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 § 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, 12 and 13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “acquire, for each location in a facility, data in which location information representing the location”, and the claim also recites “identify location information representing a location where an electronic shelf label is arranged in the facility” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It cannot be ascertained if the location information can be attributed to each location in a facility or specifically the locations of the electronic shelf labels. If the two location information instances are intended to be different, it is recommended by the examiner to use terms such as “a first location information” and “a second location information”. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered as though “each location in a facility” is the same as the locations of each electronic shelf label(s).
Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependency on Claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “acquiring, for each location in a facility, data in which location information representing the location”, and the claim also recites “identifying location information representing a location where an electronic shelf label is arranged in the facility” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It cannot be ascertained if the location information can be attributed to each location in a facility or specifically the locations of the electronic shelf labels. If the two location information instances are intended to be different, it is recommended by the examiner to use terms such as “a first location information” and “a second location information”. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered as though “each location in a facility” is the same as the locations of each electronic shelf label(s).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “acquiring, for each location in a facility, data in which location information representing the location”, and the claim also recites “identifying location information representing a location where an electronic shelf label is arranged in the facility” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It cannot be ascertained if the location information can be attributed to each location in a facility or specifically the locations of the electronic shelf labels. If the two location information instances are intended to be different, it is recommended by the examiner to use terms such as “a first location information” and “a second location information”. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered as though “each location in a facility” is the same as the locations of each electronic shelf label(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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. The closest prior art: a shelf label detection system of Yanagi (WO 2019087792 A1) does not teach “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire, for each location in a facility, data in which location information representing the location and merchandise information relating to merchandise displayed near the location are linked;…link the identified location information and shelf label identification information of the electronic shelf label; and output merchandise information linked with the identified location information to the electronic shelf label based on the acquired data.”
Claim 12 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. The closest prior art: a shelf label detection method of Yanagi (WO 2019087792 A1) does not teach “acquiring, for each location in a facility, data in which location information representing the location and merchandise information relating to merchandise displayed near the location are linked;…linking the identified location information and shelf label identification information of the electronic shelf label; and outputting merchandise information linked with the identified location information to the electronic shelf label based on the acquired data.”
Claim 13 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. The closest prior art: a shelf label detection method of Yanagi (WO 2019087792 A1) does not teach “acquiring, for each location in a facility, data in which location information representing the location and merchandise information relating to merchandise displayed near the location are linked;…linking the identified location information and shelf label identification information of the electronic shelf label; and outputting merchandise information linked with the identified location information to the electronic shelf label based on the acquired data.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nagabori (JP 2025003583 A) for an electronic shelf label management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9330 and email is Miraj.Patel@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights