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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 68 appears to be the claims as they were originally presented. The claims and specification must be separate.
Paragraph 11 seems to cover multiple paragraphs and claim it as one whole paragraph. For proper numbering, each figure should be labelled its own paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term, “reference” in claims 4 and 9 is being interpreted as a “reference value” from the specification. If the applicant believes that this interpretation is in error, they may respond to this interpretation in response to this 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process with generic computer elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generic computer elements do not constitute significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited memory and processor are generic computer components performing basic tasks, the processor executes instructions and the memory stores data.
In regards to claim 1, an image analysis system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: acquiring an identification result of each of a plurality of products captured in an image (The processor and memory are generic computer elements, but moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art can execute instructions and store instructions in their own memory. A person of ordinary skill in the art can also identify various products in an image); computing a first matching degree being a matching degree between an image region of a first product among the plurality of products and an image region of a second product adjacent to the first product when the identification result of the first product differs from the identification result of the second product (The matching degrees from the specification under a BRI can be as simple as binary indicating a yes or a no to determine if two adjacent products differ from one another or to mark the various differences between the products), and assessing correction necessity of the identification result of the first product or the identification result of the second product, based on the first matching degree (A person can then assess whether or not it may be necessary to correct their identification result due to a difference in matching degrees).
In regards to claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise correcting one of the identification result of the first product and the identification result of the second product in response to assessment indicating necessity of correction of the identification result of the first product or the identification result of the second product, the assessment being made based on the first matching degree (A person of ordinary skill in the art can correct their identification of a product based on any number of factors including the first matching degree).
In regards to claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise acquiring a second matching degree indicating a matching degree, for each of the first product and the second product, with master information relating to each product (A person of ordinary skill could create a second degree based on a different feature in a binary manner, and the claimed master information is just features of the product that are to be compared which a person would possess via their senses or prior knowledge), deciding, from the identification results of the first product and the second product, the identification result with the higher second matching degree as an identification result of the first product and the second product (A person of ordinary skill in the art could assign a identification result to both products based on the second degree).
In regards to claim 4, wherein he operations further comprise computing a second matching degree indicating a matching degree between the image region of the first product and an image region of a third product when the third product is present adjacent to the first product at a position different from the second product and has the identification result identical to that of the second product (A person of ordinary skill in the art can combine three different products using binary degrees or find a third product on the same shelf that can be compared to one of the other two products), correcting the identification result of the first product when the second matching degree is equal to or greater than a reference (A person can correct the identification of this first result based on the degree if it is greater or equal to some value, in a binary case, if it is greater than 0 or equal to 1).
In regards to claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise acquiring information indicating an image region of a placement member that places a product (A person of ordinary skill in the art can see what a product is upon in an image), and determining, as the first product and the second product, two products adjacent to each other in a direction orthogonal to the placement member without the placement member being interposed therebetween (A person of ordinary skill in the art can see products next to each other that are adjacent to each other and upon the same placement member or shelf).
In regards to claims 6 and 11, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 7, it is similar to claim 2, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 8, it is similar to claim 3, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 9, it is similar to claim 4, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 10, it is similar to claim 5, and it is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akatsuka et al. (US 20200394599 A1).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akatsuka et al. (US 20200394599 A1), hereinafter referred to as Akatsuka.
In regards to claim 1, Akatsuka discloses an image analysis system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: acquiring an identification result of each of a plurality of products captured in an image (Paragraphs 7 and 34, Paragraph 34 discloses the use of a memory and processor to store and execute instructions. Paragraph 7 discloses that multiple products are recognized or identified as a particular product); computing a first matching degree being a matching degree between an image region of a first product among the plurality of products and an image region of a second product adjacent to the first product when the identification result of the first product differs from the identification result of the second product (Paragraphs 63-64 with Figure 8, Discloses the use of degrees that reflect the differences and matching elements between two products with the products in the figure being adjacent to each other), and assessing correction necessity of the identification result of the first product or the identification result of the second product, based on the first matching degree (Paragraphs 99-101, Discloses that the correction unit corrects products based on information from the determination unit such as the previously disclosed degree as illustrated, and paragraph 99 corroborates this assessment).
In regards to claim 2 Akatsuka discloses wherein the operations further comprise correcting one of the identification result of the first product and the identification result of the second product in response to assessment indicating necessity of correction of the identification result of the first product or the identification result of the second product, the assessment being made based on the first matching degree (Paragraphs 99-101, Discloses that the correction unit corrects products based on information from the determination unit such as the previously disclosed degree as illustrated, and paragraph 99 corroborates this assessment).
In regards to claim 3, Akatsuka discloses wherein the operations further comprise acquiring a second matching degree indicating a matching degree, for each of the first product and the second product, with master information relating to each product (Paragraphs 63-64 and Figure 8, Paragraphs 63-64 assign values to a number of aspects to the product which corresponds with the master information as paragraph 31 defines the “master information” as “(feature information to be compared at a time of identifying each of the products)”), deciding, from the identification results of the first product and the second product, the identification result with the higher second matching degree as an identification result of the first product and the second product (Paragraphs 99-101, Paragraphs 99-101 disclose correction the identification result based on which product has the higher validity based on factors from the determination unit based on degree, so this would be implicitly covered).
In regards to claim 4, Akatsuka discloses wherein he operations further comprise computing a second matching degree indicating a matching degree between the image region of the first product and an image region of a third product when the third product is present adjacent to the first product at a position different from the second product and has the identification result identical to that of the second product (Paragraphs 7, 63-64, and with Figure 8, Paragraph 7 discloses that there can be multiple second products which would read upon the third product limitation, paragraphs 63-64 disclose the calculation of a degree of matching figures), correcting the identification result of the first product when the second matching degree is equal to or greater than a reference (Paragraphs 99-101, Paragraphs 99-101 disclose the correcting of identification results due to differences in value when compared to a threshold or other form of numerical reference).
In regards to claim 5, Akatsuka discloses wherein the operations further comprise acquiring information indicating an image region of a placement member that places a product (Paragraphs 57-58, Discloses that the analyzing unit can figure out where the shelf boards are positioned in the picture as the specification uses the term shelf to refer to a placement member), and determining, as the first product and the second product, two products adjacent to each other in a direction orthogonal to the placement member without the placement member being interposed therebetween (Paragraph 47 and Figures 3-4, 5, 8-9, and 11-15, As the products can be located adjacent to each other on the same shelf, this covers this limitation. The figures presented here all display objects or some objects on each shelf that comply with this limitation).
In regards to claims 6 and 11, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 7, it is similar to claim 2, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 8, it is similar to claim 3, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 9, it is similar to claim 4, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 10, it is similar to claim 5, and it is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675