FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 2/2/2026:
The amendment to claims 1 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendment to the title is acknowledged and accepted.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that a position or orientation of the object in a subsequently captured image changes”. Based on the applicant’s remarks and claim amendments, it appears the applicant is attempting to claim that the position/orientation of the object changes and this is reflected in a subsequent image. The claim language does not clearly reflect this claim language. As such, suggested language is “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that a subsequently captured image displays a change in the position or orientation of the object”, to prevent interpretation of the change occurring in/within an image. For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that a subsequently captured image displays a change in the position or orientation of the object”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that a position or orientation of the object in a subsequently captured image changes”. Suggested language is “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that a symbol attached to the object faces the camera in a subsequently captured image”. It is not clear if the applicant intends the camera to be in the subsequently captured image. Please clarify. The claim language implies that the camera is also in the subsequently captured image since the object is to face the “camera in the subsequently captured image”. If the applicant does not intend the camera to be also captured, then suggested language is “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that the camera subsequently captures an image that includes a symbol attached to the object”. For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as “an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that the camera subsequently captures an image that includes a symbol attached to the object”.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite “controls the camera to capture another image, and performs the recognition process again upon detection of a change in the images captured by the camera”. It is unclear if “another image” is the same as, or different than, the subsequently captured image. Please clarify. Additionally, claim 1 recites “then executing the recognition process again”. It is not clear if the step of “performs the recognition process again upon detection of a change in the images captured by the camera” refers to the “then executing the recognition process again” in claim 1, or if the process is repeated again, after it is repeated in claim 1. Please clarify. If referred to the same, suggested language is “controls the camera to capture the subsequent image, and performs the recognition process on the subsequently captured image”.
For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as “controls the camera to capture the subsequent image, and performs the recognition process on the subsequently captured image”.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20, based on the following interpretation, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, based on the following interpretation, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, upon determining that the two or more candidate items have similar appearances: upon determining that the two or more candidate items do not have similar appearances, controlling the display to display a second guidance screen with an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that the camera subsequently captures an image that includes a symbol attached to the object, and then executing the recognition process again, in addition to the other limitations of the claims.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, based on the following interpretation, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, after the first or second guidance screen is displayed, controlling the camera to capture the subsequent image, and performs the recognition process on the subsequently captured image, in addition to the other limitations of the claims from which claims 4, 11 and 18 depend.
Claims not specifically addressed would be allowable due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 (e.g. upon determining that the two or more candidate items have similar appearances, control a display to display a first guidance screen with an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that subsequently captured image changes similar appearances, controlling the display to display a second guidance screen with an instruction to reposition or rotate the object so that [[turn]] a symbol attached to the object towards faces the camera in a subsequently captured image, and then executing the recognition process again).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato (US 2016/0180509) discloses commodity identification device and commodity recognition navigation method, where an object is recognized from an image taken by a camera and compared to reference images of each commodity in a plurality of directions, and when the object is similar to a plurality of commodities, specify reference images having a noticeable difference and guide the operator to rotate the object so that the object in the direction corresponding to the specified reference images is directed toward the camera.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 pm 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, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights