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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed August 19, 2024 are pending and are hereby examined.
Double Patenting
3. 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).
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-15, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent 12,067,527, claims 1, 3, and 7-18 of U.S. Patent 12,437,258, claims 1-7 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent 12,536,769, and claims 1, 5-15, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent 11,915,463. In fact, the ‘527, [258, [769, and ‘463 patents are more detailed and more specific and encompasses almost all of the elements of the broader, current ‘723 application as seen below.
8. This is an obviousness nonstatutory double patenting rejection because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and U.S. Patents 12,067,527, 12,437,258, 12,536,769, and 11,915,463 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, claims 1-20 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-3, 5-15, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent 12,067,527, claims 1, 3, and 7-18 of U.S. Patent 12,437,258, claims 1-7 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent 12,536,769, and claims 1, 5-15, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent 11,915,463, but they are not patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
11. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a system, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
12. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea for identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system.
The independent claims 1 and 15 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… for obtaining images containing a plurality of objects;
… for analyzing the images;
extracting an individual object image from a region of interest in the image;
extracting features from the object image using a… and output identifying information associated with the object;
… containing features extracted from multiple objects within the image, the features associated with identifying information of the object;
determining a best-fit match between features extracted from the object image and features associated with objects in an object library;
determining an association between the best-fit match and the region of interest;
wherein the method is implemented…;
wherein the… trained to on a dataset comprising multiple views of objects and associated identifying information of the objects.
13. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it states: "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
14. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole describes identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system with generally recited computer elements such as a camera, processor, feature extractor, object library, deep neural network, and software in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and are merely invoked as tools for identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
15. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a camera, processor, feature extractor, object library, deep neural network, and software to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
16. Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 14, 16-17, and 19, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system, and these claim neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, 13, and 18, although a generally recited object library is recited, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system, and these claim neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Regarding dependent claims 10-11 and 20, although a generally recited feature extractor is recited, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of identifying misplaced products in a shelf management system, and these claim neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
19. Therefore, the limitations of the inventions, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
20. The Examiner suggests elaborating on how the dataset is trained, as well as incorporating the hardware elements of claim 15 into claim 1, and incorporating dependent claims 5 and 10-14 together into the independent claims. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
21. Claims 1-20 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Skaff et al (US 2017/0286773), Kwon et al (US 2016/0342863), and Taylor et al (US 2019/0180150), Ramenahalli Govindaraju (US 2021/0166028), Knodt et al (US 2016/0261794), Sarkis et al (US 2020/0025877), and Huang et al (US 2010/0124358). Ramenahalli Govindaraju et al (US 2021/0166028) is directed to automated product recognition, analysis, and management. Knodt et al (US 2016/0261794) is directed to image acquisition and management. Sarkis et al (US 2020/0025877) is directed to object verification using radar images. Taylor et al (US 2019/0180150) is directed to color haar classifier for retail shelf label detection. Skaff et al (US 2017/0286773) is directed to a planogram assisted inventory system. Kwon et al (US 2016/0342863) is directed to a hybrid detection recognition system. Huang et al (US 2010/0124358) is directed to a method for tracking a moving object. Wang et al (MetaSearch: Incremental Product Search via Deep Meta-Learning, NPL) is directed to product searching via deep meta-learning, and was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
22. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
wherein the trained feature extractor is a deep neural network trained to on a dataset comprising multiple views of objects and associated identifying information of the objects.
23. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang et al (MetaSearch: Incremental Product Search via Deep Meta-Learning, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
26. 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.
27. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
28. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627