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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6-7 recite “each of the plurality of product areas” which Examiner suggests amending to “each of the plurality of product areas included in the same product area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites “each of the plurality of product areas” which Examiner suggests amending to “each of the plurality of product areas included in the same product area”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 6 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 2 recites the limitation "the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas" in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether only a single keypoint is acquired for a product area (since Line 3 recites “acquiring a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas”) or if multiple keypoints are acquired for a product area. Examiner believes multiple keypoints area acquired for each product area and suggests amending the limitation in Line 3 to be “acquiring keypoints of each of a plurality of product areas”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether only a single keypoint is acquired for a product area (since Line 3 recites “acquiring a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas”) or if multiple keypoints are acquired for a product area. Examiner believes multiple keypoints area acquired for each product area and suggests amending the limitation in Line 3 to be “acquiring keypoints of each of a plurality of product areas”.
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, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of detecting a product area of each product from an image capturing a plurality of products, determining a same product area based on a result of comparing adjacent product areas with each other, selecting, as a target, at least one product area, and identifying a product displayed in the same product area by processing the at least one product area selected as the target, which may be performed practically in the human mind as mental processes by mentally observing the image capturing a plurality of products and making an observation of a product area of each product in the image, mentally evaluating and comparing adjacent product areas in the image with each other to determine a same product area, mentally making a determination of a product area as a target, mentally observing the product area selected as the target and performing a mental judgement to identify the product. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the processor and memory (claim 1), the computer (claim 5), and the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 9) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
The claim(s) 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and memory (claim 1), the computer (claim 5), and the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 9) are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 5, and 9 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-4 and 6-8 are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasunaga (JP 2020-068006, see translated version).
With regards to claim 1, Yasunaga discloses an image analysis system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (Para. 0025 lines 1-3, 0030 lines 1-6, "memory"); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instruction to perform operations (Para. 0024 lines 5-7, 0025 lines 1-3, 0028 lines 1-2 and 4-5, "processor") comprising:
detecting a product area of each product from an image capturing a plurality of products (Para. 0041 lines 1-2, 0048 lines 1-3, "product areas");
determining a same product area being an area where a plurality of same products are displayed, based on a result of comparing adjacent product areas with each other (Para. 0055 line 1, 0056 lines 1-2, 0058 lines 1-2, 0059 lines 1-4, 0061 lines 1-3, 0064 lines 1-6, Fig. 3, "adjacent product regions" "homogenous area"); and
selecting, as a target, at least one product area from a plurality of product areas included in the same product area, and identifies a product displayed in the same product area by processing the at least one product area selected as the target (Para. 0044 lines 1-2, 0046 lines 4-5, 0048 lines 1-3, 0068 lines 1-6, 0073 lines 1-4, 0075 lines 1-3, 0076 lines 1-2, "identifies the product").
With regards to claim 4, Yasunaga discloses the image analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise acquiring positional information of an image area of a placement member on which a product is placed, and selecting product areas to be compared in order to determine the same product area, based on the positional information of the image area of the placement member (Para. 0044 lines 1-2, 0047 line 1, 0049 lines 1-6, 0056 lines 1-2, 0058 lines 1-2, 0059 lines 1-4, 0061 lines 1-3, 0064 lines 1-6, 0073 lines 1-4, Fig. 3, "adjacent product regions" "homogenous area" "reference point").
With regards to claims 5 and 8, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 1 and 4, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 1 and 4 are equally applicable to claims 5 and 8, respectively.
With regards to claim 9, it recites the apparatus of claim 1 as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the operations. Yasunaga discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium (Para. 0024 lines 5-7, 0025 lines 1-3, 0028 lines 1-2 and 4-5, 0030 lines 1-6, "processor" "internal memory, "ROM"). Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 9.
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) 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP 2020-068006, see translated version) in view of Nabeto et al. (US 2023/0039355).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regards to claim 2, Yasunaga discloses the image analysis system according to claim 1.
Yasunaga does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise acquiring a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas included in the same product area, and determining the at least one product area to be selected as the target, based on a number of the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas.
However, Nabeto et al. discloses acquiring a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas, and determining the at least one product area to be selected as the target, based on a number of the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas and identifying a product displayed in the product areas by processing the at least one product area selected as the target (Para. 0046 lines 1-4, 0048 lines 1-3, 0050 lines 1-6, 0051 lines 1-20, 0052 lines 1-5, 0053 lines 4-22, "feature points" "number of votes" "item candidates" “recognition result”). While Yasunaga discloses determining at least one product area to be selected as the target and identifying a product displayed in the same product area by processing the at least one product area selected as the target using a shelf label, Nabeto et al. teaches the concept of acquiring a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas, and determining the at least one product area to be selected as the target, based on a number of the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas and identifying a product displayed in the product areas by processing the at least one product area selected as the target. In both cases, a product is identified by processing a product area in an image of a plurality of products. Thus, Yasunaga would be modified to, instead of using a shelf label to determine the at least one product area to be selected as the target and identify the product displayed in the same product area, acquire a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas included in the same product area, determine the at least one product area to be selected as the target based on a number of the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas, and identify the product displayed in the same product area by processing the at least one product area selected as the target.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasunaga to replace the technique of using a shelf label to determine the at least one product area to be selected as the target and identify the product displayed in the same product area with acquiring a keypoint of each of a plurality of product areas, determining the at least one product area to be selected as the target, based on a number of the keypoints acquired for each of the plurality of product areas, and identifying the product displayed in the product areas by processing the at least one product area selected as the target as taught by Nabeto et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to identify a product displayed in an area in the image.
With regards to claim 3, Yasunaga discloses the image analysis system according to claim 1.
Yasunaga does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise, when a plurality of product areas are selected as the target, identifying a product displayed in the same product area, by using a result of adding up keypoints of each of the plurality of selected product areas.
However, Nabeto et al. discloses determining a plurality of product areas selected as the target and identifying a product displayed in the product areas by using a result of adding up keypoints of each of the plurality of selected product areas (Para. 0046 lines 1-4, 0048 lines 1-3, 0050 lines 1-6, 0051 lines 1-20, 0052 lines 1-5, 0053 lines 4-22, "feature points" "votes" "item candidates" “recognition result”). While Yasunaga discloses determining a plurality of product areas selected as the target and identifying a product displayed in the same product area using a shelf label, Nabeto et al. teaches the concept of determining a plurality of product areas selected as the target and identifying a product displayed in the product areas by using a result of adding up keypoints of each of the plurality of selected product areas. In both cases, a product is identified by processing a product area in an image of a plurality of products. Thus, Yasunaga would be modified to, instead of using a shelf label to determine the plurality of product areas to be selected as the target and identify the product displayed in the same product area, determine a plurality of product areas selected as the target and identify the product displayed in the same product area by using a result of adding up keypoints of each of the plurality of selected product areas.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasunaga to replace the technique of using a shelf label to determine the plurality of product areas to be selected as the target and identify the product displayed in the same product area with determining a plurality of product areas selected as the target and identifying a product displayed in the product areas by using a result of adding up keypoints of each of the plurality of selected product areas as taught by Nabeto et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to identify a product displayed in an area in the image.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 2 and 3, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 2 and 3 are equally applicable to claims 6 and 7, respectively
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672