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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For each of claim 1-14, the reference characters in parenthesis “(…)” should be deleted.
For example, in claim 1, line 1: delete “(P1-P6)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For each of claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, and 14, the recitation of “in particular” and “particularly” renders the claims vague and indefinite. As set forth, it is unclear whether or not the claim limitation immediately following the phrase was intended to be part of the claim scope or not part of the claim scope.
With regard to claim 2, the use of the term “preferably” in line 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite. Similar to the above claims, “preferably” leaves doubt as to whether or not multiple cameras are actually required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US PGPub 20180293593 to De Bruijn et al, hereinafter “De Bruijn.”
With regard to claim 1, De Bruijn discloses a method for determining the position of at least one object (P1-P6) in the space (2), in particular of at least one product (P1-P6) positioned on a shelf (7) (see abstract), wherein the method comprises: emitting a light signal, which is encoded with identification information for identifying the object (P1-P6), from a light-emitting device (4A-4F) positioned adjacent to the object (P1-P6) (see Figure 2 and [0074] and [0105]), and capturing a scene with the help of at least one freely movable camera (10) (see front and rear cameras in Figure 3 and at [0083]) , wherein a digital scene image generated with the help of the camera (10) represents the scene, and generating object position data based on a computer-determined position of the light signal appearing in the digital scene image relative to the camera (10) and the identification information emitted with the light signal, and with knowledge of an automatically determined orientation and position of the camera (10) in the space (2) when the scene is captured, wherein the object position data represent the position of the object (P1-P6) in the scene relative to the space (2) (see [0104]-[0106]).
With regard to claim 2, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method is preferably carried out using multiple cameras (10) moved independently of one another (see [0118]-[0119]).
With regard to claim 6, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determination of the position in relation to the camera (10) includes an automatic determination of a scale that can be derived from the digital scene image, wherein the scale is determined based on the known real dimensions of a reference object (4A-4F) identified in the digital scene image, particularly designed as an electronic shelf label (4A- 4F), and the scale is used for converting between position data or dimensions determined in the digital scene image and position data or dimensions in the scene captured with the help of the camera (10) (see [0105] and the mathematical explanation of the 3D coordinate system of De Bruijn).
With regard to claim 7, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the position in relation to the camera (10) includes automatically determining the distance between the camera (10) and the scene captured by it (see [0105]).
With regard to claim 8, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the identification information involves analyzing the temporal change in a light signal parameter, with the knowledge of a coding scheme used when the light signal was emitted (see [0074] and [0086]).
With regard to claim 9, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method step of emitting the light signal is carried out substantially simultaneously by multiple light-emitting devices (4A-4F), and wherein the method step of computerized determination of the position of the light signal appearing in the digital scene image in relation to the camera (10) and the identification information emitted with the light signal is carried out for the totality of the light signals appearing in the digital scene image (see Figure 2 at step 3).
With regard to claim 10, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein for generating the object position data, supplementary data are taken into account, which include at least one of the following types of data: - orientation data which describe the orientation of the camera (10) in relation to a reference orientation in the space (2); - inclination data which describe the tilt of the camera (10) in relation to a reference plane in the space (2); - position data which describe the position of the camera (10) in relation to a reference point in the space (2) (see [0017] and [0105]).
With regard to claim 11, De Bruijn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a data processing device generates a data structure from the object position data determined for each object (P1-P6), which data structure indicates the three-dimensional position of each object (P1-P6) in the space (2) (see [0105]).
With regard to claim 12, see claim 1 above. Also, De Bruijn discloses the freely movable device is a mobile phone in Figures 2 and 3.
With regard to claim 13, De Bruijn discloses a light-emitting device (4A-4F), particularly a shelf label (4A-4F) (see ESL 320 in Figure 3), which is designed to display product and/or price information, or a product separator designed to separate different products (P1-P6), wherein the light-emitting device (4A-4F) comprises: - a memory stage for storing identification information (see [0086] and [0123]-[0124]), with the help of which an object (P1-P6), particularly a product (P1-P6) positioned on a shelf (7) (see Figure 3), in the vicinity of which the light-emitting device (4A-4F) is positioned, can be identified, and - a light signal generation stage (6) designed to encode a light signal according to the identification information and to emit this encoded light signal (see [0102]).
With regard to claim 14, see claim 1 and claim 13 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bruijn in view of US PGPub 2022/0051310 to Graube et al, hereinafter referred to as “Graube.”
De Bruijn discloses a camera in Figure 3 (front and rear facing cameras of smart phone that travel as a group and capture different scene images) but fails to disclose that the camera is part of glasses or a trolley.
However, Graube, in the same field of endeavor (management of store and warehouse shelving via electronic shelf labels) discloses at [0099] that the mobile devices 120 used in imaging the ESL labels can include smart glasses, body cams, smart watches, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the smart phone system of De Bruijn with the smart glasses taught by Graube with the rationale being that smart glasses have built in cameras for performing the imaging of the ESL labels just as smart phones do, while providing the added benefit to the user of freeing-up both hands for other tasks. In other words, the use of glasses reduces the risk associated with a hand-held device like a smart phone.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bruijn.
De Bruijn discloses a camera smart phone in Figure 3 (front and rear facing cameras of smart phone that travel as a group and capture different scene images) wherein a controller (see [0102] at step 1) sends a signal for one or more ESL’s to begin displaying ID barcodes (in other words, the controller in De Bruijn turns on the ESL labels). De Bruijn fails to teach that the controller moves with the at least one freely movable camera.
However, moving the controller from a distant location in the warehouse/store to the actual handheld smart phone would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art. The functioning of the controller would not need altered while the predictable outcome of enabling the smart phone to now be able to turn on the ESL tags would have provided increased operability of the system of ESL’s by individual users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is reflective of the state of the art in electronic shelf tag systems that employ imaging devices that image the shelf tag in order to determine positioning and/or ID info of the shelf tag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights