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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 11-12 have been amended.
Claims 13-17 have been added.
Claims 5-9 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 10-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 01/20/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted in pages 11-12, that:
“Claims 1 to 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception. The rejections are respectfully traversed.
In the Office Action, independent claims 1, 11, and 12 were characterized as an abstract idea related to "item management" (organizing human activity) and concluded that the additional elements are merely generic computer implementations. The Applicant disagrees and submits the following …
(1) Physical Space-Based Position Estimation: The claims now explicitly define the estimation of physical coordinates by combining the "known installation positions" of fixed tags (first wireless devices) with the "amount of relative movement" measured by motion sensors (IMU/PDR). This is a technical process of coordinate transformation in physical space, not a mere organizational task.
(2) Technical History Generation: The system transforms raw sensing data into a structured "time-series history" of area occupancy based on these estimated positions. This occupancy determination on a "time-segment basis" represents a technical way to reconstruct movement trajectories in an indoor environment where GPS is unavailable.
(3) Error-Elimination Logic: The identification process is governed by a rigorous technical comparison utilizing both "degree of coincidence" and "degree of non- coincidence." This dual-criteria filtering logic is a technical mechanism to suppress false attribution (misidentification), providing a significant improvement over manual record- keeping.
As such, the amended claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a concrete technological solution tied to physical sensing and spatial estimation, thus meeting the requirements of Step 2A, Prong 2. Accordingly, the amended claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into concrete technical means tied to physical space (Step 2A, Prong 2) and further provide "significantly more" as an ordered combination (Step 2B).
Substantially, the present invention is not directed to "organizing human activity," but rather to solving a technical problem of how to accurately estimate the positions of objects and users to suppress misattribution in indoor environments where GPS is unavailable. By combining tag reading with relative movement amounts to estimate positions and generate histories, the invention achieves a technical improvement in tracking accuracy that goes beyond generic computer functions.
In view of the foregoing, reconsideration and withdrawal of the §101 rejections are respectfully requested”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the communicating, receiving, estimating, obtaining, obtaining, determining, generating, calculating, excluding, selecting steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “providing a significant improvement over manual record- keeping” suggested by Applicant. The examiner first notes that managing item locations and record keeping is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., sensors data) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, the recited systems, wireless devices, wireless devices, units and sensors, this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for managing item locations and record keeping, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims (1, 11 and 12). Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, 11 and 12, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new reference, Ike et al. (US 20130070105 A1) to teach the new limitations of claims 1, 11 and 12. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations in view of the prior art and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
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 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 10, 13-17 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 11 recites a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 11 and 12 recite the abstract idea of managing item locations and record keeping, see [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of:
1) The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims recite at a high level “communicating … identification information”, “receiving results of reading of the identification information”, “receiving .. measurement … storing known installation positions”, “estimating … the known installation position”, “obtaining history of positions of the item based on results of reading of identification information”, “obtaining a history of movement of each user based on results of reading of identification information”, “determining … generate the history of positions and the history of movement”, “generating actual utilization data … movement of one or more users”, “calculating …”, “excluding …”, “selecting …” all of which are method of organizing human activity to track and manage item location.
2) Mental processes/include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions: The claims recite at a high level of “communicating … identification information”, “receiving results of reading of the identification information”, “receiving .. measurement … storing known installation positions”, “estimating … the known installation position”, “obtaining history of positions of the item based on results of reading of identification information”, “obtaining a history of movement of each user based on results of reading of identification information”, “determining … generate the history of positions and the history of movement”, “generating actual utilization data … movement of one or more users”, “calculating …”, “excluding …”, “selecting …” all of which are data collection, analysis, and observations, evaluations, judgments to select a candidate based on received and analyzed data.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: an item management system, a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas, respectively; a second wireless device attached to an item; a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively; at least one reading apparatus, a wireless device, a history obtaining unit, a generation unit, a position estimation unit,
Claim 11: at least one reading apparatus, a plurality of wireless devices, the plurality of wireless devices including a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas, respectively, a second wireless device attached to an item, and a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively, one or more motion sensors;
Claim 12: a communication unit, at least one reading apparatus, a plurality of wireless devices, the plurality of wireless devices including a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas, respectively, a second wireless device attached to an item, and a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively, a history obtaining unit, a generation unit, a storage, a position estimation unit,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to 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).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to 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).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-4, 10, 13-17 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 12 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea. In addition, claim 13 is considered to recite an abstract idea of mathematical relationship, which is a relationship between variables or numbers, and numerical formula or equation.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-4, 10, 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 12 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 2: the item management system, a reservation management unit, the generation unit,
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7: the item management system, the generation unit,
Claim 5: the item management system,
Claim 8: the item management system, the at least one reading apparatus,
Claim 9: the item management system, the first wireless devices, the at least one reading apparatus, a position estimation unit, the second wireless device or each third wireless device, the history obtaining unit,
Claim 10: the item management system, the wireless device is a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, the at least one reading apparatus,
Claim 14: the generation unit,
Claim 15: the history obtaining unit, first wireless device,
Claim 16: the at least one reading apparatus comprises: an acceleration sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor,
Claim 17: a measuring unit, the at least one reading apparatus, the external device,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of managing item locations and record keeping, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-4 and 10-17, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (US 20180165565 A1, hereinafter “Curtis”) in view of Famularo (US 10339493 B1, hereinafter “Famularo”) further in view of Jose et al. (US 20160277196 A1, hereinafter “Jose”) furthermore Ike et al. (US 20130070105 A1, hereinafter “Ike”).
Regarding claims 11, 1 and 12. Curtis discloses a data generation method performed by an information processing apparatus, comprising:
communicating with at least one reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from a plurality of wireless devices, identification information stored in the wireless devices to receive results of reading of the identification information, (Curtis, [0048]; “The RFID reader 135 may include a microcontroller, an oscillator, a power amplifier, a peak detector, a filter, an amplifier, etc. The RFID reader 135 receives a radio signal in an analog form from an antenna of the antenna unit 134, processes the received analog signal to convert the received analog signal into RFID tag information in a digital form, and provides the RFID tag information to the control unit 136. The RFID tag information is information that is included in the radio signals transmitted from the RFID tags”)
the plurality of wireless devices including a plurality of first wireless devices installed in a plurality of areas (Curtis, [0051]; “a first tag (e.g., an RFID tag 131, a Barcode tag 151, etc.) located in a doorway of a room within a facility to identify a particular room within the facility (e.g., equipment room A within facility 1)”), respectively, a second wireless device attached to an item, and a plurality of third wireless devices carried by a plurality of users, respectively; (Curtis, [0048]; “a part of the connectivity subsystem 130 when it is used to interface with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags 131, 132, and 133. In an alternate embodiment, the RFID tags are near field communication (NFC) tags. While three tags are shown in FIG. 4, the system is not limited to any particular number of tags”)
obtaining a history of positions of the item based on results of reading of identification information from the first wireless devices and the second wireless device by the at least one reading apparatus; (Curtis, [0050]; “If a tag (e.g., an RFID tag or a Barcode tag) is placed on a piece of equipment, its tag information may be used to identify the type of the equipment … retrieve additional information such as at least one of the identity of the facility, the area, the floor, and the room in which the equipment is located … When the tag is not placed on equipment, its tag information can be used to identify a particular facility, area, floor, or room”)
Curtis substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Curtis fails to explicitly disclose the “obtaining a history of movement of each user based on results of reading of identification information from the first wireless devices and the third wireless device by the at least one reading apparatus; and generating actual utilization data associating the item with a user who has utilized the item based on comparison between the history of positions of the item and the history of movement of one or more users”. However, Famularo teaches:
obtaining a history of movement (Famularo, col. 12-lines 7-12; “The user interface may also provide action information 611 representative of the determined action. For example, the action information 611 “Picked From Shelf” provides a visual confirmation to the user that the action (picking an item from an inventory location) has been properly determined”) of each user based on results of reading of identification information from the first wireless devices and the third wireless device (Famularo, col. 4-lines 42-54; “When the user 204 arrives at the materials handling facility 200 … the user may present an identifier (e.g., identification badge, card), an active tag (e.g., RFID tag) in the possession of the user may be detected using an active tag reader”) by the at least one reading apparatus; (Famularo, col. 4-lines 35-41; “The light curtain may also include a reader, such as an active tag reader, that can detect a tag included on an item as the item passes into or out of the inventory location. For example, if the item includes an RFID tag (an active tag) a RFID reader (active tag reader) may detect the RFID as the item passes into or out of the inventory location”, col. 11-lines 3-9; “ “the user identification subroutine 1300 determines an identity of the user involved in the event and a user identification confidence score representing a confidence that the user has been properly identified … The item determination subroutine 1500 determines the item involved in the event and an item determination confidence score representing a confidence that the item has been properly determined”)
generating actual utilization data associating the item with a user who has utilized the item based on comparison between the history of positions of the item and the history of movement of one or more users. (Famularo, see Fig. 9 below, col. 10-lines 48-53; “routine 500 begins upon the detection of an event. An event may be an activity within a materials handling facility. For example, an event may include a user picking an item from an inventory location, a user placing an item at an inventory location, a user placing an item into a tote or a user picking an item from a tote”, col. 14-lines 17-20; “the user interface 900, item information 903 is provided that confirms to the identified user that the item involved in the event has been properly determined”)
PNG
media_image1.png
289
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include obtaining a history of movement of each user based on results of reading of identification information from the first wireless devices and the third wireless device by the at least one reading apparatus; and generating actual utilization data associating the item with a user who has utilized the item based on comparison between the history of positions of the item and the history of movement of one or more users, as taught by Famularo, where this would be performed in order to maintain inventory in customer accessible areas (e.g., shopping area) and customers can locate items from within the store, pick the items from inventory and take them to a cashier for purchase, rental, etc. See Famularo, col. 1-lines 12-16.
The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “receiving, from the at least one reading apparatus, measurement information indicating an amount of relative movement from a reference position measured by using one or more motion sensors, and storing known installation positions of the first wireless devices; estimating, for each of (i) the item and (ii) each user, a position at a second point in time based on (A) the amount of relative movement measured from a first point in time at which identification information has been read from one of the first wireless devices to the second point in time at which identification information has been read from the second wireless device or the third wireless device, and (B) the known installation position of said one of the first wireless devices; determining, based on the estimated positions, in which area the item has existed and in which area each user has existed at each time segment in a time series to generate the history of positions and the history of movement;”. However, Jose teaches:
receiving, from the at least one reading apparatus, measurement information indicating an amount of relative movement from a reference position measured by using one or more motion sensors, and storing known installation positions of the first wireless devices; (Jose, [0105]; “the example device 1000 includes one or more sensors 1012 coupled to a processor/controller 1010. For example, the sensors 1012 may include motion sensors to provide relative movement and/or orientation information (which is independent of motion data derived from signals received by the wide area network transceiver(s) 1004, the local area network transceiver(s) 1006, and/or the SPS receiver 1008)”)
estimating, for each of (i) the item and (ii) each user, a position at a second point in time based on (A) the amount of relative movement measured from a first point in time at which identification information has been read from one of the first wireless devices to the second point in time at which identification information has been read from the second wireless device or the third wireless device, and (B) the known installation position of said one of the first wireless devices; (Jose, [0058]; “a wireless device (from the multiple wireless devices receiving and broadcasting messages that include timing and identification information relating, for example, to previously received broadcast messages and to a current broadcast message) is configured to use the information it obtained over a period of time (which may be a pre-determined time period that is the same or different from the period at which the devices transmit their broadcast messages) to determine ranges (distances) between itself and one or more of the other wireless devices (e.g., non-stationary wireless devices) from which it received broadcast messages”)
determining, based on the estimated positions, in which area the item has existed and in which area each user has existed at each time segment in a time series to generate the history of positions and the history of movement; and (Jose, [0052]; “The data segment 300 also includes a time field 330 with a time (and possibly date) corresponding to the message in question (i.e., the message identified in the fields 310 and/or 320). In some embodiments, the time/date information may be obtained using an internal clock employed by the device that obtained/recorded the timing information included in the time field 330 … data segment (e.g., time-of-arrival timing information, time-of-departure timing information, etc.)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include receiving, from the at least one reading apparatus, measurement information indicating an amount of relative movement from a reference position measured by using one or more motion sensors, and storing known installation positions of the first wireless devices; estimating, for each of (i) the item and (ii) each user, a position at a second point in time based on (A) the amount of relative movement measured from a first point in time at which identification information has been read from one of the first wireless devices to the second point in time at which identification information has been read from the second wireless device or the third wireless device, and (B) the known installation position of said one of the first wireless devices; determining, based on the estimated positions, in which area the item has existed and in which area each user has existed at each time segment in a time series to generate the history of positions and the history of movement, as taught by Jose, where this would be performed in order to facilitate navigation functionalities. See Jose [0002].
The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “wherein generating the actual utilization data comprises: calculating a degree of coincidence and a degree of non-coincidence between the histories on a time-frame basis; excluding, from a candidate user set, a user whose degree of non- coincidence exceeds a criterion value; and selecting a user based on the degree of coincidence”. However, Ike teaches:
wherein generating the actual utilization data comprises: calculating a degree of coincidence and a degree of non-coincidence between the histories on a time-frame basis; (Ike, [0017]; “. The acquiring unit is configured to image a tracking target object to acquire an image in units of time-sequential frames. The first calculator is configured to calculate a first likelihood representing a degree of coincidence between a pixel value of each of pixels included in a search region within the image, in which the tracking target object is to be searched for and a reference value representing a feature of the tracking target object … determining unit is configured to determine the position of the tracking target object from the candidate position based on a predetermined criterion”)
excluding, from a candidate user set, a user whose degree of non- coincidence exceeds a criterion value; and (Ike, [0057]; “a candidate position whose integrated likelihood is low and which is less likely to be selected as the position of the tracking target object may be excluded from the candidate positions”)
selecting a user based on the degree of coincidence. (Ike, [0057]; “candidate positions whose integrated likelihood exceeds a predetermined threshold value may be selected. Moreover, only candidate positions whose relative value to the maximum value of the integrated likelihoods exceeds a predetermined value may be selected”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include generating the actual utilization data comprises: calculating a degree of coincidence and a degree of non-coincidence between the histories on a time-frame basis; excluding, from a candidate user set, a user whose degree of non- coincidence exceeds a criterion value; and selecting a user based on the degree of coincidence, as taught by Ike, where this would be performed in order to prevent false recognition. See Ike [0003].
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 1, wherein the item management system further comprises:
Curtis substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Curtis fails to explicitly disclose the “a reservation management unit configured to manage reservation data that indicates a reservation of utilization of the item in a database, wherein the generation unit is configured to generate the actual utilization data further based on the reservation data”. However, Famularo teaches:
a reservation management unit configured to manage reservation data that indicates a reservation of utilization of the item in a database, (Famularo, col. 25-lines 31-35; “The user information data store 1826 may include user characteristics, preferences (e.g., how user interfaces are to be presented), usage history, purchase history, item identifier list, and other information specific to an individual user”)
wherein the generation unit is configured to generate the actual utilization data further based on the reservation data. (Famularo, col. 14-lines 17-21; “the user interface 900, item information 903 is provided that confirms to the identified user that the item involved in the event has been properly determined”)
PNG
media_image1.png
289
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include a reservation management unit configured to manage reservation data that indicates a reservation of utilization of the item in a database, wherein the generation unit is configured to generate the actual utilization data further based on the reservation data, as taught by Famularo, where this would be performed in order to maintain inventory in customer accessible areas (e.g., shopping area) and customers can locate items from within the store, pick the items from inventory and take them to a cashier for purchase, rental, etc. See Famularo, col. 1-lines 12-16.
Regarding claim 10. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 1, wherein the wireless device is a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, and the at least one reading apparatus is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave to a reading range and read information sent back from the wireless device utilizing energy of the electromagnetic wave. (Curtis, [0048]; “The antenna unit 134 includes one or more antennas, which are configured to radiate a radio signal that induces a radio signal to be transmitted by the tags 131-133 … RFID reader 135 receives a radio signal”)
Regarding claim 13. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit is configured to:
The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “define, for each user k, T as a number of time segments in which the item is detected during the certain period; define rk as a number of time segments in which an area in which the item has existed coincides with an area in which the user k has existed; define sk as a number of time segments in which the area in which the item has existed does not coincide with the area in which the user k has existed; calculate a degree of coincidence Rk = rk / T and a degree of non- coincidence Sk = sk / T; and exclude the user k when Sk exceeds the criterion value”. However, Ike teaches:
define, for each user k, T as a number of time segments in which the item is detected during the certain period; (Ike, [0017]; “The acquiring unit is configured to image a tracking target object to acquire an image in units of time-sequential frames”)
define rk as a number of time segments in which an area in which the item has existed coincides with an area in which the user k has existed; define sk as a number of time segments in which the area in which the item has existed does not coincide with the area in which the user k has existed; calculate a degree of coincidence Rk = rk / T and a degree of non- coincidence Sk = sk / T; and exclude the user k when Sk exceeds the criterion value. (Ike, [0063]; “A method of calculating the third likelihood is optional. For example, when the amount of change of the moving direction (angle) of the tracking target object in the frames of the past is Md, the amount of change of the moving speed is Ms, the value of the moving direction is Tmd, and the value of the moving speed is Tms, the third likelihood Dm may be calculated by Expression 4 below.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
91
1128
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include define, for each user k, T as a number of time segments in which the item is detected during the certain period; define rk as a number of time segments in which an area in which the item has existed coincides with an area in which the user k has existed; define sk as a number of time segments in which the area in which the item has existed does not coincide with the area in which the user k has existed; calculate a degree of coincidence Rk = rk / T and a degree of non- coincidence Sk = sk / T; and exclude the user k when Sk exceeds the criterion value, as taught by Ike, where this would be performed in order to prevent false recognition. See Ike [0003].
Regarding claim 14. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit is configured to
The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “perform primary filtering to determine candidate users by: selecting up to M areas appearing in the history of positions of the item during the certain period; and specifying, as the candidate users, users whose histories of movement include at least one of the selected areas”. However, Jose teaches:
perform primary filtering to determine candidate users by: selecting up to M areas appearing in the history of positions of the item during the certain period; and specifying, as the candidate users, users whose histories of movement include at least one of the selected areas. (Jose, [0024]; “content comprising earlier information related to one or more earlier broadcast communications previously received by the first wireless device from one or more wireless devices. That is, in some embodiments, broadcast messages transmitted by a particular wireless device may include information (e.g., timing information, identification information) related to earlier broadcast messages, from one or more wireless devices, received by the particular wireless device”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include perform primary filtering to determine candidate users by: selecting up to M areas appearing in the history of positions of the item during the certain period; and specifying, as the candidate users, users whose histories of movement include at least one of the selected areas, as taught by Jose, where this would be performed in order to facilitate navigation functionalities. See Jose [0002].
Regarding claim 15. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 1, wherein the history obtaining unit is configured to determine the area in which the item or the user has existed based on the estimated position by: determining the area associated with a first wireless device whose known installation position is closest to the estimated position; or determining the area when the estimated position falls within a region of the area defined by a radius or boundary information. (Curtis, [0062]; “The equipment table may also list the dimensional extent of each sub-component (e.g., its length and width, its radius, etc.) or a boundary area around the sub-component. For example, the equipment table could list that each sub-component has a 4×19 extent so that the boundary of each sub-component can be derived”)
Regarding claim 16. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one reading apparatus comprises:
The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “an acceleration sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor, and is configured to measure the amount of relative movement based on outputs of the acceleration sensor, the gyroscope sensor, and the geomagnetic sensor”. However, Jose teaches:
an acceleration sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor, and is configured to measure the amount of relative movement based on outputs of the acceleration sensor, the gyroscope sensor, and the geomagnetic sensor. (Jose, [0105]; “the motion sensors may include an accelerometer 1012 a, a gyroscope 1012 b, and a geomagnetic (magnetometer) sensor 1012 c (e.g., a compass), any of which may be implemented based on micro-electro-mechanical-system (MEMS), or based on some other technology”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include an acceleration sensor, a gyroscope sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor, and is configured to measure the amount of relative movement based on outputs of the acceleration sensor, the gyroscope sensor, and the geomagnetic sensor, as taught by Jose, where this would be performed in order to facilitate navigation functionalities. See Jose [0002].
Regarding claim 17. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 16, wherein a measuring unit configured to
The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “measure the amount of relative movement is included in an external device that is capable of communicating with the at least one reading apparatus and is carried by the user along with the at least one reading apparatus, and the at least one reading apparatus is configured to receive movement amount information from the external device”. However, Jose teaches:
measure the amount of relative movement is included in an external device that is capable of communicating with the at least one reading apparatus and is carried by the user along with the at least one reading apparatus, and the at least one reading apparatus is configured to receive movement amount information from the external device. (Jose, [0105]; “the sensors 1012 may include motion sensors to provide relative movement and/or orientation information (which is independent of motion data derived from signals received by the wide area network transceiver(s) 1004, the local area network transceiver(s) 1006, and/or the SPS receiver 1008)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include measure the amount of relative movement is included in an external device that is capable of communicating with the at least one reading apparatus and is carried by the user along with the at least one reading apparatus, and the at least one reading apparatus is configured to receive movement amount information from the external device, as taught by Jose, where this would be performed in order to facilitate navigation functionalities. See Jose [0002].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike further in view of Henry (US 20160042423 A1, hereinafter “Henry”).
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 2, wherein the generation unit is configured to, in a case where
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the reservation data indicates that a first user has been scheduled to utilize the item during a certain period, compare a history of positions of the item during the period and a history of movement of at least the first user during the period, preferentially to histories of movement of users other than the first user”. However, Henry teaches:
the reservation data indicates that a first user has been scheduled to utilize the item during a certain period, compare a history of positions of the item during the period and a history of movement of at least the first user during the period, preferentially to histories of movement of users other than the first user. (Henry, [0076]; “At block 908, service management module 738 receives, stores and/or otherwise updates key data 750 for vehicles 310 … determine the availability of a key/ignition device for a particular vehicle 310, check-in/check-out a key, and/or reserve a key”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Curtis to include the reservation data indicates that a first user has been scheduled to utilize the item during a certain period, compare a history of positions of the item during the period and a history of movement of at least the first user during the period, preferentially to histories of movement of users other than the first user, as taught by Henry, where this would be performed in order to monitor the availability of, to reserve an asset. See Henry [0055].
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Curtis in view of Famularo further in view of Jose furthermore in view Ike disclose the item management system according to claim 2, wherein the generation unit is configured to, in
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the "a case where histories of movement of a second user and a third user have a comparable level of correlation with a history of positions of the item, preferentially determine that the user who has been scheduled to utilize the item as indicated by the reservation data from among the second user and the third user is the user who has utilized the item". However, Henry teaches:
a case where histories of movement of a second user and a third user have a
comparable level of correlation with a history of positions of the item, preferentially
determine that the user who has been scheduled to utilize the item as indicated by the
reservation data from among the second user and the third user is the user who has
utilized the item. (Henry, [0064]; "Customer data 772 may comprise information
associated with end users/customers utilizing ID application 420 (e.g., profile data 426,
showroom data 434 and/or end user vehicle data 436) … Key data 774 may comprise
information associated with the availability and/or reservation/checking-out/checking-in
of a key/ignition device")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Curtis to include a case where histories of movement of a
second user and a third user have a comparable level of correlation with a history of
positions of the item, preferentially determine that the user who has been scheduled to
utilize the item as indicated by the reservation data from among the second user and the
third user is the user who has utilized the item, as taught by Henry, where this would be
performed in order to monitor the availability of, to reserve an asset. See Henry [0055].
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pugh et al. (US20160171451 A1) for teaching wirelessly received information including a device code and an employee code.
Rasband et al. (US20130048721A1) for teaching an item database that stores at least one item identifier and corresponding item data for at least one item.
TAKAHASHI (US20220270028A1) for teaching acquire information on a movement history of a commodity based on detection of each movement of the commodity by a sensor.
MATSUBARA YU (WO2010116855A1) for teaching causes the RFID reader to read the identification information of the article recorded on the RFID tag when renting, returning, or taking inventory of the article.
KAMIYA HIROTADA (JP2010134621A) for teaching movement history management system.
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627