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 01 April 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “holder unit configured to hold,” “first/second/third image capture unit configured to capture an image,” and “control unit configured to control operation,” in claims 1, 14, and 15, and the “management apparatus configured to transfer,” “receiver unit configured to receive,” and “transmitter unit configured to transmit,” in claims 14 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, the “holder unit” of claims 1, 14, and 15 is being interpreted as a “gripper,” per at least Page 9, Lines 17-26 of the present specification, the “first/second/third image capture unit(s)” are being interpreted as “camera(s),” per at least Page 11, Lines 20-30 and Page 14, Lines 4-14 of the present specification, the “control unit” is being interpreted as a “computer,” per at least Page 18, Lines 9-22 of the present specification. Further, the “receiver unit” and “transmitter unit” are being interpreted as “wired or wireless communication interfaces,” per at least Page 17, Lines 1-13 of the present specification, and the “management apparatus” is being interpreted as a “computer”, per at least Page 46, Lines 5-9 of the present specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 and 14-27 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “a first image capture unit positioned on one side of the arm unit and configured to capture an image of the display shelf … [and] a second image capture unit positioned on an opposite side of the arm unit and configured to capture an image of the stock shelf….” The examiner notes that these limitations render the claim indefinite, as there is no indication within the language of the claim as to what the “opposite side of the arm unit” is “opposite” to. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite, for example, “a first image capture unit positioned on a first side of the arm unit and configured to capture an image of the display shelf … [and] a second image capture unit positioned on a second side of the arm unit and configured to capture an image of the stock shelf, wherein the second side of the arm unit is the side of the arm unit opposite to the first side of the arm unit…” or the like.
Claims 14 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected. Claims 16-27 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their respective base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 14, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 16-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest pieces of prior art are Tsunoda (JP2020151349A), Cheruku (US 20190060803 A1), Taylor (US 20180247264 A1), Wagner (US 20170225330 A1), Sugahara (US 20190080278 A1), Rho (KR20170094103A), and Masaki (JP2018110755A)
Tsunoda teaches a merchandise display apparatus, wherein a replenishment apparatus is located between stock shelves and display shelves, and wherein, responsive to a determination that a product is running low, the replenishment apparatus is operable to move to the stock location of that product, grab the product, and replenish the display shelves. Tsunoda is silent, however, with regards to the use of an imaging system to determine products in need of replenishment, is further silent with regards to the use of the imaging system to identify the position of the stock product (which is known a priori), and explicitly recites wherein the stock products are placed in an orientation different from that of the displayed product.
Cheruku teaches a merchandise tracking system, wherein an imaging unit is operable to take images of a display shelf, determine items in need of restocking, and send a warning that an item is in need of restocking to a supply management server. Cheruku, however, is silent with regards to the arm unit, and teaches wherein the display shelf and the stock room are located separately.
Taylor teaches an inventory management system, wherein an imaging device is operable to detect products in an image, and to audit products stocked in a store.
Wagner teaches a robotic system operable to grasp non-homogenous objects in an unstructured environment, wherein an imaging system operably coupled to a robotic arm is able to determine proper grasp poses for the robotic arm to pick up specific items in the environment, and specifically wherein the robot arm is operable to not grasp an object at a position that could result in a poor grasp, such as a cap of a bottle.
Sugahara teaches a robotic restocking system, wherein a mobile robot is operable to replenish products in a locker so that the contents of the locker are able to be picked up by a consumer.
Rho teaches a mobile robot scanning system, wherein a plurality of cameras located on a mobile robot are operable to capture images of merchandise shelves while the mobile robot is operable to traverse the environment.
Masaki teaches a merchandise display system in a show case, wherein a detection component determines whether a number of merchandise in a row becomes equal to or lower than a threshold, and a replenishing part is controlled to replenish the merchandise from a stock. Masaki is silent, however, with regards to a stock shelf, and is further silent with regards to using image data generated by image capturing to determine a product in need of replenishment.
No reference, however, as a whole or in combination, teaches, discloses, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious:
A product transfer apparatus configured to move a stock product placed on a stock shelf in a first orientation to a display shelf which is different from the stock shelf, the product transfer apparatus comprising:
A holder unit configured to hold the stock product;
An arm unit configured to move the holder unit to the stock shelf and the display shelf, wherein the holder unit is at an end of the arm unit;
A first image capture unit positioned on one side of the arm unit and configured to capture an image of the display shelf;
A second image capture unit positioned on an opposite side of the arm unit and configured to capture an image of the stock shelf;
A third image capture unit configured to capture an image of both the display shelf and the stock shelf;
A control unit configured to control operation of the holder unit, the first image capture unit, and the second image capture unit;
Wherein the control unit is configured to:
Identify a replenishment target product as the stock product required to be replenished to the display shelf, based on display shelf capture image data generated by image capturing of the display shelf by the first image capture unit; and
Identify a position of the stock product corresponding to the replenishment target product, based on stock shelf capture image data generated by image capturing of the stock shelf by the second image capture unit; and
Control the holder unit to move the stock product from the stock shelf to the display shelf;
Wherein the stock product is moved
Claims 14 and 15 contain limitations similar to that of claim 1, and are similarly allowable. Claims 16-27 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on their respective allowable base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights