DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 12/9/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4 and 7 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner thanks Applicant for the explanation of relevance for the Sato foreign reference.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The amendments clarifying the meaning of “IC” are appreciated.
Oberle teaches associating a second tag’s data with data from the two different first tags by way of a time-based determination threshold. It takes a timestamp of the first reference tag, the product tag, and the second reference tag. If the product tag is within ten seconds of the reference tags, then the location of the product tag is associated with a location between the reference tags. Examiner equates the “same second IC tag” with the product tag in Oberle, and the two different first IC tags as the reference tags in Oberle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oberle (US 2009/0128333).
Claims 1, 4 and 7. Oberle teaches a product management apparatus that manages positions of a plurality of products in a store, wherein, (para. 19, Figure 4 showing computer receiving from reader)
in the store, a showcase for displaying the plurality of products is installed, and a mobile IC tag reader is disposed, (para. 19 showing RFID reader as well as a shelf in Figure 3)
a plurality of first IC tags are attached to the showcase or a floor of the store in a state of being away from one another, and a second IC tag is attached to each of the plurality of products, and (Para. 15, Figure 3 showing first tags attached to shelving, being apart, and second tags for products)
the IC tag reader tries to repeatedly read the first IC tag and the second IC tag while moving within the store, (para. 10 showing interrogation of tags by reader, para. 9 while moving within inventory environment)
the product management apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions: and (para. 19 showing computer)
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: (para. 19 showing computer with software)
acquiring first data read from the first IC tag by the IC tag reader, (para. 19 showing receiving data from reader) first timing information indicating a reading timing of the first data, second data read from the second IC tag by the IC tag reader, and second timing information indicating a reading timing of the second data; and (Figure 3, 302 showing timing of reading for markers)
generating position information indicating positions of the plurality of products in which a plurality of the showcases are set as a reference, by using the first data, the first timing information, the second data, and the second timing information. (Figure 3, 302 showing associating product tags to positions by said timing)
wherein generating the position information comprises, in response to detecting that specific second data read from a same second IC tag is associated with two different pieces of first data read from two different first IC tags, (Oberle para. 21 showing associative data establishments regarding item tags and reference tags) generating information indicating that a product corresponding to the same second IC tag is located between a location of one of the two different first IC tags and a location of the other of the two different first IC tags. (Figure 3 showing determination of item tags between the two reference tags. Examiner interprets the same second tag as an item tag and the two different first tags as the reference tags.)
Claim 7 additionally: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executable by a computer. (para. 19 showing computer)
Claims 2, 5 and 8. Oberle teaches the product management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, for each piece of the first timing information,
selecting the second timing information in which a difference with respect to the first timing information is equal to or less than a reference, (Figure 3 showing 10 seconds as a reference threshold for determining positioning of products tags)
combining the second data associated with the selected second timing information with the first data associated with the first timing information, and (Figure 3 showing comparison of timing data by looking at positioning tags’ and product tags’ timing data)
generating the position information by using the combination. (Figure 3 showing position determination according to said data)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle in view of Kamiya (US 20210356551).
Claims 3, 6 and 9. Oberle teaches the product management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, for each piece of the first timing information,
combining the second data associated with the selected second timing information with the first data associated with the first timing information, and (Figure 3 showing comparison of timing data by looking at positioning tags’ and product tags’ timing data)
generating the position information by using the combination. (Figure 3 showing position determination according to said data)
Oberle teaches selecting data within a time range (Figure 3, “within 10 seconds…in the period”), including time up to very nearly the same time as the reference marker, but not the same. However, Kamiya teaches: selecting the second timing information indicating a same timing as the first timing information. (para. 82 showing determining positions of items with same time reading as being together)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of time comparison in Oberle with the known technique of identifying identical readings in Kamiya, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an allowing for desired data correlation. (Kamiya para. 82 showing position determination using timestamps being identical or same.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627