosnan and Wright do not expressly disclose wherein the camera is positioned above the shopping container and is configured to capture the image of the articles from a top-down perspective. However, Datar teaches wherein the camera is positioned above the shopping container and is configured to capture the image of the articles from a top-down perspective (see claim 6, para. 0113, Datar discusses a plurality of cameras to take overhead images).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brosnan and Wright with Datar to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object detection and quantity calculation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brosnan and Wright in this manner in order to improve object quantity summation by taking into account the classification of the objects based on an image trained classifier. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brosnan and Wright, while the teaching of Datar continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating an object category type using an image trained classifier before counting the objects to prevent improper object counting. The Brosnan, Wright, and Datar systems perform object detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bronicki et al. (US 2022/0114868) discusses determining whether the number of identified products in the shopping cart is greater than a number of expected products.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights