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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 8/14/2025.
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "intended to" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-16 describe tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
displaying product and/or price information display content, which is represented by content data; a data provision that is arranged to provide the content data; a detection stage that is designed to detect a discrepancy in the content already displayed wherein the detection stage is designed to trigger at least one action when a discrepancy is detected.
The claims in general are design to trigger at least one action when a discrepancy is detected in the content that is displayed. The limitations as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic display”, “a data provision system”, “a detection stage” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “electronic display” for displaying “a data provision system” for arranging data and “detection stage” to detect discrepancy, the context of this claim encompasses actions that a human could perform; e.g., a human can display, arrange data and detect discrepancy within the displayed data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites the additional elements of “electronic display” for displaying “a data provision system” for arranging data and “detection stage” to detect discrepancy and are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, 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. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Regarding the limitations “electronic display” for displaying “a data provision system” for arranging data and “detection stage” to detect discrepancy, as seen above, these limitations have been interpreted as “apply it”. However, these limitations can be additionally interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this limitation alone and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, there are no additional elements that amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Dependent claims 2-16 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Itou 2017/0293959) in view of JP 3471008 B2 .
With respect to claim 1, Itou teaches a display system for displaying product and/or price information (Abstract).
at least one electronic display device to display content, which is represented by content data (i.e. electronic shelf label 3000. The electronic shelf label 3000 is a shelf label provided in the vicinity of a product (on a shelf plate of product shelving, or the like), and displays product information. The product information displayed by the electronic shelf label 3000 is, for example, a product name or price);
a data provision system that is arranged to provide the content data to the at least one electronic display device (i.e. The information processing apparatus 2000 of Exemplary Embodiment 4 includes a product information transmission unit 2100. The product information transmission unit 2100 transmits the product information to the electronic shelf label 3000);
a detection stage that is designed to automatically detect a discrepancy in the content that is intended to be displayed by the electronic display device and/or in the content already displayed by the electronic display device, wherein the detection stage (8) is designed to trigger at least one action when a discrepancy is detected (i.e. the camera required to recognize the shelf label ID from the target image is allowed to be less than the resolution of the camera required to recognize the product information from the target image. Specifically, by displaying the shelf label ID with a large size by constituting the shelf label ID with a shorter character string than the product name or displaying only the shelf label ID on the electronic shelf label 3000 with a large size as illustrated in FIG. 7B, it is possible to suppress the resolution of the camera required to recognize the shelf label ID from the target image so as to be low. By doing so, it is possible to use more compact and lower-price camera comparing to a case where a way of recognizing the product information on the electronic shelf label 3000 from the target image is adopted).
With respect to the newly amended feature of detecting a discrepancy in the content that is to be displayed by the electronic device prior to displaying the content on the electronic display device, Itou teaches on Figure 27 for association match at step S302 and if there’s no match changing the label ID that is closest to the product. Itou appears to recognize a mismatch after the display and not before the display . Nevertheless, JP 3471008 teaches on page 2, 1st paragraph “ error is detected prior to the printing operation, and a printing device roll capable of avoiding erroneous and wasteful printing operations”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in Itou the teachings of JP 3471008 of recognizing the mismatch before/prior to the display/printing because such a modification would avoid “ erroneous and wasteful printing operations”.
With respect to claim 2, Itou further teaches wherein the action includes at least one of the following:
to send an information about the occurrence of a discrepancy to the data provision system, to send an information about the occurrence of a discrepancy to a communication device, to update the content displayed on the electronic display device , trigger an optical or acoustic alarm to document the occurrence of a discrepancy, to update a counter that counts the occurrence of discrepancies (see paragraphs 0193 and 0195 for updating the content).
With respect to claims 3-5, Itou further wherein the detection stage is design to identify/differentiate a pattern in a text of the content or in an image of the content, which identified pattern allows to differentiate between intended and unintended content by using a predefined lookup table of text elements or phrases or image-elements (see look-up table 12 and paragraph 024 for in a case where the shelf label ID 402 and the in-image shelf label ID 410 match to each other, the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060 is “matching”, and in a case where the shelf label ID 402 and the in-image shelf label ID 410 do not match each other, the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060 is “non-matching”. The determination result 412 indicates the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060. A check mark represents “matching”, and an x mark represents “non-matching”).
With respect to claim 6, Itou further teaches wherein the detection stage is designed to analyze the content in order to detect harmful speech or harmful images and/or erroneous images (The determination result 412 indicates the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060. A check mark represents “matching”, and an x mark represents “non-matching” of the image).
With respect to claim 7, Itou further teaches wherein the data provision system (2000) comprises an input device (confirmation reception unit 2180 receives input), which is designed to define at least parts of the content to be displayed by the electronic display device (electronic shelf label 30001), and wherein the input device comprises the detection stage (detection by the camera).
With respect to claim 8, Itou further teaches the display-system (4000) wherein the data provision system (2000) comprises a server or a cloud (see paragraph 0053 for the information processing apparatus 2000 is realized by various types of computers, such as a portable terminal, a personal computer (PC), or a server), which is designed to deliver the content data to the electronic display device (electronic shelf device 3000), and wherein the server or the cloud comprises the detection stage (camera to recognize the shelf label ID ).
With respect to claim 9, Itou further teaches wherein the electronic display device (electronic shelf label 3000) comprises the detection stage (camera to recognize the shelf label ID).
With respect to claim 10, Itou further teaches wherein the display-system (shelf label management system 2000) comprises a camera (camera to recognize the shelf label ID ) which is designed and arranged to capture the content displayed on the at least one electronic display device (electronic shelf label 3000) and to generate capture data , which represent the captured content (electronic shelf label 3000 is a shelf label provided in the vicinity of a product (on a shelf plate of product shelving, or the like), and displays product information. The product information displayed by the electronic shelf label 3000 is, for example, a product name or price).
With respect to claim 11, Itou further taches wherein the data provision system (shelf management system 4000) is designed to receive the capture data and the data provision system (4000) comprises the detection stage (camera to recognize the shelf ID), which is designed to process the capture data to automatically detect a discrepancy already displayed by the electronic display device (The determination result 412 indicates the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060. A check mark represents “matching”, and an x mark represents “non-matching” of the displayed image).
With respect to claim 12, Itou further teaches wherein the data provision system (shelf label management system 4000) is designed to receive the capture data and the data provision system (4000) comprises the detection stage (camera to recognize the shelf ID), which is designed to process the capture data to automatically detect a discrepancy already displayed by the electronic display device (the determination result indicates the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060. A check mark represents “matching”, an x mark represents non matching of the displayed image).
With respect to claim 13, Itou further teaches display-system (Shelf Label Management system 4000), wherein the detection stage (camera to recognize the shelf ID) is arranged to detect the discrepancy by comparing the capture data and the content data (the determination result indicates the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060. A check mark represents “matching”, an x mark represents non matching of the displayed image).
With respect to claim 14, Itou further teaches the display-system (Shelf Label Management system 4000) according wherein the detection stage (camera to recognize the shelf ID) is designed to select an action based on the number of discrepancies detected (the determination result indicates the determination result performed by the determination unit 2060. A check mark represents “matching”, an x mark represents non matching of the displayed image).
Claim 15 further recites the detection stage is further designed to automatically detect another discrepancy in the content already displayed by the electronic display device. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to detect errors or discrepancy on content already displayed. For example, double-entry verification in which the system asks the user to re-enter or re-type information and then compares the two displayed information to double check for errors. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included, detection stage is further designed to automatically detect another discrepancy in the content already displayed by the electronic display device because such a modification would help double check for errors.
With respect to claim 16, Itou further teaches a storage configured to store predefined text elements, phrases, and/or image-elements, wherein the predefined text elements, phrases, and/or image-elements include intended content and/or unintended content, and the detection stage is designed to detect the discrepancy when the content data corresponds with the unintended content and/or to determine that there is no discrepancy when the content data corresponds with the intended content (see paragraph 0018 for the determination unit 2060 determines whether or not the relation information indicating the combination of the “product information and the shelf label ID” is present in the relation information storage unit for the combination of the “product information and shelf label ID” corresponding to the combination of “product 40 and electronic shelf label 3000 closest to each other” recognized from the target image).
References of record but not Applied in the current rejection:
WO 2019/140091 A1 teaches a system for acquiring images of products in a retail store is disclosed. The system may include at least one first housing configured for location on a retail shelving unit, and at least one image capture device included in the at least one first housing and configured relative to the at least one first housing such that an optical axis of the at least one image capture device is directed toward an opposing retail shelving unit when the at least one first housing is fixedly mounted on the retail shelving unit.
Article by SBOnetTM teaches collecting data from locations and turn that data into knowledge and business intelligence.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejections have been maintained. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation pertain to: avoiding displaying content that includes a discrepancy before displaying the content and contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the display is not being improved per se. Instead, the claims pertain to finding discrepancy within the data, in order to correct before the data is display, the display is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it’s considered “apply it”. The display does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622