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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 07/16/2026 has been considered.
Claims 16-18, 20-21, 25-25, and 27 are amended. Claims 28 is added. Claims 16-28 remain pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 16-17 and 26 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 18-25, and 17-28 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 16-17 and 26 recite obtaining an image, detecting empty areas in the obtained image, recognizing in the obtained image an arrangement of electronic shelf labels in rows of ordered electronic shelf labels; assigning to each electronic shelf label of the recognized arrangement a row number and a label number: identifying, in the obtained image, an area of the gondola unique to the detected electronic shelf label; and determining whether the identified area corresponds to a detected empty area; and for each electronic shelf label of the recognized arrangement whose identified area is determined to correspond to one of the detected empty areas: determining the product slot field unique to the electronic shelf label based on the row number and the label number assigned to the electronic shelf label; and retrieving, from a realogram database, an article identifier associated with the determined product slot field; deducing that an article associated with the retrieved article identifier is out-of-stock; and outputting a signal alert.
The Claims 16-17 and 26 recite detecting, recognizing, assigning, identifying, determining, deducing, and outputting steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and cover performance of managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code instructions which, when executed by a processor, a gondola, an imaging device, and a realogram database”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity and in the mind. For example, but for the “the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the processor, the gondola, the imaging device, and the realogram database” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually detects empty areas in the images, recognizes an arrangement of electronic shelf labels, assigns a row number and a label number to each electronic shelf label, identifies an area of the gondola unique to the electronic shelf label, determines whether the identified area corresponds to a detected empty area, determines the product slot field unique to the electronic shelf label, deducing an article if out of stock, and outputs a signal alert. 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. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because obtaining and retrieving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining images and retrieving article identifiers step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of obtaining, detecting, recognizing, assigning, identifying, determining, retrieving, deducing, and outputting in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the processor, the gondola, the imaging device, and the realogram database are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform obtaining, detecting, recognizing, assigning, identifying, determining, retrieving, deducing, and outputting steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 16, 17, and 26 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 16, 17, and 26 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, the additional elements of using the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the processor, the gondola, the imaging device, and the realogram database to perform obtaining, detecting, recognizing, assigning, identifying, determining, retrieving, deducing, and outputting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 16, 17, and 26 are not patent eligible.
Claims 18-25, and 17-28, disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 18-25, and 17-28 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 18-25, and 17-28 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 18-25, and 17-28 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 218-25, and 17-28. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 18-25, and 17-28 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-28 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if the 101 rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s arguments and amendments mailed on 07/16/2026.
Bogolea and Schwatz discloses the claimed invention, however, Bogolea and Schwatz does not disclose and teach recognizing in the obtained image an arrangement of electronic shelf labels in rows of ordered electronic shelf labels; assigning to each electronic shelf label of the recognized arrangement a row number and a label number; and determining the product slot field unique to the electronic shelf label based on the row number and the label number assigned to the electronic shelf label.
The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed for patent, are novel and unobvious.
A search for non-patent literature (NPL) was conducted, however, no relevant NPL prior art was found.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee, and to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled Comments on Statement of Reasons for allowance.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights