DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 3/4/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 6 and 7, and amendments to claims 1-5 and 9-10 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The claimed system involves more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and now involves the cooperation of electronic shelf labels, an image capturing device, a terminal device of the user, and a computer serving as a controller for the image capturing device. This is seen as an ordered combination of additional elements as a particular way to achieve a desired outcome and is subject matter eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collet (US 2021/0173603) in view of Howard (US 2023/0252538).
Claims 1, 9 and 10. Collet teaches a shelf label management system comprising:
one or more electronic shelf labels; (paragraph 11 showing electronic shelf label (ESL))
at least one image capturing device configured to capture images in a facility; (para. 11 cameras in facility)
at least one memory storing instructions; and (para. 12 processor and memory)
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (para. 12 processor and memory)
acquire, for each electronic shelf label, data in which shelf label identification information for identifying the electronic shelf label and position information indicating a position in a facility are associated with each other; (Collet Figure 4 showing electronic shelf label (ESL) associated with a shelf identified, along with position of products)
determine a position designated on an image of the facility based on a designation operation by a user; (para. 12 showing user input as position information)
specify the position information in the facility related to the position designated; (para. 12 determination that position of product aligns with stored and detected position information)
select the electronic shelf label identified by the shelf label identification information associated with the position information in the facility based on the data acquired; (para. 13 showing determination of ESL location for correct product location)
Collet does not, but Howard teaches:
specify new position information indicating a current position of the selected electronic shelf label in the facility; and (para. 38 showing position information of ESL assigned to a database; para. 42 showing updated location information in database)
based on the new position information being different from the position information associated with the shelf label identification information of the electronic shelf label:
transmit, to an image capturing device among the at least one image capturing device, an instruction to control the image capturing device to capture an image of a fixture on which the selected electronic shelf label is installed; (para. 15 showing image capture of shelving with ESL in cases where positions do not match.)
acquire, from the image capturing device, the captured image of the fixture on which the selected electronic shelf label is installed; and (para. 17 showing image capture)
notify the user that the new position information of the selected electronic shelf label is different from the position information associated with the shelf label identification information of the electronic shelf label by transmitting the captured image to a terminal device of the user. (paragraphs 7 and 53 showing notification if position information is different than what is recorded.)
Collet teaches using imaging to determine new positions of products being different than last recorded position, and notifying a user. Howard teaches recording locations of electronic shelf labels (ESLs) using imaging. It would have been obvious to substitute the products in Carter with the labels in Howard, as in both references there is teachings of the imager capturing the products and the labels as part of the shelf. Howard paragraph 31 teaches the motivation of labelling accuracy for said location tracking.
Claim 10 additionally: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute said processing. (para. 12 processor and memory)
Claim 2. Collet as modified by Howard teaches the shelf label management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control output of the selected electronic shelf label. (para. 11 showing ESL displaying output information)
Claim 3. Collet as modified by Howard teaches the shelf label management system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: turn on a lighting device of the selected electronic shelf label. (para. 21 showing output of a light from ESL)
Claim 4. Collet as modified by Howard teaches the shelf label management system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output new product information to the selected electronic shelf label. (para. 47 showing updated information on ESL display; para. 21 showing customer mode of ESL for pricing information)
Claim 5. Collet as modified by Howard teaches the shelf label management system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, to the terminal device of the user, the new product information that has been output to the selected electronic shelf label. (para. 19 showing said data outputted to a associate’s mobile device)
Claim 8. Collet as modified by Howard teaches the shelf label management system according to claim 1, wherein the facility is at least one of a store, a factory, and a warehouse. (para. 14 showing retail operations and shopping at said facility, indicating a store)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights