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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for product sales expiration management.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“acquire shelf monitoring information indicating a change in a display status of a product included in a photographed image based on the photographed image obtained by photographing a product shelf;
acquire sales management information of the product;
determine a criterion for generating an alert based on a possibility of including a product whose sales management expiration has expired, the possibility being evaluated based on the shelf monitoring information and the sales management information; and
generate an alert of the product based on the criterion.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (shelf and sales information), 2) analyzing the acquired data based on one or more rules, and 3) generating a result (alert).
The above steps describe the process of managing product sales expiration. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (commercial or legal interaction – sales activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interaction (sales activities or behaviors), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element in the form of a computing device (processor and memory) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 10 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2019/0333004 (Uchimura et al. – hereinafter Uchimura), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0144340 (Glaser et al. – hereinafter Glaser).
Referring to claim 1, Uchimura discloses a product management device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and [See paragraphs 0032, 0033]
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: [See paragraphs 0032, 0033]
acquire sales management information of the product; [See paragraphs 0003, 0028, 0037, 0038, 0043, 0078]
determine a criterion for generating an alert based on a possibility of including a product whose sales management expiration has expired, the possibility being evaluated based on the shelf monitoring information and the sales management information; and [See paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
generate an alert of the product based on the criterion. [See paragraphs 0076, 0077, 0079]
Uchimura does not explicitly disclose the limitation: acquire shelf monitoring information indicating a change in a display status of a product included in a photographed image based on the photographed image obtained by photographing a product shelf.
Glaser teaches a system with the limitation: acquire shelf monitoring information indicating a change in a display status of a product included in a photographed image based on the photographed image obtained by photographing a product shelf. [See paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0062, 0082, 0123]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Uchimura to have incorporated an inventory imaging feature as in Glaser with the motivation of tracking and monitoring inventory movement and customer interaction with inventory items. [See Glaser paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0123]
Referring to claim 2, the combination Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: specify whether the change in the display status of the product is made by a customer or a store clerk, and in a case where the change is made by the customer, detect an action that disturbs the display status of the product. [See Glaser paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0062, 0082, 0123]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 2, wherein an action of disturbing the display status is any one of that the product is picked up from a back side of a product shelf, that a product picked up by hand is returned to the product shelf, or that another product is placed. [See Glaser paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0062, 0082, 0123]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: specify whether the change in the display status of the product is made by a customer or a store clerk, and in a case where the change is made by the store clerk, detect an action that corrects the display status of the product. [See Glaser paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0062, 0082, 0123]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 4, wherein an action of correcting the display status is either alignment of products or face correction of products. [See Glaser paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0062, 0082, 0123]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
in a case where a number of times of detecting an action disturbing the display status of the product is equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times, set the criterion for generating the alert to be lower than a preset criterion, and in a case where a number of times of detecting an action of correcting the display status of the product is equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times, set the criterion for generating the alert to be higher than the preset criterion. [see Uchimura paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to:
acquire information of a caution-needed product for which confirmation of the sales management expiration is more necessary, and set a criterion of an alert of a sales management expiration of the caution-needed product to be lower than a preset criterion. [See Uchimura paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Uchimura and Glaser discloses the product management device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
monitor an action of a monitoring customer who has acted to disturb the display status of the product; and [See Glaser paragraphs 0020, 0055, 0072, 0062, 0082, 0123]
determine the criterion for generating the alert based on the possibility of including the product whose sales management expiration has expired, the possibility being evaluated based on the shelf monitoring information, the sales management information, and an action of the monitoring customer. [See Uchimura paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
Referring to claim 9, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale.
Referring to claim 10, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627