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 07/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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)(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 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwan (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0094140 A1).
As per claim 1, Kwan discloses a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (abstract) comprising: receiving a set of images captured from locations within an environment (paragraph [0006]: an automated mobile platform captures images using a digital camera and transits the images to a computer in a retail location 102 as shown in figure 1), the environment comprising items of interest (the retail location 102 comprises products in paragraph [0016] with product visual information); detecting, using one or more vision processing techniques (image recognition module 402 in figure 4 for vision processing techniques of OCR and barcode image processing), the items of interest within the set of images (the products in the images are recognized); for each respective item of interest, determining, based on the set of images, corresponding coordinates that represent a location of the respective item of interest within the environment (paragraph [0018]: location information for objects such as price labels, signs, markers are recognized and also used to for the mobile platform navigation); receiving, from a user, a request for one of the items of interest; and transmitting, to the user, the corresponding coordinates for the one of the items of interest (paragraph [0035]-[0036], the employee may request product pricing and inventory information, “The price and product information maintenance module 408 suitably constructs and updated the exceptions log 144 as well as an update file 414, both of which may be retrieved and reviewed at any time, or may be transmitted to an appropriate employee, such as an employee having a responsibility to maintain price labels”).
As per claim 2, Kwan discloses wherein detecting, using the one or more vision processing techniques, the items of interest within the set of images comprises: detecting a candidate item of interest within the set of images; determining that the candidate item of interest is not present in a threshold number of images of the set of images; and based on determining that the candidate item of interest is not present in the threshold number of images of the set of images, removing the candidate item of interest from the items of interest (paragraph [0016]: “If the image information can be sufficiently finely resolved, a count of the number of units of a product that are present can be made”, and the image information is a moving video clip or a collection of still frames of objects of interest. The number of units of product in the collection of frames is compared against the inventory record to determine the inventory depletion rate or theft as explained in paragraph [0003]. The “objects of interest” are the claimed “candidate item of interest”).
As per claim 3, Kwan discloses wherein the operations further comprise, for each respective item of interest, storing the corresponding coordinates in data storage (paragraph [0018], the location information for objects are recorded for navigation purpose as well as inventory record).
As per claim 5, Kwan discloses wherein determining the corresponding coordinates for the respective item of interest comprises: identifying that an identifier corresponding to the respective item of interest fails to be collocated with the respective item of interest; and determining a relationship between a location of the identifier corresponding to the respective item of interest and a location of the respective item of interest (paragraph [0040]: the shelf label, price label and markers 132 all can be the claimed “identifier” corresponding to location of the object of interest).
As per claim 6, Kwan discloses wherein receiving the set of images comprises receiving the set of images from a camera (paragraph [0006]: an automated mobile platform captures images using a digital camera).
As per claim 7, Kwan discloses wherein each respective image comprises data specifying a corresponding location from which the camera captured the respective image (paragraphs [0022]-[0024]: images captured by the camera on an airship 104 are used to specify location information of labels and markers and other visual references).
As per claim 10, Kwan discloses wherein the operations further comprises, for each respective item of interest, storing a corresponding name associated with the respective item of interest in data storage (figure 4. Price and production information maintenance module 408, price lookup database 120, review log 416 and update file 414 all stores information related to a product of interest).
As per claim 11, see explanation in claim 1. The examiner notes Kwan’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a processor and a memory.
As per claim 12, see explanation in claim 2.
As per claim 13, see explanation in claim 3.
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 5.
As per claim 16, see explanation in claim 6.
As per claim 17, see explanation in claim 7.
As per claim 20, see explanation in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Gormish et al (“Gormish” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0178310 A1).
As per claim 4, Kwan teaches using image processing for production information detection from the captured images. However, Kwan does not explicitly teach generating a corresponding bounding box for each respective item of interest.
Gormish teaches a system for detecting items on shelves in a retail store using captured images, which includes employing image processing technique of generating a corresponding bounding box for each respective item of interest as shown in figures 3 and 6 and paragraph [0058].
Kwan and Gormish are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, identifying items on shelves in a retail store.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwan in light of Gormish’s teaching to adapt bounding box imaging technique to segment to the items on shelves in captured images. One would be motivated to do so because it helps the system to group similar items together and easier for inventory tracking.
For claims 8-9, Kwan teaches using a camera for capturing the image data of products on shelves in a retail store. However, Kwan does not explicitly teach “determining, using the data specifying the corresponding locations from which the camera captured the respective image, a camera center of the camera that captured the respective image”; and “wherein the data specifying the corresponding location from which the camera captured the respective image comprises: an x coordinate; a y coordinate; a z coordinate; a pitch coordinate; a yaw coordinate; and a roll coordinate”.
Gormish teaches computing center point of a region of interest in any shape from the captured image data and the image capturing includes orientation data from orientation sensor 245 with three coordinate axes and rotation data for the three coordinate axes (yaw, pitch and roll values) in paragraph [0039].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwan in light of Gormish’s teaching to incorporate camera data in image processing of the products of interest. One would be motivated to do so because it would allow the location of the products of interest to be determined with a higher accuracy.
For claims 18-19, see explanation in claims 8-9 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,252 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All limitations of claims 1-20 are encompassed in claim 1-20 of ‘252 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights