DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on August 28, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 22 and 25-26 have been amended.
Claims 27-28 have been added.
Claims 8, 10-11, 19-21 and 23-24 have been canceled.
Claims 27-28 have been added by Examiner’s amendment below.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-18, 22 and 25-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-18, 22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, the claims recite capturing an image to determine a path of a product which is a mental process (observation/evaluation/opinion) and a method of organizing a human activity (instructions). The limitations on capturing an image of a product, analyzing the image and determining appropriate trajectory for the product could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting an image sensor and software nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of “capture”, “analyze” and “determine” describe instructions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's product management in the general field of warehouse management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the capturing, analyzing and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, 15-18, 22 and 25-28, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. The limitations regarding a robot are recited at high level of generality. The robot is performing conventional robot functions. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 12-18, 22 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patil (US 20210260766A1).
Claim 1
Patil discloses the following limitations:
A surveillance system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture an image of a product being manipulated in a warehouse; (see at least figure 1-112 image sensors and paragraphs 0049-0050).
and a software module, operatively connected to the image sensor, and configured to analyze the image (see at least paragraph 0054-Based on the image data, the control server 114 detects the stack that includes the deformable object to be handled. By utilizing image processing techniques, the control server 114 processes the image data and determines a contour of the stack or of the deformable objects in the stack).
and determine a path by which the product should move within the warehouse. (see at least paragraph 0054-The control server 114 may communicate path information to be followed by the AGVs 106).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module is further configured to determine whether to use human intervention to handle the product (see at least paragraph 0085).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the human intervention comprises remote operation of a robot. (see at least paragraph 0085).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the image sensor is configured to capture the image of the product before the product is handled by a robotic arm, and wherein the software module is further configured to determine an appropriate end effector for handling of the product by the robotic arm. (see at least paragraphs 0024-the set of image sensors may be installed on the DARM and/or elsewhere inside the storage facility; figures 2A and 3A; paragraphs 0065-0067 and 0084-0090).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the image sensor is provided after a robotic arm, and wherein the software module is further configured to determine if the robotic arm properly handled the product. (see at least paragraphs 0084-0085).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a database, wherein the database comprises information related to the product, (see at least paragraphs 0055-0058 and database 116 in figure 1).
wherein the information related to the product comprises a size of the product, a weight of the product, a shape of the product, a machine-readable code location of the product, anomalies detected in handling of the product, a packaging size of the product, and combinations thereof. (see at least paragraph 0055).
Claim 12
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module is a cloud-based module. (see at least paragraphs 0037).
Claim 13
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module in operative communication with a computer processor. (see at least figure 1-communication network 118).
Claim 15
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein determining the appropriate trajectory comprises determining if the product should be directed to a robotic handler or a human handler. (see at least paragraph 0085).
Claim 16
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: causing a second image sensor to capture a second image of the product after the product leaves the handling station, to capture a second image of the product; and analyzing the second image using the software module.(see at least paragraph 0114-plurality of image sensors 112; the control server 114 identifies the gap developed between the partially lifted first deformable object 302a and the remaining stack).
Claim 17
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the handling station comprises a robotic arm, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting using the software module, an appropriate end effector to handle the product. (see at least paragraphs 0064-0067).
Claim 18
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: comparing, by the software module, the image of the product to an expected image of the product stored within a product database; and generating an alert when a difference between the image of the product and the expected image exceeds a predetermined tolerance. (see at least paragraph 0057).
Claim 22
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: associating product information from a product database with the product, (see at least paragraph 0055).
and wherein determining the appropriate trajectory comprises determining: a maximum speed at which the product is able to be conveyed, a speed at which the product is able to be handled by a robotic arm, a force required to manipulate the product, a minimum size packaging for the product, or combinations thereof. (see at least paragraph 0030).
Claim 25
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module is a cloud-based module. (see at least paragraphs 0037).
Claim 26
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module in operative communication with a computer processor. (see at least figure 1-communication network 118).
Claim 27
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
comprising: comparing, by the software module, the second image of the product to an expected image of the product stored within a product database; (see at least paragraphs 0035 and 0056-0057).
and generating an alert when a difference between the second image of the product and the expected image exceeds a predetermined tolerance. (see at least paragraphs 0076, 0085 and 0095).
Claim 28
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: determining, using the software module, if the product was properly manipulated at the handling station based on the second image of the product. (see at least paragraphs 0084-0085).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 20210260766A1) in view of Dean (US 20219/0025849 A1).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the image sensor is configured to capture the image of the product before the product is handled by a robotic arm (see at least paragraph 0024).
Patil in at least paragraph 0030 discloses that the robotic arm uses pressure sensors to determine whether an object was lifted accurately. Patil does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
and wherein the software module is further configured to determine a maximum speed for handling of the product by the robotic arm.
However, Dean which is analogous prior art, in at least paragraphs 0038 and 0071 evidences that determining and controlling maximum speed a robot should move in order to efficiently perform tasks related to product management and inventorying is conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Patil and Dean in order to manage products and shelves effectively in retail or warehouse premises (Dean paragraph 0003). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 9
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
Patil in at least paragraph 0030 discloses that the robotic arm uses pressure sensors to determine whether an object was lifted accurately. Patil does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
wherein the software module is further configured to determine a speed at which the product is moved along a conveyor system.
However, Dean which is analogous prior art, in at least paragraphs 0038 and 0071 evidences that determining and controlling speed in order to efficiently perform tasks related to product management and inventorying is conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Patil and Dean in order to manage products and shelves effectively in retail or warehouse premises (Dean paragraph 0003). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
As per claim 14, claim 14 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627