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 .
Examiner Note
If Applicant were to amend the independent claims to include claims 8 or 14 and further capturing via an imaging device a third image per the changed predetermined time (similar to claim 7), this may be enough to overcome the below rejection under 35 USC 101. It is recommended the Applicant perform an interview with Examiner with proposed amendments as suggested above.
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 1-20 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.” Claims 1-20 are directed to acquiring a first and second image, specifying a difference region in the first and second image, cutting out a partial image and transmitting the first image and the partial image or receiving a partial image, performing image recognition on the partial image to recognize state of product and notifying the state of the product which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claims 19 and 20 (and similarly claims 1 and 9) recite the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
An information processing method for causing a computer device to execute:
processing for acquiring a first shelf image captured at a first time for a product shelf on which a product is displayed, and a second shelf image captured for the product shelf at a second time after the first time;
processing for specifying a difference region between the first shelf image and the second shelf image;
processing for cutting out a partial image from the second shelf image so that the difference region is included; and
processing for transmitting the first shelf image and the partial image to a reception device.
An information processing method for causing a computer device to execute:
processing for receiving a partial image of a second shelf image that is cut out to include a difference region between a first shelf image, which is captured at a first time for a product shelf on which a product is displayed, and the second shelf image captured at a second time after the first time;
processing for performing image recognition processing on the partial image to recognize a state of the product; and
notification processing according to the state of the product.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a transmission device, reception device or a computer device to execute processing” and “transmitting… to a reception device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “transmission device, reception device or a computer device to execute processing” and “transmitting… to a reception device” language, “acquiring a first shelf image captured at a first time for a product shelf on which a product is displayed, and a second shelf image captured for the product shelf at a second time after the first time; specifying a difference region between the first shelf image and the second shelf image” and “receiving a partial image of a second shelf image that is cut out to include a difference region between a first shelf image, which is captured at a first time for a product shelf on which a product is displayed, and the second shelf image captured at a second time after the first time; and notification … according to the state of the product” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “specifying a difference region between the first shelf image and the second shelf image; cutting out a partial image from the second shelf image so that the difference region is included” and “performing image recognition processing on the partial image to recognize a state of the product” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – “a transmission device, reception device or a computer device to execute processing”, “transmitting… to a reception device” and “a battery” (claim 8) (the recited various ‘units’ in the claims do not necessarily represent hardware but could just be software of the above computer device). The “transmission device, reception device or computer device to execute processing” and “transmitting… to reception device,” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. specifying, cutting and transmitting steps and the performing and notifying steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the acquiring and receiving steps) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that 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 elements of “a transmission device, reception device or a computer device to execute processing” and “transmitting… to a reception device,” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “transmission device, reception device or computer device to execute processing” and “transmitting… to reception device,” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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)(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 1-4, 9-10, 12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0177195 A1 to Findlay et al. (“Findlay”).
As per claims 1 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
A transmission device comprising (Findlay: ¶ 0040):
an image acquisition unit that acquires a first shelf image captured at a first time for a product shelf on which a product is displayed, and a second shelf image captured for the product shelf at a second time after the first time (Findlay: ¶ 0045 and 0080-0082 and Fig. 12A and Figs. 15A-15C);
a region specification unit that specifies a difference region between the first shelf image and the second shelf image (Findlay: ¶ 0088 “difference indicator” and Fig. 16);
a cut-out processing unit that cuts out a partial image from the second shelf image so that the difference region is included (Findlay: ¶ 0075-0077 “perspective view” and 0088 and Fig. 12A-12C); and
a transmission processing unit that transmits the first shelf image and the partial image to a reception device (Findlay: ¶ 0040).
As per claims 9 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
A reception device comprising (Findlay: ¶ 0088):
a reception processing unit that receives a partial image of a second shelf image that is cut out to include a difference region between a first shelf image, which is captured at a first time for a product shelf on which a product is displayed, and the second shelf image captured at a second time after the first time (Findlay: ¶ 0088 and Figs. 12A-12C and 16);
an image recognition processing unit that performs image recognition processing on the partial image to recognize a state of the product (Findlay: ¶ 0088 and Fig. 16); and
a notification processing unit that executes notification processing according to the state of the product (Findlay: ¶ 0088 and Fig. 16).
As per claim 2, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
wherein the region specification unit specifies location information on the difference region in the second shelf image, and the transmission processing unit transmits the location information (Findlay: ¶¶ 0051, 0058-0059 and 0088).
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
wherein the location information is coordinate information in the second shelf image (Findlay: ¶¶ 0051, 0058-0059 and 0088).
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
wherein the location information is information for specifying a location where the product included in the difference region is displayed (Findlay: ¶¶ 0051, 0058-0059 and 0088).
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
wherein the state of the product is a state related to the number of products (Findlay: ¶ 0089).
As per claim 12, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
wherein the state of the product is a state related to a display position (Findlay: ¶ 0089).
As per claim 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
a display information generation unit that generates display information in which the notification content of the notification processing and the second shelf image are displayed; and a transmission processing unit that transmits the display information (Findlay: ¶ 0088 and Fig. 16).
As per claim 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay includes:
wherein the display information includes history information on the number of displayed products (Findlay: ¶ 0088 and Fig. 16).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findlay in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0034864 A1 to Skaff et al. (“Skaff”)
As per claim 5, Findlay fails to specifically teach wherein the transmission processing unit compresses the first shelf image and the partial image and transmits them to the reception device. The Examiner provides Skaff to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Skaff includes:
wherein the transmission processing unit compresses the first shelf image and the partial image and transmits them to the reception device (Skaff: ¶ 0103)
Findlay teaches an inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices. Skaff teaches a comparable inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Skaff offers the embodiment of wherein the transmission processing unit compresses the first shelf image and the partial image and transmits them to the reception device. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the compression techniques as disclosed by Skaff to the inventory tracking system and method as taught by Findlay for the predicted result of improved inventory tracking systems and methods using image capturing devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 6-7, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findlay in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0374641 A1 to Bronicki et al. (“Bronicki”)
As per claim 6, Findlay fails to specifically teach wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the first shelf image again when it is determined that occlusion of the product displayed on the product shelf has occurred in the first shelf image. The Examiner provides Bronicki to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Bronicki includes:
wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the first shelf image again when it is determined that occlusion of the product displayed on the product shelf has occurred in the first shelf image (Bronicki: ¶¶ 0158 and 0179)
Findlay teaches inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices. Bronicki teaches a comparable inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Bronicki offers the embodiment of wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the first shelf image again when it is determined that occlusion of the product displayed on the product shelf has occurred in the first shelf image. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the occlusion steps as disclosed by Bronicki to the inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices as taught by Findlay for the predicted result of improved inventory tracking systems and methods using image capturing devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay and Bronicki includes:
an imaging unit that captures the first shelf image and the second shelf image, wherein the imaging unit captures the second shelf image per predetermined time (Bronicki: ¶ 0157).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Findlay and Bronicki are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay and Bronicki includes:
wherein the state of the product is a state related to a posture of the product displayed (Bronicki: ¶ 0028).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Findlay and Bronicki are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay and Bronicki includes:
wherein the state of the product is a state related to a price tag of the product (Bronicki: ¶ 0028).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Findlay and Bronicki are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay and Bronicki includes:
wherein the display information is information in which information on the number of displayed products is superimposed on each display region of each product in the second shelf image (Bronicki: ¶¶ 0376-0379).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Findlay and Bronicki are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Findlay and Bronicki includes:
wherein the display information includes information for identifying group information that groups display sections in which the same product is displayed when the same product is displayed in different display sections in the product shelf (Bronicki: ¶ 0204).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Findlay and Bronicki are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findlay in view of Bronicki as applied in claim 7, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0274226 A1 to Patil et al. (“Patil”)
As per claim 8, Findlay fails to specifically teach a battery that supplies a power supply voltage, wherein the imaging unit changes the predetermined time in accordance with a remaining battery charge of the battery. The Examiner provides Patil to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Patil includes:
a battery that supplies a power supply voltage, wherein the imaging unit changes the predetermined time in accordance with a remaining battery charge of the battery (Patil: ¶ 0034).
Findlay teaches inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices. Patil teaches a comparable inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Patil offers the embodiment of a battery that supplies a power supply voltage, wherein the imaging unit changes the predetermined time in accordance with a remaining battery charge of the battery. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the changing the image capture rate based on the battery life as disclosed by Patil to the inventory tracking system and method using image capturing devices as taught by Findlay for the predicted result of improved inventory tracking systems and methods using image capturing devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findlay in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0005806 A1 to Cobb et al. (“Cobb”)
As per claim 14, Findlay fails to specifically teach wherein the second shelf image is captured per predetermined time, the notification processing unit performs the notification processing for each the product and for each type of notification content, and the reception device further comprises a counting processing unit that counts the number of times the notification processing has been performed for each the product and for each type of the notification content, and an instruction processing unit that gives an instruction to change the predetermined time in accordance with the number of times counted. The Examiner provides Cobb to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Cobb includes:
wherein the second shelf image is captured per predetermined time, the notification processing unit performs the notification processing for each the product and for each type of notification content, and the reception device further comprises a counting processing unit that counts the number of times the notification processing has been performed for each the product and for each type of the notification content, and an instruction processing unit that gives an instruction to change the predetermined time in accordance with the number of times counted (Cobb: ¶¶ 0043 and 0052-0053)
Findlay teaches a system and method using imaging devices. Cobb teaches a comparable system and method using imaging devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Cobb offers the embodiment of wherein the second shelf image is captured per predetermined time, the notification processing unit performs the notification processing for each the product and for each type of notification content, and the reception device further comprises a counting processing unit that counts the number of times the notification processing has been performed for each the product and for each type of the notification content, and an instruction processing unit that gives an instruction to change the predetermined time in accordance with the number of times counted. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of tracking the number of notifications as disclosed by Cobb to the system and method of using imaging devices as taught by Findlay for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of using imaging devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights