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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 10/16/2024. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/08/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/29/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. The claim recites a system with no structure for performing the method according to claim 1, and therefore reciting a functional result without any structural elements, such that the metes and bounds of the claimed system cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (J.P. Publication No. 2018/154444)-IDS in view of Bronicki et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0383546).
Regarding claim 1
Watanabe discloses “A control method used in a shipping system including a display device, the control method including: obtaining a first product ID identifying a first product, based on sensing data obtained from a sensor;” (See Watanabe [0016] disclosing a movable projector type picking and assorting apparatus which determines the ID information of an article with an image recognition device.).
Watanabe discloses “and controlling the display device to display the first bottom image in a placement area for placing the first product.” (See Watanabe [0021]-[0022] disclosing a movable projector can project necessary images to the shelf, cargo cart, conveyor or the like even before, after, or during the movement when necessary. The control device of the projection device projects the product individual information image to the product and / or the product shelf and / or the shipping container and / or the article moving means via the movable image projecting device.).
Watanabe discloses all the elements of claim 1 except “” (See Watanabe [0058] disclosing the apparatus constructs a three-dimensional article location database and Watanabe [0064] disclosing comparing the ID information of the product with the product individual database by recognizing and identifying the image through the camera photographed image. A three-dimensional (3D) spatial database must include the bottom surface—or define a complete, closed volume—of an object to accurately represent its physical geometry, volume, and boundaries, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose showing the bottom surface of a product.).
Bronicki discloses “” (See Bronicki [0201] (corresponds to Provisional 63/254,290 [0196]) disclosing different bottoms of products may be used to differentiate the products from each other.).
Watanabe and Bronicki are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the same problem proposed by the claimed invention. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Bronicki to include using a bottom of a product to differentiate between said product and other products in the same system. Doing so provides a known method in the art for shipping and storing products, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides a solution which may automatically determine whether a disparity exists between a desired product placement and an actual product placement, see Bronicki [0003].
Regarding claim 2
Watanabe discloses “The control method according to claim 1, wherein the first database further associates and manages the product IDs and images each of which shows an external appearance of the product corresponding to the product ID,” (See Watanabe [0061] disclosing the identification ID information of all products is reliably recognized and entered into the location database. The projected images are also pre-saved see Watanabe [0035].).
Watanabe discloses “and the control method further comprises: ” (See Watanabe [0058] disclosing the apparatus constructs a three-dimensional article location database and Watanabe [0064] disclosing comparing the ID information of the product with the product individual database by recognizing and identifying the image through the camera photographed image.).
Watanabe discloses “and controlling the display device to display the first bottom image and the first exterior image in the placement area.” (See Watanabe [0021]-[0022] disclosing a movable projector can project necessary images to the shelf, cargo cart, conveyor or the like even before, after, or during the movement when necessary. The control device of the projection device projects the product individual information image to the product and / or the product shelf and / or the shipping container and / or the article moving means via the movable image projecting device.).
Watanabe discloses all the elements of claim 2 except “”.
Bronicki discloses “” (See Bronicki [0201] (corresponds to Provisional 63/254,290 [0196]) disclosing different bottoms of products may be used to differentiate the products from each other.).
The rationale for combining the references is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16
Watanabe discloses “The control method according to claim 1, wherein the display device is a display for displaying, in the placement area, the first bottom image of the first product, and the placement area corresponds to an area on the display where the first bottom image is to be displayed.” (See Watanabe [0021]-[0022] disclosing a movable projector can project necessary images to the shelf, cargo cart, conveyor or the like even before, after, or during the movement when necessary. The control device of the projection device projects the product individual information image to the product and / or the product shelf and / or the shipping container and / or the article moving means via the movable image projecting device.).
Regarding claim 17
Watanabe modified in view of Bronicki discloses “The control method according to claim 16,” and further discloses all the elements of claim 17 except “wherein the display includes a touch panel in the area where the first bottom image is to be displayed.”
Bronicki discloses “wherein the display includes a touch panel in the area where the first bottom image is to be displayed.” (See Bronicki [0125] (corresponds to Provisional 63/254,290 [0120]) disclosing an input/output system including a touchscreen.).
Watanabe and Bronicki are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the same problem proposed by the claimed invention. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Bronicki to include using a touchscreen display. Doing so provides known structure in the art for shipping and storing products, incorporated with a reasonable expectation as doing so merely incorporates an obvious design choice, see Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431, & Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70, which advantageously provides a preferential display.
Regarding claim 18
Watanabe discloses “The control method according to claim 1, wherein the display device is a projector for projecting the first bottom image onto a screen, and the placement area corresponds to an area on the screen where the first bottom image is to be projected.” (See Watanabe [0021]-[0022] disclosing a movable projector can project necessary images to the shelf, cargo cart, conveyor or the like even before, after, or during the movement when necessary. The control device of the projection device projects the product individual information image to the product and / or the product shelf and / or the shipping container and / or the article moving means via the movable image projecting device.).
Regarding claim 19
Watanabe discloses “A shipping system that executes the control method according to claim 1.” (See Watanabe [0016] disclosing a product shipping and distribution center.).
Regarding claim 20
Watanabe modified in view of Bronicki discloses “claim 1.” and further discloses all the elements of claim 20 except “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing the shipping system to execute the control method according to”
Bronicki discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing the shipping system to execute the control method according to” (See Bronicki [0123] (corresponds to Provisional 63/254,290 [0118]) disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.).
Watanabe and Bronicki are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the same problem proposed by the claimed invention. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Bronicki to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Doing so provides known structure in the art for shipping and storing products, incorporated with a reasonable expectation as doing so merely incorporates an obvious design choice, see Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431, & Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70, which advantageously provides well known routine and conventional structure in the art.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (J.P. Publication No. 2018/154444)-IDS in view of Bronicki et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0383546) in further view of Pellegrino et. al. (U.S, Patent No. 11,120,267 B1).
Regarding claim 4
Watanabe modified in view of Bronicki discloses “The control method according to claim 1” and further discloses all the elements of claim 4 except “further comprising: when the first product is placed in the placement area, determining whether the first product is correctly placed at a first location in the placement area;”, “when the first product is determined to be correctly placed at the first location, controlling the display device to display an image on the display device indicating that the first product is correctly placed at the first location;”, & “and when the first product is determined to be not correctly placed at the first location, controlling the display device to display an image on the display device indicating that the first product is not correctly placed at the first location.”.
Pellegrino discloses “further comprising: when the first product is placed in the placement area, determining whether the first product is correctly placed at a first location in the placement area;” (See Pellegrino Col. 2, L. 25-30 disclosing processing units in communication with a camera may process images to determine audible feedback for corresponding to correct/incorrect placement of a package on a pallet.).
Pellegrino discloses “when the first product is determined to be correctly placed at the first location, controlling the display device to display an image on the display device indicating that the first product is correctly placed at the first location;” (See Pellegrino Col. 5, L. 47-51 disclosing a display may be controlled to indicate if a package is placed on a correct or incorrect pallet.).
Pellegrino discloses “and when the first product is determined to be not correctly placed at the first location, controlling the display device to display an image on the display device indicating that the first product is not correctly placed at the first location.” (See Pellegrino Col. 5, L. 47-51 disclosing a display may be controlled to indicate if a package is placed on a correct or incorrect pallet.).
Watanabe, Bronicki, and Pellegrino are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the same problem proposed by the claimed invention. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Pellegrino to include feedback for indicating if a product has been placed in a correct or an incorrect location. Doing so provides a known method in the art for shipping and storing products, incorporated with a reasonable expectation as doing so advantageously provides an improvement in product placement accuracy, see Pellegrino Col. 1, L. 62-67 and Col. 2, L. 1-12.
Regarding claim 5
Watanabe modified in view of Bronicki discloses “The control method according to claim 1” and further discloses all the elements of claim 5 except “wherein the shipping system further includes a loudspeaker,”, “and the control method further comprises: when the first product is placed in the placement area, determining whether the first product is correctly placed at a first location in the placement area;”, “when the first product is determined to be correctly placed at the first location, controlling the loudspeaker to output audio indicating that the first product is correctly placed at the first location;”, & “and when the first product is determined to be not correctly placed, controlling the loudspeaker to output audio indicating that the first product is not correctly placed at the first location.”.
Pellegrino discloses “wherein the shipping system further includes a loudspeaker,” (See Pellegrino Col. 2, L. 25-30 disclosing processing units in communication with a camera may process images to determine audible feedback for corresponding to correct/incorrect placement of a package on a pallet. The feedback may be provided through a loudspeaker, see Pellegrino Col. 18, L. 3-8.).
Pellegrino discloses “and the control method further comprises: when the first product is placed in the placement area, determining whether the first product is correctly placed at a first location in the placement area;” (See Pellegrino Col. 2, L. 25-30 disclosing processing units in communication with a camera may process images to determine audible feedback for corresponding to correct/incorrect placement of a package on a pallet.).
Pellegrino discloses “when the first product is determined to be correctly placed at the first location, controlling the loudspeaker to output audio indicating that the first product is correctly placed at the first location;” (See Pellegrino Col. 2, L. 30-34 disclosing providing feedback that pallet has been moved to an incorrect location.).
Pellegrino discloses “and when the first product is determined to be not correctly placed, controlling the loudspeaker to output audio indicating that the first product is not correctly placed at the first location.” (See Pellegrino Col. 2, L. 34-39 disclosing providing feedback that pallet has been moved to an incorrect location.).
The rationale for combining the references is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6
Watanabe modified in view of Pellegrino discloses “The control method according to claim 4” and further discloses all the elements of claim 6 except “wherein: the determining includes determining whether the first product is correctly placed based on image information obtained from a camera.”.
Bronicki discloses “wherein: the determining includes determining whether the first product is correctly placed based on image information obtained from a camera.” (See Bronicki [0119] (corresponds to Provisional 63/254,290 [0114]) disclosing an image processing unit which may communicate with an output device, the output device may present a user-notification that may include information about a correct display location of a misplaced product, information about a store shelf associated with the misplaced product, information about a type of the misplaced product, and/or a visual depiction of the misplaced product.).
The rationale for combining the references is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3 and similarly with respect to claim 12
The recitation “the control method further comprises: determining a method for lifting the one or more target first products using the displacement portion by using (i) a second database that associates and manages the product IDs and 3D data, each item of 3D data being of the product corresponding to the product ID, (ii) the first product ID, and (iii) first location information indicating a first location in the placement area where the first bottom image is to be displayed; and after the one or more first products are placed at the first location in the placement area, controlling the first actuator to lift the one or more target first products in the placement area using the displacement portion according to the determined method.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Watanabe (J.P. Publication No. 2018/154444)-IDS. The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to determining a method for lifting the one or more target first products using the displacement portion by using (i) a second database that associates and manages the product IDs and 3D data, each item of 3D data being of the product corresponding to the product ID, (ii) the first product ID, and (iii) first location information indicating a first location in the placement area where the first bottom image is to be displayed. For example, Watanabe discloses a first database that associates and manages product IDs and images each of which shows a shape of a bottom surface of a product corresponding to the product ID, however the claimed method of determining a method for lifting the target first products is neither disclosed or rendered reasonably obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Galluzzo et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0004391) discloses collaborative order fulfillment systems and methods, see Galluzzo Abstract and see Galluzzo [0157] disclosing verifying the location of a pick and place action for a product, disclosing a correct pick may cause the indicator elements of the indicator bar on the platform to illuminate or signal that the correct pick has been made, an error response, such as a signal sent to the picker's user device, a change in color of the lights linked to the tote in which the item was placed, an audible signal from the AMR, when an incorrect pick is made, and Galluzzo [0130] disclosing a user device including a display screen that may be a touch screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights