DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 8/14/2024.
Claims 1-11 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: capturing a product location and generating an image of the location, recognizing the location as empty, and documenting the absence of the product. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including inventory management. Further, these recitations are mental processes, including an observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a camera, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a said camera permanently installed with a field of view at one location. Claim 3 recites obtaining product information to recognize the location is empty. Claim 4 recites receiving data by a server. Claim 5 recites a computer in a camera using computer vision to obtain product information. Claim 6 recites immutable storage for digital documentation for a time period. Claims 7 and 11 recite a display, a status display being visualized for identified the location as empty in the past. Claim 8 recites the display and a user device for showing a stock-taking status. Claim 9 recites the absence of the product is stored as the stock taking status. Said additional limitations of the computer, server, display, and computer vision techniques are seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity to perform said abstract ideas of inventorying. For these reasons,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2021/0027485).
Claims 1 and 10. Zhang teaches a method that comprises the process steps listed below, namely:
automatically capturing a product location (5A - 51) with the help of a camera (2) (para. 3 showing camera capturing image of store areas) and generating a digital product location image of the product location (5A - 51) with the help of the camera (2), wherein the product location (5A - 51) is used for placing at least one product (6), (para. 69 annotated image of item using machine vision)
automatically recognizing that the product location (5A - 51) is empty by computerized evaluation of the product location image, and (para. 68 showing indication of empty product location/display case)
digitally documenting the absence of the product (6) at the product location (5A - 5I). (para. 11 showing recording of conditions)
Claim 10 additionally: a system with an electronic product and/or price display system (para. 169 showing electronic product such as computers) comprising multiple cameras. (para. 3 multiple cameras)
Claim 2. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the automatic capture takes place with the help of a permanently installed camera (2) with a field of view directed, in particularly permanently, at the one product location at least (5A - 5I). (para. 77 showing fixed cameras with field of view operable to detect said activity)
Claim 3. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the automatic recognition that the product location (5A - 51) is empty includes obtaining product information. (para. 3 showing product determination based on image of shelf or display area)
Claim 4. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein obtaining the product information includes receiving product information data, particularly provided by a server (7). (para. 5 showing said techniques using a server)
Claim 7. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein with the help of at least one electronic display unit (4A - 4I), in particular with the help of all electronic display units (4A - 4I), a status display is visualized, (para. 169 showing display for implementing system) making it possible to identify the product location (5A - 51) recognized as empty in the past. (para. 69 showing trends of previous status records)
Claim 8. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a stock-taking status for a specific product location (5A - 51) is supplied by an electronic display unit (4A - 41) or a portable user device (9). (para. 121 showing display of item status for a location)
Claim 9. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein for a product (6) that has been automatically recognized as having an empty product location (5A - 5I), the digitally documented absence of the product (6) at the product location (5A - 51) is stored as the stock-taking status. (para. 11 showing recordation of item location status)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Guack (US 2022/0067689).
Claim 5. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 3. Zhang teaches local processing of the computer vision technique at the area to be monitored. (para. 5 showing local analysis of computer vision at the area to be monitored) It does not, but Carignano teaches: wherein the obtaining of the product information is carried out autonomously in the camera (2) with the help of a computer of the camera (2), in particular using computer vision. (para. 37 showing camera with embedded computer vision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of local processing in Zhang, with the known technique of embedded electronics in Carignan, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for pluggable and scalable systems. See para. 37 of Guack.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Nazzari (US 2018/0374037).
Claim 6. Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. It does not, but Nazzari teaches wherein the digital documentation comprises immutable storage, in particular for a predefined period of time. (para. 4 showing inventory records in immutable form for purposes of compliance checking)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of local processing in Zhang, with the known technique of immutable storage in Nazzari, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for compliance checks. See para. 154 of Nazzari.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Graube (US 2022/0051310).
Claim 11. Zhang teaches the system (1) according to Claim 10, wherein the system (1) comprises electronic display units (4A - 4I), (para. 169 showing display for implementing system) wherein
the system (1), in particular the electronic display units (4A - 41) are designed in such a manner that with the help of at least one electronic display unit (4A - 4I), in particular with the help of all electronic display units (4A - 4I), a status display can be visualized making it possible to identify the product location (5A - 51) that was recognized as empty in the past. (para. 69 showing trends of previous status records)
Zhang does not, but Graube teaches: wherein each of these display units (4A - 41) is provided to display product and/or price information for a product (6) and is positioned corresponding to a product location (5A to 5I). (para. 61 showing displays at product location for price display)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of local processing in Zhang, with the known technique of shelf labels in Graube, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for product information changing without replacing the labels. See para. 61 of Graube.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627