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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending regarding this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is considered and attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "130" and "210" have both been used to designate the image capture device. Furthermore, reference characters "140" and "206" have both been used to designate the item tracker, reference characters "144" and "220" have both been used to designate the recognition rates, reference characters "146" and "224" have both been used to designate the recognition thresholds, reference characters "136" and "208" have both been used to designate the item list data, reference characters "102" and "222" have both been used to designate the computing device, reference characters "116" and "236" have both been used to designate the user device, reference characters "122" and "218" have both been used to designate the recognition model, reference characters "120" and "232" have both been used to designate the cluster model, reference characters "124" and "238" have both been used to designate the labeling application, reference characters "138" and "212" have both been used to designate the item image data. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 2-7, 9-13, and 16-20 all recite the word “Claim” in line 1, wherein the “C” in claim is capitalized. Please amend the above claims such that the word “claim” is recited with a lowercase “c”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1: “an item tracker configured to generate item selection data”, “an image capture device configured to capture image data”
In claim 2: “a cluster model configured to group images”
In claim 8: “an item tracker configured to generate the item selection data”
In claim 9: “a cluster model configured to group images”
In claim 15: “an item tracker configured to generate the item selection data”, “
In claim 16: “a cluster model configured to group images”
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification, the cluster model in the above claims is interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f). Below are the corresponding structure and algorithm which are being read into the above limitations:
“an item tracker” (Applicant’s specification states that item tracker 206 “is a checkout register or other POS terminal” in para. [0044]. See FIG. 2 #206. Therefore, the corresponding structure for the item tracker is the physical structure of a POS terminal).
“an image capture device” (Applicant’s specification states that “FIG. 3 depicts an exemplary image capture device 210 that includes two bays 306 that shoppers can pass through, each bay 306 including a plurality of cameras 308, 310, 312 configured to capture images of items 204 as the user walks through the bay 306” in para. [0045]. See FIGs 2 and 3, #210. Therefore, the corresponding structure for the image capture device is the described physical structure as outlined in FIG. 3).
“a cluster model” (Applicant’s specification shows that the cluster model 120 resides inside the computing device 102, as shown in FIG. 1. Furthermore, applicant’s specification recites that the applications within the computing device, including the cluster model 120, are executed by processor 106 as shown in para. [0026]. Therefore, the corresponding structure for the cluster model is a processor and the corresponding algorithm, which can be found in para. [0026], [0030], [0042], and [0057]-[0058]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the “items list” as recited in line 12 and line 14, please note that the “items list” is interpreted as equivalent to a receipt for prior art searching purposes. See para. [0036] of applicant’s specification wherein applicant defines the items list as transaction receipts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “receive, for each of a plurality of items, a recognition rate corresponding to a rate of success of correlation between image data of the item and an identified selection of the item from the item selection data from an item recognition model utilizing the item selection data and the image data”. Here, applicant claims “a plurality of items”. However, line 2 recites “selected items”. As such, it is unclear whether the plurality of items as recited in line 6 is equivalent to or distinct from the selected items as recited in line 2. Furthermore, it is unclear whether “the item” as recited in line 7, along with the instance of “the item” recited in lines 7-8, refer to the plurality of items as recited in line 6, or the selected items as recited in line 2. Since both recitations of “the item” are singular, even if the item is the item of the plurality of items, “the item” still lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Additionally, the above limitation recites “image data of the item” in line 7. However, “image data of selected items” is similarly recited in line 3 of claim 1. As such, it is unclear whether the “image data of the item” as recited in line 7 is equivalent to or distinct from the “image data of the selected items” as recited in line 3. Applicant discusses the limitation as recited in lines 6-9 of claim 1 in para. [[039]-[0040], [0051]-[0055], and [0061]-[0062] of the specification. However, none of these sections clarify whether the multiple instances of the items and the image data as described above are equivalent to or distinct from each other. As such, claim 1 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “image data of the item” in line 4. Claim 8 additionally recites “a plurality of item” in line 2, and “selected items” in line 6”. Here, “the item” recited in line 4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Additionally, even if line 4 were to recite “an item” it remains unclear whether the item is an item of the plurality of items as recited in claim 2, or if the item is one of the selected items as recited in line 6. Applicant discusses the above limitation(s) in para. [0031]-[0033] and [0037] of the specification. However, none of these sections clarify the scope of the item as recited in line 4.
Similar analysis is applied to claim 15.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Miyakoshi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0068168 A1), hereinafter Miyakoshi, Goncalves (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0304595 A1), Xiao et al. (US 2023/0245535 A1), hereinafter Xiao, and Zucker et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0104594 A1), hereinafter Zucker. Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 1-20.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1,
Miyakoshi teaches a system for sampling item data, comprising: an item tracker configured to generate item selection data for lists of selected items; an image capture device configured to capture image data of selected items; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by a processor to: receive, for each of a plurality of items, a recognition rate corresponding to a rate of success of correlation between image data of the item and an identified selection of the item from the item selection data from an item recognition model utilizing the item selection data and the image data; determine, from the plurality of items, a plurality of target items each having a recognition rate that fails to satisfy a recognition threshold.
Goncalves further teaches an item tracker configured to generate item selection data for lists of selected items; an image capture device configured to capture image data of selected items; determine, from the plurality of items, a plurality of target items each having a recognition rate that fails to satisfy a recognition threshold.
Xiao further teaches retrieving image data associated with items lists.
However, neither Miyakoshi, nor Goncalves, nor Xiao, nor the combination, teaches identify, from the item selection data, a plurality of candidate items lists each including at least one of the plurality of target items; determine a group of top items lists from the plurality of candidate items lists; and retrieve image data associated with the top items lists, in combination with the other elements of the claim, along with the claim interpretation as outlined in the above claim interpretation section.
Similar analysis is applicable to claims 8 and 15. Please note that the image capture device is only interpreted under 112(f) in claim 1, as noted above in the Claim Interpretation section.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include allowable subject matter by virtue of being dependent upon claims 8 and 15 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm 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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights