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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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)(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 1-5, 8-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by High et al (“High” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0153756 A1).
As per claim 1, High discloses an apparatus for surveying devices, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (ARV 110 is the claimed “apparatus” with a memory 116, processor 115 and image sensor 112, as shown in figure 1) and configured to: obtain, from at least one camera sensor (camera sensor 112, paragraph [0016]) while the at least one camera sensor is traveling along a path (see figures 2A and 2B for arrow for movement path), a plurality of images comprising a plurality of devices (paragraph [0016]: camera sensor 112 is capable of “obtaining still or moving images”, and the images include a plurality of devices 132 and 134 as shown in figures 2A and 2B), wherein each image of the plurality of images is obtained from a respective position of the at least one camera sensor along the path (the images are captured during ARV 110 moving path), and wherein each device of the plurality of devices comprises a respective visual marker (paragraphs [0022] & [0028]: the devices 132 and 134 may include a QR code, which is the claimed “visual marker”); detect visual markers of the plurality of devices in the plurality of images (see paragraphs [0022 & [0028]: the QR codes in the devise 132 and 134 are detected]); determine an arrangement of the visual markers detected in the plurality of images (as shown in figures 3A and 3B, the locational information of QR codes are detected in paragraphs [0024]-[0031]); and pair, based on aligning the arrangement of the visual markers with a first map (paragraph [0015]: planogram) comprising a corresponding arrangement of a plurality of objects, a respective object of the plurality of objects to each device of the plurality of devices (paragraphs [0024]-[0031], in connection planogram of the facility, each product 140 is associated with respective QR code and shelf labels).
As per claim 2, High discloses wherein the arrangement of the visual markers comprises a respective height of each of the visual markers, and an order of the visual markers for each of the respective height (as shown in figures 3A and 3B, the locational information of the shelf labels 132 and 134 with QR codes are determined, and the height and order of the labels are recorded for product 140 association).
As per claim 3, High discloses wherein the respective height for each of the visual markers corresponds to a respective shelf of a shelving unit associated with the first map (see figures 3A and 3B for respective shelf with shelf labels at different heights).
As per claim 4, High discloses wherein the first map is a planogram for the plurality of objects (paragraph [0033]: planogram of the facility with a plurality of products).
As per claim 5, High discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on mapping the first map to a second map comprising known locations on the path, a respective location of each device of the plurality of devices (High in paragraph [0018] teaches the ARV 110 moves in relation to the modular unit 130 in the facility and the ARV is an autonomous vehicle that implies the ARV is inherently embedded with a mapping data of the facility with known location through modular unit identifier 138, and the locational information of shelf labels provide respective locations).
As per claim 8, High discloses wherein the second map is a building layout (as explained above the inherently embedded mapping data of the facility allows the ARV to autonomously move to different modules).
As per claim 9, High discloses wherein each visual marker of the visual markers is a fiducial marker (as explained above, a QR code is a fiducial marker).
As per claim 10, High discloses wherein two or more devices of the plurality of devices are mounted on a device rail (see figures 3A and 3B for at least two shelf labels 132 and 134 on a shelf rail).
As per claim 11, High discloses wherein each device of the plurality of devices is an electronic tag or an electronic shelf label (as shown in figure 3B, shelf labels 134 are electronic shelf labels).
As per claim 12, see explanation in claim 1.
As per claim 13, see explanation in claim 2.
As per claim 14, see explanation in claim 3.
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 4.
As per claim 16, see explanation in claim 5.
As per claim 19, see explanation in claim 9.
As per claim 20, see explanation in claim 10.
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.
Claims 6-7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High in view of Sturm (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0343037 A1).
As per claim 6, High teaches detecting locational information of the shelf labels through images captured by the camera sensor. However, High does not explicitly teach the location of each shelf label is determined based on performing triangulation using lines of sight from the known locations on the path to the visual markers in the plurality of images.
Sturm teaches a location mapping system 200 employing at least one camera for capturing images within a building for detecting locational information of items of interest. Sturm at paragraph [0048] teaches “the computer vision subsystem 210 can triangulate the respective 3D locations of POIs using multiple camera images that were captured from different angles within the environment. The computer vision subsystem 210 can use a machine learning model that receives as input multiple images of an environment captured from different angles, where each image includes a depiction of a particular POI, and outputs a 3D location of the particular POI in the environment”.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify High in light of Sturm’s teaching to identify shelf label locational information through triangulation information of known positions from the captured images. One would be motivated to do so because it would allow the vision/imaging system to calculate a location using real world coordinates from the captured image data with accuracy.
As per claim 7, Sturm teaches the coordinates of the POIs, such as shelf labels are based on using real environment image data captured by the camera sensors (see paragraph [0048]).
As per claim 17, see explanation in claim 6.
As per claim 18, see explanation in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights