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 .
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.
IT is noted that claims 1-10 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims could be construed as an abstract idea, the claims provide a practical application, i.e. commodity recognition and interfacing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a comparison with many “and’s between. It appears as if the applicant intends to claim, judging by the applicant’s specification, i.e. paragraph 38 of the PGPub the comparison is between “an object included in the latest image and a detection position of the object in the latest image” with “an object included in the oldest image and a detection position of the object in the oldest image”. Currently, the claim states that each of the “a detection position of the object” is in “the image”. “The image” is interpreted as the image claimed in claim 1 as “an image.” The applicant separately claims separate images: “an image” (claim 1), “oldest image” (claim 3), “(captured) latest image” (claim 3). Therefore, the wording in claim 4 does not make sense with respect to the specification, in which the latest image and the detection position of the image of claim 1 is compared to the old(est?) image and another detection position of the image of claim 1. If the applicant intends for this to be what is claimed, and the wording remains, an enablement rejection would follow. The examiner is interpreting the claim to be that as consistent with the specification, but appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the old image" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the detection position of the object in the image” in lines 3-4. It is unclear as to which detection position the applicant is referring to, given claim 4 claims two separate “a detection positions of the object in the image”s.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20220157134 (Sriraman et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250053241 (Takahashi et al)
Regarding claim 10, Sriraman et al discloses a commodity registration method (fig. 4a), comprising: capturing, by an imaging device, an image of a place in which a commodity is put (fig. 4A, item 404); detecting an object on a basis of the image captured by the imaging device (fig. 4A. item 406); determining a commodity on a basis of an image including the detected object through image recognition processing (page 4, paragraph 59, fig. 4A, item 406); and causing the display device to display a notice indicating the determination processing status during the determination processing for the commodity by displaying messages regarding the determinations (fig. 4a, item 422, 412).
Sriraman et al does not disclose expressly a determination processing status for display is that determination processing is in progress.
Takahashi et al discloses a determination processing status for display is that determination processing is in progress (page 20, paragraph 223).
Sriraman et al and Takahashi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. display interfaces.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to display that the status is “in progress”.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user friendly system by keeping users updated on status.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Sriraman et al with the “in progress” display of Takahashi et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claim 1. Claim 1 distinguishes from claim 10 only in that claim 1 is a terminal comprising an imaging device that captures the claimed image, a display device that displays a notice and a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 10. Sriraman et al teaches further this feature, i.e. a terminal (fig. 2A, item 200, fig. 3B, item 220) comprising an imaging device that captures the claimed image (fig. 2A, item 222, fig. 2B, item 22A-B, fig. 4A, item 404), a display device (fig. 2A, item 220, fig. 2B, item 260A) that displays a notice (fig. 4A, items 412, 422) and a processor (Fig. 2A item 220, fig. 2B, item 250) configured to carry out the method of claim 10 (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 8, Sriraman et al discloses the imaging device is provided in a cart (fig. 2A item 222), and the processor detects the object on a basis of a fact that a commodity has been put in the cart by detecting the weight of the commodity put in the cart (fig. 4A, item 402).
Regarding claim 9, Sriraman et al discloses the processor changes the display, and thus hiding previous notices, on a basis of a fact that the commodity has been determined (fig. 4A, item 412, 422. Takahashi et al discloses the notice is that of claim 1 (page 20, paragraph 23) and that the old message is hidden when processing has succeeded by a change in display (page 20, paragraph 228).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sriraman et al in view of Takahashi et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12175577 (Campbell).
Regarding claim 2, Sriraman et al (as modified by Takahashi et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Sriraman et al further discloses a memory, mass storage device (page 6, paragraph 86) for storing data about the image captured by the imaging device, i.e. notification information, item information, display information and image data (page 6, paragraph 86), wherein the memory has a storage area for storing data of the captured image (page 6, paragraph 86).
Sriraman et al does not disclose expressly storage area for storing a plurality of frames.
Campbell discloses storage area for storing a plurality of frames by storing video data (col. 1, lines 37-38).
Sriraman et al and Campbell are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. image storage.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store multiple frames.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by remembering past data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Sriraman et al (as modified by Takahashi et al) with the multiple frames stored of Campbell to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell discloses the processor deletes data about oldest image stored in the storage area when storing data about a captured latest image in the storage area by erasing the oldest data with new incoming data (co. 1, lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell discloses the processor determines whether or not there is a change/ movement by comparing an object included in the latest image and a detection position of the object in the image with an object included in the old image and a detection position of the object in the image (col. 16, lines 1-8) on a basis of the data about the image stored in the memory, i.e. the image stored and the metadata that identifies the object and its position (col. 15, line 30-65).
Regarding claim 5, Sriraman et al discloses the processor detects an object included in the latest image on a basis of the data about the latest image determined to correspond to a change, i.e. a change in weight (fig. 4a, item 402). Campbell discloses object detection based on the change (col. 15, lines 63-67, col. 16, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 6, Sriraman et al discloses the processor causes the detected object, item information (page 6, paragraph 86) to be stored in the memory in association with the data about the image stored in the memory, since it is stored together in the mass storage device of page 6, paragraph 86. Campbell discloses the processor causes the detected object and the detection position of the object (col. 15, lines 55-67, fig. 2, item 184a, 186b) in the image to be stored in the memory (fig. 2, item 130) in association with the data about the image stored in the memory (fig.2, item 180).
Regarding claim 7, Sriraman et al discloses the processor causes the display device to display a notice after the detected object and the detection position of the object, i.e. in the cart (fig. 4a, item 402) in the image are stored in the memory, since the processed data is stored in memory before display of fig. 4A, item 406 occurs before item 412, 420). Campbell discloses the detection position of the object as claimed is stored with the detected object (fig. 2, item 184a, 186b), and Takahashi et la discloses the claimed notice (page 20, paragraph 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights