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 3, 10, and 17 are cancelled while claims 1, 2, 12, 14-16, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 filed June 2, 2026 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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.
Examiner Notes
9. 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. The Examiner suggests filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
10. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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.
11. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
determining, using feature-wise matching by a deep-learning CNN, that the extracted features from the first and second object images do not match, indicating that either the first or second object is misplaced;
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.
12. 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.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the claim’s extensive claim amendments and arguments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, which has been hereby withdrawn. To overcome the double patenting rejection, the Examiner suggests filing a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. 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).
16. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
Prosecution Insights