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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular, claim 16 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. Although the claim is on a method, the claim fails to clearly recite any steps for performing the method. Thus, claim 16 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is construed to cover the same scope of invention as claim 1 drawn to the apparatus claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2015/0310539 to McCoy et al. (McCoy). In regards to claims 1 and 16, McCoy discloses an apparatus and method for a logistics center (10), said apparatus comprising:
a camera arrangement (16) for detecting a plurality of articles placed on a placement surface within the entire field of view of the camera arrangement (see ¶ [0041] for providing a camera configured to capture images of objects within its field of view),
a projection device (18) for projecting information relating to the detection (see ¶ [0044] for providing a projection device operably coupled to the camera), and
an electronic control device (42) that is in signal connection with the camera arrangement and the projection device and that is configured to detect the articles individually by means of image analysis (see ¶ [0046] for providing image analysis to determine the identity of articles within the images), and to display the detection of a picking up of a respective article from the placement surface and/or a placing of a respective article onto the placement surface in a visually recognizable manner by a projection (see ¶ [0044] for providing visible highlights on items selected for removal from storage shelves).
In regards to claim 3, McCoy further discloses that at least one of the projection device and the electronic control device is configured to display the projection on a surface accessible for the projection within the entire field of view of the camera arrangement. See ¶ [0044].
In regards to claim 4, McCoy further discloses that the surface accessible for the projection is selected from the group of members consisting of an information label of an article, a price label of an article[,] an information label of a respective article, a price label of a respective article, and directly on a respective article. See ¶ [0044] (projecting beam directly onto a selected article).
In regards to claim 5, McCoy further discloses that the projection comprises an image, a sign, a symbol and/or an article designation. See ¶ [0044] (providing that the beam is termed an image, and in particular an image with a target or highlight positioned on the object).
In regards to claim 6, McCoy further discloses that the projection is color-coded. See ¶ [0111].
In regards to claim 7, McCoy further discloses that the electronic control device is configured to display the projection for a predefined time duration. See ¶ [0056] (providing that the projected beam may stay the same for a predetermined duration of time).
In regards to claim 9, McCoy further discloses that the projection device is designed as at least one of a laser projector and a video projector. See ¶ [0044].
In regards to claim 12, McCoy further discloses that the projection device is arranged at a camera of the camera arrangement. See Fig. 1 (showing a user employing a wearable camera and projection (CAP) device); see also ¶ [0041].
In regards to claim 13, McCoy further discloses that the projection device is formed as a unit with the camera. See Fig. 1 (showing a user employing a wearable camera and projection (CAP) device); see also ¶ [0041].
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over McCoy, supra, as applied to claim 1, in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0020113 to Buibas et al. (Buibas). In regards to claim 2, McCoy discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for an industrial goods warehouse.
Although McCoy does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Buibas teaches a projected image item tracking system wherein the logistics center is an industrial goods warehouse. See ¶ [0124] (providing that the logistics center may include, without limitation, a retail store, a warehouse, a museum, a gallery, a mall, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to expand the application of McCoy into other areas contemplated by Buibas in order to improve inventory tracking control by further automating pick-and-place operations.
In regards to claim 10, Buibas further discloses that the apparatus has a force sensor arrangement (not shown) arranged on the placement surface and/or comprises an RFID reading device, with which force sensor arrangement and/or with which RFID reading device the electronic control device is in signal connection, and wherein the electronic control device is configured to detect the picking up of the respective article from the placement surface and/or the placing of the respective article onto the placement surface by means of the force sensor arrangement and/or the RFID reading device. See ¶ [0133] (supplementing camera images with other sensor data to determine which products are removed or the quantity of a product that is taken or dispensed from storage shelves using weight sensors or motion sensors that assist in detecting that products are taken, moved, or replaced on the shelf).
In regards to claim 11, Buibas further discloses that the apparatus is configured as an apparatus arranged in a stationary manner. See Fig. 1 (showing multiple cameras at fixed positions); see also ¶ [0126].
In regards to claim 15, Buibas further discloses that the electronic control device is configured, for a predetermined time period, to display information about a special offer and/or a discount in a visually recognizable manner on an information label or a price label and/or directly on an article by a projection and/or to highlight a respective article in a visually recognizable manner by a projection. See ¶ [0242] (highlighting certain items such as items on sale or new offerings).
Claim 8 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over McCoy, supra, as applied to claim 7, in view of legal precedent. In regards to claim 8, McCoy discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for specifying that the predefined time duration is three seconds.
Although McCoy does not explicitly disclose the “three second” limitation, McCoy does teach that the apparatus is configured to display the projection for a predefined time duration. Specifying the length of time is merely a matter of design choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent evidence that the particular predefined “three second” time duration was significant. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the projection of McCoy with the specific time duration in order to provide a sufficient amount of time for users to spot the visible highlighted projection.
Claim 14 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over McCoy, supra, as applied to claim 1, in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0300314 to Shimizu et al. (Shimizu). In regards to claim 14, McCoy discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for projecting a navigation path to a target item.
Although McCoy does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Shimizu teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the electronic control device is configured to display a navigation along a path to a respective article in a visually recognizable manner by a projection, wherein the electronic control device has a signal input and is configured to receive information via the signal input about the respective article to which the navigation is to take place. See ¶ [0110] (controlling a projection unit so that navigation information such as the selected projection information is projected).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the control device of McCoy with the navigation control feature of Shimizu in order to help guide users to a target destination where an item to be picked is located.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pub. No. 2016/0076881 to Hayashi discloses a measurement apparatus for measuring an object based on an image of the object, including a projection unit including a pattern forming unit configured to form a light pattern, and a projection optical system configured to project the formed light pattern on the object, and an image pickup portion including an image pickup unit provided with a light-receiving surface and configured to receive light from the object on the light-receiving surface and pick up an image of the object, and an image-forming optical system configured to guide light from the object on which the light pattern is projected to the light-receiving surface.
US Pub. No. 2019/0188435 to Davis et al. discloses a system and method of identifying items selected by customers. This method includes receiving sensor data from plural sensors, including (a) ceiling-mounted cameras that monitor tracks of customers through aisles of the store, and (b) inventory sensors that are positioned to monitor removal of stock from store shelves. A great number of other features and arrangements are also detailed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is 571.270.7769. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5 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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights