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.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 06/17/2026. Currently, claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are pending. Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 have been amended. Claims 11 and 12 are newly added. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled.
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, 3 and 5-12 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 tracking product sales expiration.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
identify a product by recognizing product identification (ID) information of the product included in a photographed image obtained by photographing a product shelf;
detect a change in a display status of the identified product by analyzing the photographed image;
determine whether the change in the display status of the product is made by a customer or a store clerk by identifying clothes of a person who touches the product in the photographed image;
in a case where the change in the display status of the product is determined as being made by the customer, count, as an action that disturbs the display status of the product, the change as an action that disturbs the display status of the product, and in a case where the change in the display status of the product is determined as being made by the store clerk, count the change as an action that corrects the display status of the product;
acquire shelf monitoring information comprising a count of actions that disturb the display status of the product and a count of actions that correct the display status of the product;
acquire sales management information of the product from a point of sales (POS) system installed in a store;
determine a criterion for generating an alert based on a possibility of the product shelf comprising 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, wherein generating the alert comprises generating a graphical user interface indicating a location where the product whose sales management expiration has expired is displayed on a store map.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (images), 2) analyzing the acquired data to determine display changes and associated person (customer or store clerk), 3) increasing a count based on data analysis (display change and person associated with change), 4) acquiring data (shelf and sales information), 5) analyzing the acquired data based on one or more rules, and 6) generating and displaying result (alert and item location).
The above steps describe the process of tracking and managing product sales expiration based on item interaction. 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 3, 5-8, 11 and 12 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, 3 and 6-12 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) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0410472 (Higa et al. – hereinafter Higa), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0161060 (Francis et al. – hereinafter Francis).
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]
identify a product by recognizing product identification (ID) information of the product included in a photographed image obtained by photographing a product shelf; [See paragraphs 0034, 0049-0052, 0057-0061]
acquire sales management information of the product from a point of sales (POS) system installed in a store; [See paragraphs 0003, 0028, 0037, 0038, 0043, 0078]
determine a criterion for generating an alert based on a possibility of the product shelf comprising 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, wherein generating the alert comprises generating a graphical user interface indicating a location wherein the 112
product whose sales management expiration has expired is displayed on a store map. [See paragraphs 0076, 0077, 0079]
Uchimura does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
detect a change in a display status of the identified product by analyzing the photographed image;
determine whether the change in the display status of the product is made by a customer or a store clerk by identifying clothes of a person who touches the product in the photographed image; and
in a case where the change in the display status of the product is determined as being made by the customer, count, as an action that disturbs the display status of the product, the change as an action that disturbs the display status of the product, and in a case where the change in the display status of the product is determined as being made by the store clerk, count the change as an action that corrects the display status of the product.
Higa teaches a system with the limitations:
detect a change in a display status of the identified product by analyzing the photographed image; and [See paragraphs 0054, 0073, 0103-0106, 0256, 0261-0268]
in a case where the change in the display status of the product is determined as being made by the customer, count, as an action that disturbs the display status of the product, the change as an action that disturbs the display status of the product, and in a case where the change in the display status of the product is determined as being made by the store clerk, count the change as an action that corrects the display status of the product. [See paragraphs 0054, 0073, 0103-0108, 0132, 0256, 0261-0268]
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 Higa with the motivation of tracking and monitoring inventory movement and customer interaction with inventory items. [See Uchimura paragraphs 0007-0012]
Francis teaches a system with the limitation: determine whether the change in the display status of the product is made by a customer or a store clerk by identifying clothes of a person who touches the product in the photographed image. [See paragraphs 0553, 0859]
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 the combined teachings of Uchimura and Higa to have incorporated an image analyzing feature as in Francis with the motivation of identifying uses associated with an item interaction. [See Francis paragraphs 0553, 0859]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Uchimura, Higa and Francis discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein the action that disturbs the display status comprises that the product is picked up from a back side of the product shelf, that a product picked up by hand is returned to the product shelf, or that another product is placed. [See Higa paragraphs 0054, 0148, 0177, 0180]
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 first 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 second 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 requires confirmation of the sales management expiration, 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 1, 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 Higa paragraphs 0054, 0055, 0098-0102]
determine the criterion for generating the alert based on the possibility of the product shelf comprising the product whose sales management expiration has expired, the possibility being evaluated based on the shelf monitoring information, the sales management information, and the 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.
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Uchimura, Higa and Francis discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein
the possibility of the product shelf comprising the product whose sales management expiration has expired is represented by a score value, and [See Uchimuara paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
add a value to the score value in a case where the count of actions that disturbs the display status of the product is equal to or greater than a first predetermined number of times; [See Higa paragraphs 0084, 0104, 0107, 0108, 0260, 0282]
subtract a value from the score value in a case where the count of actions that correct the display status of the product is equal to or greater than a second predetermined number of times; [See Higa paragraphs 0084, 0104, 0107, 0108, 0260, 0282]
determine whether the calculated score value is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold; [See Higa paragraphs 0084, 0104, 0107, 0108, 0260, 0282]
in a case where the score value is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, set the criterion for generating the alert lower than a preset criterion; [See Uchimuara paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
in a case where the score value is less than the predetermined threshold, set the criterion for generating the alert higher than a preset criterion. [See Uchimuara paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041-0043, 0064, 0073]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Uchimura, Higa and Francis discloses the product management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: track a location of a customer in the store using facial recognition based on face image data captured by one or more cameras in the store. [See Higa paragraphs 0077, 0134-0139, 0215]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura in view of Higa and Francis, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0144340 (Glaser et al. – hereinafter Glaser).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Uchimura, Higa and Francis discloses the product management device according to claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein an action of correcting the display status is either alignment of products or face correction of products.
Glaser teaches a system with the limitation: 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]
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 the combined teachings of Uchimura, Higa and Francis 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]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The features of “identifying a product by recognizing product identification information in a photographed image”, “detecting a change in a display status by analyzing the photographed image” and “generating a graphical user interface showing an item location on a map”, describe processing a received photographed image to determine a product and display change, and displaying item location on a store map. These steps recited at a high level of generality amount to processing and outputting data, which are encompassed in the identified abstract idea. See also MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional feature of “tracking a location of a customer in the store using a facial recognition based on captured face image data” describes processing collected image data using known technique (see applicant’s filed specification, page 12, lines 20-25). This step recited at high level of generality describes analyzing collected data (using known technique), which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See also MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura in view of Glaser have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights