DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 4/16/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3 and 4, amendments to claims 1, 2 and 5-11, and addition of claims 12-17 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-2 and 5-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. Regarding page 6 and 7 of remarks, the reduction of volume of data transmitted to a server by running processes locally is seen as inherent in the use of local computers, a part of the ordinary capacity of general purpose computing technology. In this way, it is not seen as a technological improvement, rather more so a “pros and cons”-type benefit of using local processing versus cloud computing. Regarding pages 7 and 8 of remarks, the office has not relied upon Zhang to teach the local processing. Rather, Guack is being relied upon to teach local, plug and play computer-enhanced cameras capable of performing inventory monitoring. This teaching is used to modify the system taught in Zhang in such a way as to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings in an obvious way to teach the claimed invention.
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 1-2 and 5-17 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, obtaining item information, determining which product is missing from the location based on the obtained information, 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(s) and a server, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (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 installed with a field of view at one location. Claim 5 recites a computer in a camera to obtain product information. Claim 6 recites immutable storage for digital documentation. 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. Claim 12 recites a permanent field of view for the camera in claim 2. Claim 13 recites autonomous computer vision with a computer in the camera. Claim 14 recites the immutable storage is immutable for a predefined period of time. Claim 15 recites the status display is visualized with the help of all the display units. Claim 16 recites the system is an electronic product andor price display system. Claim 17 recites the status display is configured to be visualized with the help of all the display units. No configuration of said technological elements, and/or claimed descriptions, is seen to have solved a technological problem. Further, the claimed technology is being used in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea of certain steps of inventorying products. Said additional limitations, seen individually and in combination with the rest of the claims, 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, the claims are not subject matter eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-13, and 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Guack (US 2022/0067689).
Claims 1 and 10. Zhang teaches a method that comprises the process steps listed below, namely:
automatically capturing a product location with the help of a camera (para. 3 showing camera capturing image of store areas) and generating a digital product location image of the product location with the help of the camera, wherein the product location is used for placing at least one product, (para. 69 annotated image of item using machine vision)
automatically recognizing that the product location is empty by computerized evaluation of the product location image, and (para. 68 showing indication of empty product location/display case)
upon recognizing the product location is empty, obtaining at the camera, product information from a server, (para. 5 showing said techniques using a server)
determining, which product is missing from the product location based on the obtained product information, (para. 3 showing product determination based on image of shelf or display area)
digitally documenting the absence of the missing product at the product location. (para. 11 showing recording of conditions)
Zhang does not teach having the processing power at the camera location. However, Guack does: paragraphs 194 and 195 of Guack showing local inventory analysis for stock changes at a location.
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 Guack, 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 10 additionally: Zhang teaches a system comprising multiple cameras. (para. 3 multiple cameras)
Claim 2. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the automatic capture takes place with the help of a permanently installed camera with a field of view directed at the one product location at least. (para. 77 showing fixed cameras with field of view operable to detect said activity)
Claim 5. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 1. Zhang does not, but Guack teaches: wherein the obtaining of the product information is carried out autonomously in the camera with the help of a computer of the camera. (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 Guack, 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 7. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein with the help of at least one electronic display unit, a status display is visualized, (para. 169 showing display for implementing system) making it possible to identify the product location recognized as empty in the past. (para. 69 showing trends of previous status records)
Claim 8. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein a stock-taking status for a specific product location is supplied by an electronic display unit or a portable user device. (para. 121 showing display of item status for a location)
Claim 9. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 7. Zhang teaches wherein for a product that has been automatically recognized as having an empty product location, the digitally documented absence of the product at the product location is stored as the stock-taking status. (para. 11 showing recordation of item location status)
Claim 12. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 2. Zhang teaches wherein the field of view is directed permanently at the one product location. (para. 77 showing fixed cameras with field of view operable to detect said activity)
Claim 13. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method of claim 5. Zhang does not, but Guack teaches wherein obtaining the product information is carried out autonomously in the camera with the help of a computer of the camera 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 Guack, 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 15. Zhang as modified by teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the status display is visualized with the help of all of the electronic display units. (para. 169 showing display for implementing system; see Figure 1A for multiple display units; also para. 121 showing screen for status monitoring for multiple users)
Claim 16. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the system of claim 10. Zhang teaches wherein the system is an electronic product and/or price display system. (para. 169 showing electronic product such as computers)
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Guack, and further in view of Nazzari (US 2018/0374037).
Claim 6. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the method according to claim 1. It does not, but Nazzari teaches wherein the digital documentation comprises immutable storage. (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 14. Zhang as modified by Guack and Nazzari teaches the method according to claim 6, where the immutable storage is immutable for a predefined period of time. (Interpreted according to page 11, para. 1 of the specification to include the scope of regulatory compliance recording.) (Para. 154 of Nazzari teaches use of immutable storage for regulatory compliance.)
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Guack, and further in view of Graube (US 2022/0051310).
Claim 11. Zhang as modified by Guack teaches the system according to Claim 10. Zhang teaches wherein the system comprises electronic display units, (para. 169 showing display for implementing system) wherein
the system is designed in such a manner that with the help of at least one electronic display unit, a status display can be visualized making it possible to identify the product location 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 is provided to display product and/or price information for a product and is positioned corresponding to a product location. (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.
Claim 17. Zhang as modified by Guack and Graube teaches the system of claim 11. Zhang teaches wherein the status display is configured to be visualized with the help of all of the electronic display units. (para. 169 showing display for implementing system; see Figure 1A for multiple display units; also para. 121 showing screen for status monitoring for multiple users)
Conclusion
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).
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 extension fee 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.
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
Prosecution Insights