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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s Specification ¶ 45 discloses that a “control point” can be represented by an icon in a storage unit report. “The storage unit report can include any information describing the storage units, storage unit counts 136, the inventory 116, the spatial search 120, coordinates of the spatial search 120, the control points 132, coordinates of the control points 132, the digital models 140, the spatial labels 144,storage unit identifiers, icons 152, and/or the like”.
Applicant’s Specification ¶ 64 discloses an “augmented reality icon” as: “active/augmented reality objects such as, for example, 3D digital representations that virtually and visually emphasize, identify and/or augment each storage unit from a set of storage units in the inventory 316.” Any physical object, such as a shelf, identified by data on a display is considered to be an augmented reality icon.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 28-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,002,008 B2 in view of Verma et al., US 2022027462 A1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim similar subject matter wherein the differences would be obvious, for example: calculating a storage unit count from a plurality of storage unit counts and for each unit type from the plurality of unit types from the plurality of storage units detected, based on depth calculation (of a shelf).
Verma further discloses: locating (or touching) a control point (or landmark) used to determine a spatial search in the plurality of image frames, (see Verma, ¶ 36, “The processing system controls the camera 34 to obtain images of the items. The obtained images are then analyzed in step S6 to obtain a count of the items on the self at that particular appendage position. The item count is then transferred to an inventory management system to update the information in the inventory management system”). The particular appendage position is considered to be a type of control point identified by an augmented reality icon in a virtual space as claimed.
Claims 35-40 and 45 include an augmented reality icon which is obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,002,008 B2 as follows:
based on the location of the object in the virtual space, an augmented reality icon indicating the control point at a first position on a display of the user device, (see US 12,002,008 B2, claims 2-5 “icons displayed in front”);
receiving, from a user of the user device, an input moving the control point augmented reality icon from the first position on the display to a second position on the display, , (see US 12,002,008 B2, claim 4 “adjust”).
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.
Claim(s) 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., US 20150052029 A1, in view of Rongley, US 20220012677 A1, and further in view of Verma et al., US 2022027462 A1.
28. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a sensor operatively coupled to a processor of a user device, a plurality of image frames of an inventory, (see Wu, ¶ 14)(depth cameras or sensors may be used to capture depth images. The depth images may be analyzed to determine a change in depth indicating that an item has been taken, sold, moved, and the like.);
calculate, based on the control point indication of the user touching the landmark, a depth of a shelf in the inventory, (see Wu, ¶ 26)(to detect a decrease in inventory, a depth difference between a reference depth map of the ROI (e.g., from the inventory DB 116) and depth images of the currently acquired depth image video frame of the ROI may be first calculated. Optionally, the difference maps may be further processed via depth thresholding, followed by morphological filtering and physical size thresholding.);
calculate a storage unit count from a plurality of storage unit counts and for each unit type from the plurality of unit types from the plurality of storage units detected based on the depth of the shelf, (see Wu, ¶ 26)(to detect a decrease in inventory, a depth difference between a reference depth map of the ROI (e.g., from the inventory DB 116) and depth images of the currently acquired depth image video frame of the ROI may be first calculated), and
send a signal to output each storage unit count from the plurality of storage unit counts on a display of the user device, (see Wu, ¶ 56-57)(graphic display).
Wu fails to disclose the following taught by Verma:
receive, from the sensor, an indication of a user touching an object in the inventory, (see Verma, ¶ 35, “The touch sensor 30, for example, can be used to count a spring-loaded stack of items by using pressure on the touch sensor to count the number of items”).
locate, based on the indication of the user touching the object in the inventory, a control point in a virtual space, the virtual space being representative of the inventory, (see Verma, ¶ 36, “The processing system controls the camera 34 to obtain images of the items. The obtained images are then analyzed in step S6 to obtain a count of the items on the self at that particular appendage position. The item count is then transferred to an inventory management system to update the information in the inventory management system”). The particular appendage position is considered to be a type of control point in a virtual space as claimed.
Wu and Verma fails to disclose the following taught by Rongley:
identify, based on inputting the plurality of image frames into a machine learning model, a plurality of storage units associated with the shelf, each storage unit from the plurality of storage units associated with a unit type from a plurality of unit types, (see Rongley,¶ 138)(machine learning algorithms may also be implemented for determining an appropriate arrangement of storage units in a grocery store and/or determining what inventory items should be presented to a particular customer, to name two non-limiting examples.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Wu, Varna, and Rongley because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. Wu, Varna, and Rongley fall within CPC class G06 Q 10/087 Inventory or stock management, e.g. order filling, procurement or balancing against orders;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Varma, ¶ 25)(to see or count the products that are located deep behind the first object and therefore would be unable to determine how many products are on the shelf.);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation to combine is applied to all remaining claims herein by reference.
29. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 28, wherein the object is at least one of a wall, a floor or a ceiling, (see Wu, ¶ 22)(the ROI locator 112 may determine pixel locations of areas within the images captured by the depth sensing device 108 that correspond to the ROI (e.g., a shelf region, or any other region that is being monitored for inventory management)).
30. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 28, wherein the instructions to cause the processor to identify include instructions to cause the processor to identify the plurality of storage units based on at least one of shape analysis, text analysis or optical character recognition (OCR) , (see Verma, ¶ 36, “The processing system controls the camera 34 to obtain images of the items. The obtained images are then analyzed in step S6 to obtain a count of the items on the shelf at that particular appendage position”).
31. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 28, wherein the instructions to cause the processor to calculate the depth of the shelf include instructions to cause the processor to calculate the depth of the shelf based on a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor at the user device, (see Wu, ¶ 19).
32. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 28, further comprising instructions to cause the processor to: determine a restock status of each unit type from the plurality of unit types based on the storage unit count for that unit type; and automatically generate a replenish request based on the restock status, (see Wu, ¶ 37)(a width of the item may be known. As a result, the total depth divided by the width of the item may be used to determine by how much the inventory level has decreased for the item. In one embodiment, this information may be used to set the threshold. For example, an inventory level of a row of soda cans is being monitored. The cans may each have a width of four inches. If a retailer wants to restock inventory when the inventory level is decreased by five cans, then the threshold may be set to 20 inches (e.g., 4 (inches/can).times.5 cans=20 inches). The above threshold is only an example and any value may be used based upon a particular application or item being monitored.).
33. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 28, wherein the sensor is not fixed and is configured to capture the plurality of image frames in substantially real time, (see Verma, ¶ 39 “This allows the data to be processed in less than a few milliseconds which gives the user real-time information.’).
34. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 28, further comprising instructions to cause the processor to: identify a duplicate storage unit based on the plurality of storage unit counts; and exclude the duplicate storage unit from the storage unit count associated with the duplicate storage unit, (see Rongley, ¶ 94)(the retail controller or autonomous storage units may test out different arrangements (e.g., length of aisle, area of store in which autonomous storage units holding certain inventory items are arranged) and compare performance results of the same to determine an optimal arrangement for the retail store…For instance, a retail controller in territory ‘A’ may receive an indication from a controller in territory ‘B’ that a particular arrangement of storage units optimizes sales.). De-duplication as claimed is considered to be a form of optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 28-34 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights