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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 8, and 9 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 claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-17, 19, and 21 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claim 1 language lacks antecedent basis because the claim introduces “an image of articles in a shopping container” and refers to “the image” for detection, but then later switches to “classify an image of articles”.
The following highlighted claim 1 language is vague and indefinite;
“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:”
The following highlighted claims 1, 8, and 9 language is vague and non-standard terminology;
“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,”
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, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambara et al. (US 2019/0172039) in view of Patil et al. (US 2021/0103941).
Regarding claim 1, Kambara teaches a system for detecting the number of articles, the system comprising: a memory (see figure 15); a processor (see figure 15); and
a camera, the camera being configured to capture an image of articles in a shopping container (see para. 0052-0053, Kambara discusses camera capturing images of a shopping basket), 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. 0052-0053, Kambara discusses camera capturing images of a shopping basket);
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 para. 0086, 0236, Kambara discusses when a predetermined threshold value is exceeded, the product is specified);
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 figure 17, para. 0194, Kambara discusses ceiling camera capturing images of a basket).
Kambara does not expressly disclose classify an image of articles in the shopping container by using a classifier, and determine a number of articles corresponding to a classification result by mapping a category number output by the classifier to a specific numerical value within a predetermined range.
However, Patil teaches to classify an image of articles in the shopping container by using a classifier, and determine a number of articles corresponding to a classification result by mapping a category number output by the classifier to a specific numerical value within a predetermined range (see para. 0033, 0035, 0045-0046, Patil discusses capturing images of a customer carts and classifying the items in a cart to a value based on the detected range).
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 Kambara with Patil 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 Kambara 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 Kambara, while the teaching of Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 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.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambara et al. (US 2019/0172039) in view of Patil et al. (US 2021/0103941) in view of Wright et al. (US 2019/0287113).
Regarding claim 2, Kambara and Patil do not expressly disclose 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 in the shopping container as the determined number of articles.
However, 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 in the shopping container 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).
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 Kambara and Patil 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.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kambara and Pati 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 Kambara and Pati, 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 Kambara, Patil, 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 6, Kambara and Patil do not expressly disclose wherein, the larger the determined number of articles, the larger the second threshold. However, 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).
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 Kambara and Patil 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.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kambara and Pati 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 Kambara and Pati, 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 Kambara, Patil, 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 7, Kambara and Patil do not expressly disclose wherein, each category of the classification result corresponds to a different predetermined number of articles. However, 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).
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 Kambara and Patil 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.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kambara and Pati 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 Kambara and Pati, 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 Kambara, Patil, 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.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 2 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.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambara et al. (US 2019/0172039) in view of Patil et al. (US 2021/0103941) in view of Brosnan et al. (US 2022/0318868).
Regarding claim 3, Kambara and Patil do not expressly disclose 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.
However, 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).
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 Kambara and Patil with Brosnan 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.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kambara and Pati 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 Kambara and Pati, while the teaching of Brosnan 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 Kambara, Patil, and Brosnan 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 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 3 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 Kambara and Patil with Brosnan 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.
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 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 Kambara et al. (US 2019/0172039) in view of Patil et al. (US 2021/0103941) in view of Yebes Torres et al. (US 2023/0005286).
Regarding claim 17, Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil, 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 Kambara, Patil, 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, Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil, 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 Kambara, Patil, 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, Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil 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 Kambara and Patil, 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 Kambara, Patil, 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.
Conclusion
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