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 .
1. Claims 1-20 filed 08/14/2024 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 08/14/2024 is a Continuation of 17241025 , filed 04/26/2021 ,now U.S. Patent # 12086861, 17241025 Claims Priority from Provisional Applications: 63027201 , filed 05/19/2020, 63025600 , filed 05/15/2020, and 63016168 , filed 04/27/2020.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In all the three claims the term “bock” has to be corrected to spell as -block – .
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of of U.S. Patent No. 12086861, hereinafter Patent” 861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant Application are taught and obvious in view of the limitations of claims 1-20 of the Patent’861. For example, a comparison of claim 1 of the instant application with that of claims 1 and 5 of the Patent’ 861 is given below, from which It is evident that the highlighted limitations of the claims 1 and 5 of the Patent’ 861 disclose all the limitations of claim 1 except for the limitation, “ in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer”. However, it will be obvious to block future orders from another customer if the order for the item is already received and does not render patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application:
1. A computer-implemented method for commercial inventory mapping, the method comprising, via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, servers, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and/or transceivers:
receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout;
generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data;
determining locations of individual goods in the store;
overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map;
generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store;
receiving, from a customer, a purchase order of an item; and
in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer.
Claims 1 and 5 of the Patent’ 861:
1. A computer-implemented method for commercial inventory mapping, the method comprising, via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, servers, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and/or transceivers:
receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout;
generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data;
receiving, with a server, sensor data from a sensor;
updating an electronic inventory list based upon the received sensor data;
determining locations of individual goods on the updated inventory list in the store;
overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map; and
generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, the method further comprising, via the one or more local or remote processors, sensors, servers, LIDAR devices, and/or transceivers: verifying that one or more of the items on the virtual or electronic customer list of items will be available for purchase when the customer arrives at the store at a subsequent hour by comparing the virtual or electronic customer list of items with current electronic orders received from other customers.
Dependent claims 2-7 from claim 1 of the instant application are covered and disclosed by the limitations of dependent claims 2-8 from claim 1 of the Patent’861. Since the limitations of claims 8-14 of the instant application are similar to the limitations of claims 1-7 and claims 15-19 are similar to the limitations recited in claims 1-3, 6-7 of the instant application, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-7 above.
Limitations of the dependent claim 20 of the instant application are covered by the limitations of claim 20 of the Patent’861.
4.2. Claims 1,3, 8, 10, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,8, 14, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12361376 B2, hereinafter Patent” 376. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1,3, 8, 10, 15, 17 and 20 of the instant Application are taught and obvious in view of the limitations of claims 1,8, 14, 15 of the Patent’861. For example, a comparison of claim 1 of the instant application with that of claim 1 of the Patent’ 376 is given below, from which It is evident that the highlighted limitations of the claim 1 of the Patent’ 861 disclose all the limitations of claim 1 except for the limitations, “receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout; and in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer”. Since claim 1 of the Patent’ 376 teaches analyzing and processing LIDAR data , it would have been obvious to have received the LIDAR data. Further, it will be obvious to block future orders from another customer if the order for the item is already received. Therefore, these two limitations, though not disclosed in the claims of the Patent’376, they would have been obvious in view of the recited subject matter in the claims of the Patent’376 and, as such, do not render these two claims patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application:
1. A computer-implemented method for commercial inventory mapping, the method comprising, via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, servers, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and/or transceivers:
receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout;
generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data;
determining locations of individual goods in the store;
overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map;
generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store;
receiving, from a customer, a purchase order of an item; and
in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer.
Claim 1 of the Patent’ 376
1. A computer-implemented method for commercial inventory mapping, the computer-implemented method comprising, via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, servers, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and/or transceivers:
receiving an electronic order of goods from a mobile device of a customer via wireless communication or data transmission over one or more radio frequency links;
determining goods in the electronic order received from the customer that are still available by comparing an electronic inventory of goods within a store with the electronic order of goods and/or comparing the electronic order of goods with other incoming electronic orders from other customers;
generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of LIDAR data;
determining locations of the goods in the electronic order that are still available;
overlaying the determined locations of the goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map of the store;
generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the determined locations of the goods within the store;
receiving confirmation that items of a virtual or electronic customer list have been picked up or delivered; and charging a virtual pay account for the picked up or delivered items.
The other two independent claims 8 and 15 of the instant application recite subject matter similar to claim 1 and when compared with the parallel claims 8 and 15 of the Patent’ 376 they are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 of the instant application.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 and 20 of the instant application are disclosed in the limitations of claim 1 of the Patent’376.
5. Subject Matter eligibility analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for commercial inventory mapping, the method comprising, via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, servers, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and/or transceivers:
receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout;
generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data;
determining locations of individual goods in the store;
overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map;
generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store;
receiving, from a customer, a purchase order of an item; and
in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer.
Step one analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1-7 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and clams 8-20 to a system /apparatus, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The highlighted limitations in claim 1 comprising, “ receiving, from a customer, a purchase order of an item; and in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer. “ relates to a commercial activity of business relations of receiving purchase orders and to ensure to block the additional orders for the same items since the item is already purchased. This commercial activity falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The limitations in claim 1, “ determining locations of individual goods in the store; and in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer”, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a store employee can easily determine location of goods by observing the maps of the store or by moving in the store and can also block an additional order received for the same item which is already purchased.
Since the other two independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes”.
Thus claims 1, 8, and 15 with their dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite abstract ideas.
Since the claims 1-20 recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim 1 recites the additional limitations, “ one or more processors executing the steps of: (i)receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout; (ii) generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data; (iii)determining locations of individual goods in the store; (iv)overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map; (v)generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store; (vi)receiving, from a customer, a purchase order of an item; and (vii) in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer.
The limitations “(i) receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout; (vi)receiving, from a customer, a purchase order of an item;” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer/processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “ (iii)determining locations of individual goods in the store; and (vii) in response to receiving the purchase order of the item, bocking an additional order of the item from another customer”, the computer/processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Though use of LIDAR technology is a long standing practice before the effective date of the claimed invention, the limitations, (ii) generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data; (iv)overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map; and (v)generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store”, are not established as widely prevalent or in common use as generic , generic functions and , well-understood, routine and conventional activity at the time of the effective date of the claimed invention.[See Berkheimer]. Although the claim 1 recites an abstract idea, it is not directed to an abstract idea, because the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, as discussed above, apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 recites eligible subject matter.
Since the other two independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as reciting eligible subject matter with their dependent claims 9-14, and 16-20 respectively.
All pending claims 1-20 recite eligible subject matter.
6. Prior art discussion:
Reference claims 1-20, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising one or more processors executing “receiving LIDAR data generated from a LIDAR camera, the LIDAR data associated with a store or a store layout, generating a LIDAR-based virtual map of the store from processor analysis of the LIDAR data, determining locations of individual goods in the store, overlaying the locations of the individual goods onto the LIDAR-based virtual map, generating an updated LIDAR-based virtual map of the store displaying aisles of the store and the overlaid locations of the individual goods within the store.” [See independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, claims 9-14 depend from claim 1, and claims 16-20 depend from claim 15.] .
7. Note: If a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed overcoming double patenting rejections, the claims 1-20 can be placed in condition for allowance.
8. Discussion of the most relevant prior art:
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention.
(i) Jaquez et al. [US Patent# 10, 558, 214 B2; see col.6, lines 55-67 and col.9, lines 44-49] describes using one or more robots 18 creating and dynamically updating a map of the warehouse 10 to determine the location of objects, both static and dynamic. One or more of the robots 18 navigate the warehouse and build/update a map 10a, FIG. 4, utilizing its laser-radar 22 and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), a computational method of constructing or updating a virtual map of an unknown environment. The robot 604 travels from location 606 in the direction of pose 601 and when it is in the proximity of the destination pose, it uses its LIDAR or another sensor such as its optical cameras, to determine if the destination pose is blocked by another robot a human, or an object.
(ii) Wu [US20140229301 cited in the IDS filed 09/26/2024; see claim 1] describes a method for handling an order received from a mobile device of a customer via an on-site network, determining a physical location of the mobile device and providing an ordering interface to the mobile device for displaying on the mobile device, receiving an order from the customer entered through the ordering interface and processing the received order.
(iii) Mierle [US 20140330681 A1; see para 0041] describes that an order engine can, depending upon some criteria have response options including to accept the order, as shown at block 172, connect to the customer, as shown at block 174, connect to the service provider (e.g., the order engine), as shown at block 176, decline the order, as shown at block 178, and opt-out from receiving future online orders from the order engine, as shown at block 180.
(iv) Paepcke [US 20190217477 A1 cited in the IDS filed 09/26/2024; paras 0035-0036] describes that a LIDAR system 160. capable of detecting and/or mapping an environment /facility/store intended to be navigated and uses pulsed laser light to measure distances from the LIDAR system 160 to objects that reflect the pulsed laser light. The LIDAR system can be interpolated with the image data received from one or more cameras 146 to generate or refine a simulated model of the environment around the robot 110.
(v) Hyun et al. [US 20210019910; see paras 0024—0026] describes that (GPS) 101 and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) 102 sensors generate location and orientation data indicative of where and how an image is taken so that together with the help of workflow map data helps identify the area/rack []such as in a store] subject [item] that is inspected in the image and helps to provide a high quality 2D virtual representation of the inspection subject and thus helping in more accurate object detection and counting of inventory.
(vi) Vassilovsky et al. US 20200326726 A1; see para 0027] describes capturing an image of an object in a camera, captured by LIDAR and included in a map data to identify an the object .
(vii) McMaster [US 20160082460 A1; see para 0037] teaches LIDAR technology is mature and well-known technology and is used for measuring distance from the earth to the moon and in many other numerous uses.
(viii) Siddique et al. [US20130215116 A1; see para 0288 cited in the parent application 17241025 now US Patent# 12086,861 and in the IDS filed 09/26/2024] discloses that users can be provided with exact navigation path to a product in a store using a virtual store map wherein the path and product locations are overlaid on the map so as to guide the user to the product location.
Foreign references:
(ix) EP 3454159 A1, see “Background of the invention] describes that technology of LiDAR is well-known and used for surveying in measuring distance to a target. The LiDAR scanning sensors are widely used in 3D reconstruction, and for accurate 3D reconstruction of surfaces and objects.
(x) WO 2017/201486 A1 [cited in the cited in the parent application 17241025 now US Patent# 12086,861 and in the IDS filed 09/26/2024, see Abstract] discloses using robotic system to generate store maps to provide locations and addresses of the shelves in the store.
NPL reference:
(xi) Cattaneo et al. , "CMRNet: Camera to LiDAR-Map Registration," 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, 2019, pp. 1283-1289, retrieved from IP. Com 02052026 describes a CMRNet, a real-time approach based on a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to localize an RGB [Red, Green and Blue]image of a scene in a map built from LiDAR data . The CMRNet learns to match images from a monocular camera to a given, preexisting 3D LiDAR-map.
(xii) Article, “ Hyundai MnSoft Inc Submits Korean Patent Application for Method of Automatic Generation of Indoor Map Utilizing the LiDAR Equipment”; ZGlobal IP News. Measurement & Testing Patent News [New Delhi] 11 May 2014; retrieved from Dialog on 02/01/2024 cited in the cited in the parent application 17241025 now US Patent# 12086,861 and in the IDS filed 09/26/2024, describes using a LIDAR device for generating indoor maps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
YOGESH C. GARG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/YOGESH C GARG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688