DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 07/01/2025.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The current Application claims priority from PCT/JP2023/000770 filed 01/13/2023. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 01/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 07/01/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are:
-“a management section configured to manage display information …” in claim 1.
-“a selection section configured to select …” in claim 1.
-“the management section manages the display information …” in claim 2.
-“the selection section selects …” in claim 2.
-“the management section manages …” in claim 4.
-“wherein the management section acquires …” in claim 5.
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.
Examiner Note: Under the 112(b) interpretation of the management section, the management section is a memory.
Regarding the instruction section, ‘instruction’ is a structural modifier that indicates that instruction section is software instructions.
Regarding the selection section, paragraphs [0020], [0028]-[0029], [0035], describe an algorithm and associated software/hardware that is sufficient to provide support for the recited functions under 112(a) and further disclose structure that is capable of performing the recited functions and clearly links the structure to the claimed function under 112(b).
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 1-5 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, 2, 4, and 5 recite a “management section.” In light of Fig. 1 and [0020] of the specification, it is unclear whether the management section and the storage section are the same section as both the management section and the storage section manage the display information. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the management section as being the same as the storage section, and accordingly, as a memory (see [0020] of Applicant’s spec).
Claims 2-5 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 1, and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Examiner notes that under the 112(b) interpretation above “management section” is interpreted as a memory of the system. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are not software per se.
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-A product display system for causing an automatic display device capable of recogn[ition] [of] identification information of products to convey and display the products at a display place, the product display system comprising:
-a management section configured to manage display information in which the identification information and position information of the products displayed at the display place are associated with each other;
-a selection section configured to select a collection target product from the products displayed at the display place based on the display information; and
-an instruction section configured to transmit, to the automatic display device, a collection instruction for the product including the identification information and the position information of the collection target product.
The above limitations recite the concept of collecting a displayed product based on product identification information and product position information. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of a product display system for causing an automatic display device capable of recogn[ition] [of] identification information of products to convey and display the products at a display place, the product display system comprising: a management section configured to manage display information in which the identification information and position information of the products displayed at the display place are associated with each other; a selection section configured to select a collection target product from the products displayed at the display place based on the display information; and an instruction section configured to transmit, to the automatic display device, a collection instruction for the product including the identification information and the position information of the collection target product are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the conveying and displaying is by an automatic display device, that the managing is via a management section, that the selecting is via the selection section, and that the transmitting is to the automatic display device and via an instruction section, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “an automatic display device,” “a management section,” “a selection section,” and “an instruction section” language, “convey and display,” “manage,” “select,” and “transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-A product display system for causing an automatic display device capable of recognizing identification information of products to convey and display the products at a display place, the product display system comprising:
-a management section configured to manage display information in which the identification information and position information of the products displayed at the display place are associated with each other;
-a selection section configured to select a collection target product from the products displayed at the display place based on the display information; and
-an instruction section configured to transmit, to the automatic display device, a collection instruction for the product including the identification information and the position information of the collection target product.
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 9 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0014] of Applicant’s specification – “. Control section 32 includes CPU, ROM, RAM, and the like, none of which is illustrated. Storage section 33 is HDD, SSD, or the like, and stores various application programs and various information. Display information 33a similar to display information 23a stored in management device 20 is stored in storage section 33, and details thereof will be described below. Communication section 34 exchanges information with management device 20 via network 12. Input device 35a is a device, such as a keyboard or a mouse, through which a clerk (worker) performs an input operation. Display device 35b is a device that displays various information, such as a liquid crystal display.” Specifically, the additional elements of an automatic display device, a management section, a selection section, and an instruction section are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of conveying data, displaying data, managing data, selecting data, and transmitting data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 6 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 6 recites the additional elements of an automatic display device, however, claim 6 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-5, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-5 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2-5 recite the additional elements of the management section, the selection section, the instruction section, and the automatic display device, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-5 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1 and 6, dependent claims 2-5 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. collecting a displayed product based on product identification information and product position information) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adato et al. (US 2019/0215424 A1), hereinafter Adato.
Regarding claim 1, Adato discloses a product display system for causing an automatic display device capable of recognizing identification information of products to convey and display the products at a display place, the product display system comprising:
-a management section configured to manage display information in which the identification information and position information of the products displayed at the display place are associated with each other – the management section unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 112(b) as a memory in light of [0020] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s spec/drawings (Adato, see at least: “The one or more processors may generate one or more indicators of the one or more aspects of planogram compliance. For example, an indicator may comprise a data packet, a data file, or any other data structure [i.e. a management section] indicating any variations from a planogram, e.g., with respect to product placement such as encoding intended coordinates of a product and actual coordinates on the shelf [i.e. configured to manage display information in which the identification information and position information of the products displayed at the display place are associated with each other], with respect to product facing direction and/or orientation such as encoding indicators of locations that have products not facing a correct direction and/or in an undesired orientation, or the like” [0194] and “Database 140 [i.e. a management section] may include product models 1201, confidence thresholds 1203, and some other data. Product models 1201 may include product type model data 240 (e.g., an image representation, a list of features, and more) that may be used to identify products in received images” [0243] and “Consistent with the present embodiment, “product model” refers to any type of algorithm or stored product data [i.e. are associated with each other] that a processor can access or execute to enable the identification of a particular product [i.e. configured to manage display information in which the identification information] associated with the product model. For example, the product model may include a description of visual and contextual properties of the particular product (e.g., the shape, the size, the colors, the texture, the brand name, the price, the logo, text appearing on the particular product, the shelf associated with the particular product, adjacent products in a planogram, the location within the retail store, etc.) [i.e. and position information of the products displayed at the display place]” [0244] and “Such location information may be stored in a “Head & Shoulders Shampoo” digital record in database 140 associated with the product type and the retail store. The location information may include an indication of a correct display location in the retail store (e.g., cleaning section, soft drink section, dairy product shelves, apparel section, etc.), an indication of the floor (e.g., 2nd floor), an indication of the aisle (e.g., 4th aisle), an indication of the shelf (e.g., the bottom shelf, the second shelf to the top, etc.), an address, a position coordinate, a coordinate of latitude and longitude [i.e. configured to manage display information in which the identification information and position information of the products displayed at the display place are associated with each other], an area in a planogram, and/or an area on a map, etc.” [0470] and “Database 140 may include one or more memory devices [i.e. a management section] that store data and instructions used to perform one or more features of the disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, database 140 may be configured to store product models” [0242]);
-a selection section configured to select a collection target product from the products displayed at the display place based on the display information - the management section unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in light of paragraphs [0020], [0028]-[0029], [0035] of Applicant’s spec (Adato, see at least: “the at least one processor may be configured to determine whether the first product is located in the first correct display location [i.e. configured to select a collection target product from the products displayed at the display place]. Determining whether the first product is located in the first correct display location may include comparing the location depicted in the one or more images with the first correct display location [i.e. based on the display information]. If the locations do not match, the at least one processor may determine that the first product is not located in the first correct display location. In some aspects, the correct display location may be in a backroom storage area. For example, a type of product that is expired or is not supposed to be displayed, the correct display location associated with the type of product may be “backroom storage.”” [0473] and “Processing device 202 may include at least one processor configured to execute computer programs, applications, methods, processes, or other software to execute particular instructions [i.e. a selection section] associated with embodiments described in the present disclosure” [0237]); and
-an instruction section configured to transmit, to the automatic display device, a collection instruction for the product including the identification information and the position information of the collection target product (Adato, see at least: “the information provided to the user may be part of a product-related task assigned to a store employee and may include details of the recommended rearrangement. For example, when product assortment rules associated with a plurality of products are used to determine a recommended rearrangement, as discussed in relation to process 32A, the information provided to a user may include a product-related task assigning a store employee the task of rearranging the plurality of products … The product-related task may be communicated as written instructions, a diagram, an image [i.e. a collection instruction for the product including the identification information], a series of images, a combination thereof, or any other means of communicating the task” [0630] and “the information provided to a user may include identification of a location of the at least one store shelf where the potential for product rearrangement exists [i.e. configured to transmit a collection instruction for the product including the position information of the collection target product]. For example, the information may contain an indication of an area of a store in which a potential product rearrangement was detected. The location may include a description of a location, a map depicting a location, directions leading one to a particular location, or any other information that may facilitate navigation of a human or robotic system [i.e. to the automatic display device] to the location” [0632] and “product categories may be identified by analyzing the images, by the location of the shelf, using a planogram, applying a product model, etc. as described above. Processing device 202 may be configured to execute steps 3318 and 3320 to determine the first and second product related tasks, respectively…For example, some product categories may require… a robotic employee” [0665] and “Additional non-limiting examples of product-related tasks may include cleaning, restocking shelves, restocking displays, rearranging shelves or displays according to planograms, returning misplaced product to the correct shelf or display, re-orienting products to have a desired orientation, removing products from the store (e.g. expired products, products that are no longer sold in the store, in response to a product recall, etc.) [i.e. a collection instruction for the product including the identification information]” [0661] and “Processing device 202 may include at least one processor configured to execute computer programs, applications, methods, processes, or other software to execute particular instructions [i.e. an instruction section] associated with embodiments described in the present disclosure” [0237] see also [0631]).
Regarding claim 2, Adato discloses the system of claim 1. Adato further discloses:
-wherein the management section manages the display information by associating the identification information and the position information of the products with expiration date information of the products – the management section unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 112(b) as a memory in light of [0020] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s spec/drawings (Adato, see at least: “Database 140 [i.e. wherein the management section] may include product models 1201, confidence thresholds 1203, and some other data. Product models 1201 may include product type model data 240 (e.g., an image representation, a list of features, and more) that may be used to identify products in received images” [0243] and “Consistent with the present embodiment, “product model” refers to any type of algorithm or stored product data that a processor can access or execute to enable the identification of a particular product associated with the product model [i.e. by associating]. For example, the product model may include a description of visual and contextual properties of the particular product (e.g., the shape, the size, the colors, the texture, the brand name, the price, the logo, text appearing on the particular product, the shelf associated with the particular product, adjacent products in a planogram, the location within the retail store, etc.) [i.e. manages the display information by associating the identification information and the position information of the products]” [0244] and “the contextual information used to determine the second candidate type may include information from multiple stores. Such information may include logos appearing on the product, a location of the product in the retail store, a brand name of the product, a price of the product, expiration time information [i.e. with expiration date information of the products], product nutrition information, and/or discount information, etc.”[0267] Examiner notes that the contextual information stored in association with the product model includes the product identification, location information, and expiration time information), and
-the selection section selects the collection target product based on the expiration date information of the products - the management section unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in light of paragraphs [0020], [0028]-[0029], [0035] of Applicant’s spec (Adato, see at least: “The shelf spaces may also be compared with sales data, expired products data, and more” [0127] and “Determining whether the first product is located in the first correct display location may include comparing the location depicted in the one or more images with the first correct display location. If the locations do not match, the at least one processor may determine that the first product is not located in the first correct display location. In some aspects, the correct display location may be in a backroom storage area. For example, a type of product that is expired or is not supposed to be displayed, the correct display location associated with the type of product may be “backroom storage” [i.e. selects the collection target product based on the expiration date information of the products]” [0473] and “Processing device 202 may include at least one processor configured to execute computer programs, applications, methods, processes, or other software to execute particular instructions [i.e. the selection section] associated with embodiments described in the present disclosure” [0237]).
Regarding claim 5, Adato discloses the system of claim 1. Adato further discloses:
-wherein the management section acquires the identification information of the products displayed at the display place and the position information of the products from the automatic display device to update the display information, and acquires identification information of a product collected from the display place and original position information where the product is displayed from the automatic display device to update the display information – the management section unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 112(b) as a memory in light of [0020] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s spec/drawings (Adato, see at least: “The data for each product model may be stored as rows in tables or in other ways. In some embodiments, database 140 may be configured to update at least one product model. Updating a group of product models may comprise deleting or deactivating some data in the models. For example, image processing unit 130 may delete some images in the product models in database 140, and store other images for replacement [i.e. the management section acquires the identification information of the products displayed at the display place and the position information of the products from the automatic display device to update the display information]” [0242] and “In addition to or as an alternative to determining planogram compliance, the one or more processors may detect a change in measurements from one or more detection elements. Such measurement changes may trigger a response. For example, a change of a first type may trigger capture of at least one image of the shelf (e.g., using capturing devices 125 [i.e. from the automatic display device] of FIGS. 4A-4C explained above) [i.e. acquires the identification information of the products displayed at the display place and the position information of the products from the automatic display device to update the display information, and acquires identification information of a product collected from the display place and original position information where the product is displayed from the automatic display device to update the display information] while a detected change of a second type may cause the at least one processor to forgo such capture. A first type of change may, for example, indicate the moving of a product from one location on the shelf to another location such that planogram compliance may be implicated” [0195] and “the capturing device may include a robotic device with one or more cameras operated remotely or autonomously (e.g., an autonomous robotic device, a drone, a robot on a track, and more) [i.e. from the automatic display device]” [0115]).
Claim 6 recites limitations directed towards a method. The limitations recited in claim 6 is parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adato in view of Capers et al. (US 11,645,613 B1), hereinafter Capers.
Regarding claim 3, Adato discloses the system of claim 1. Adato further discloses:
-wherein the instruction section transmits, to the automatic display device, the collection instruction including an instruction to convey and display the collection target product at a display place other than an original display place (Adato, see at least: “Determining whether the first product is located in the first correct display location may include comparing the location depicted in the one or more images with the first correct display location. If the locations do not match, the at least one processor may determine that the first product is not located in the first correct display location. In some aspects, the correct display location may be in a backroom storage area. For example, a type of product that is expired or is not supposed to be displayed, the correct display location associated with the type of product may be “backroom storage” [i.e. including an instruction to convey and display the collection target product at a display place other than an original display place]” [0473] and “the information provided to a user may include identification of a location of the at least one store shelf where the potential for product rearrangement exists. For example, the information may contain an indication of an area of a store in which a potential product rearrangement was detected. The location may include a description of a location, a map depicting a location, directions leading one to a particular location, or any other information that may facilitate navigation of a human or robotic system [i.e. transmits, to the automatic display device, the collection instruction] to the location” [0632] and “Processing device 202 may include at least one processor configured to execute computer programs, applications, methods, processes, or other software to execute particular instructions [i.e. the instruction section] associated with embodiments described in the present disclosure” [0237]).
Adato does not explicitly disclose that the other display place is a display place where the product is sold at a price lower than a price when the product is displayed at the original display place.
Capers, however, teaches generating a display of merchant inventory items (i.e. Col. 2 Ln. 9-12), including the known technique of the other display place being a display place where the product is sold at a price lower than a price when the product is displayed at the original display place (Capers, see at least: “in examples, in which one of the one or more options includes offering the soon-to-be expired item at a discount, the service computing device may determine the discount associated with each soon-to-be expired item [i.e. where the product is sold at a price lower than a price when the product is displayed at the original display place]. For example, based at least in part on the muffins expiring before the bagels, the muffins may be discounted at 10% and the bagels discounted at 5%” Col. 22 Ln. 8-14 and “the action(s) may include physical actions for the merchant to perform, such as moving a location of an item to a front of a display containing the muffins and/or bagels [i.e. the other display place is a display place]. In some examples, the action(s) may include an action to perform with respect to a computing device, such as adjusting a display associated with the item to reflect an offer of the item at a discount. In such examples, the merchant may adjust an image 304(2) and/or 304(4) to emphasize and/or highlight the soon-to-be expired items” Col. 21 Ln. 40-48 and “the merchant may advertise the discount aurally, and/or via a separate and distinct display [i.e. the other display place], sign, or the like” Col. 21 Ln. 59-61). This known technique is applicable to the system of Adato as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating a display of merchant inventory items.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the other display place being a display place where the product is sold at a price lower than a price when the product is displayed at the original display place, as taught by Capers, to the teachings of Adato would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar systems. Further, adding the modification of the other display place being a display place where the product is sold at a price lower than a price when the product is displayed at the original display place, as taught by Capers, into the system of Adato would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would encourage sales of particular inventory items based on expiration dates (Capers, Col. 2 Ln. 34-35).
Regarding claim 4, Adato in view of Capers teaches the system of claim 3. Adato further discloses:
-wherein the management section manages the display information by associating the identification information and the position information of the products with expiration date information of the products – the management section unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 112(b) as a memory in light of [0020] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s spec/drawings (Adato, see at least: “Database 140 [i.e. wherein the management section] may include product models 1201, confidence thresholds 1203, and some other data. Product models 1201 may include product type model data 240 (e.g., an image representation, a list of features, and more) that may be used to identify products in received images” [0243] and “Consistent with the present embodiment, “product model” refers to any type of algorithm or stored product data that a processor can access or execute to enable the identification of a particular product associated with the product model [i.e. by associating]. For example, the product model may include a description of visual and contextual properties of the particular product (e.g., the shape, the size, the colors, the texture, the brand name, the price, the logo, text appearing on the particular product, the shelf associated with the particular product, adjacent products in a planogram, the location within the retail store, etc.) [i.e. manages the display information by associating the identification information and the position information of the products]” [0244] and “the contextual information used to determine the second candidate type may include information from multiple stores. Such information may include logos appearing on the product, a location of the product in the retail store, a brand name of the product, a price of the product, expiration time information [i.e. with expiration date information of the products], product nutrition information, and/or discount information, etc.”[0267] Examiner notes that the contextual information stored in association with the product model includes the product identification, location information, and expiration time information),
-the instruction section transmits, to the automatic display device, the collection instruction including an instruction to convey and display the collection target product at a display place (Adato, see at least: “the information provided to a user may include identification of a location of the at least one store shelf where the potential for product rearrangement exists. For example, the information may contain an indication of an area of a store in which a potential product rearrangement was detected. The location may include a description of a location, a map depicting a location, directions leading one to a particular location, or any other information that may facilitate navigation of a human or robotic system [i.e. to the automatic display device] to the location” [0632] and “Additional non-limiting examples of product-related tasks may include cleaning, restocking shelves, restocking displays, rearranging shelves or displays according to planograms, returning misplaced product to the correct shelf or display, re-orienting products to have a desired orientation, removing products from the store (e.g. expired products, products that are no longer sold in the store, in response to a product recall, etc.) [i.e. transmits the collection instruction including an instruction to convey and display the collection target product at a display place]” [0661] and “a type of product that is expired or is not supposed to be displayed, the correct display location associated with the type of product may be “backroom storage” [i.e. including an instruction to convey and display the collection target product at a display place]” [0473] and “Processing device 202 may include at least one processor configured to execute computer programs, applications, methods, processes, or other software to execute particular instructions [i.e. the instruction section] associated with embodiments described in the present disclosure” [0237]).
Adato does not explicitly disclose that as the other display place, multiple display places with different price reduction rates are present, and the display place being a display place that applies a higher price reduction rate as the collection target product approaches its expiration date, based on the expiration date information of the products.
Capers, however, teaches generating a display of merchant inventory items (i.e. Col. 2 Ln. 9-12), including the known technique of as the other display place, multiple display places with different price reduction rates are present (Capers, see at least: “in examples, in which one of the one or more options includes offering the soon-to-be expired item at a discount, the service computing device may determine the discount associated with each soon-to-be expired item. For example, based at least in part on the muffins expiring before the bagels, the muffins may be discounted at 10% and the bagels discounted at 5% [i.e. with different price reduction rates are present]” Col. 22 Ln. 8-14 and “the action(s) may include physical actions for the merchant to perform, such as moving a location of an item to a front of a display [i.e. as the other display place, multiple display places] containing the muffins and/or bagels. In some examples, the action(s) may include an action to perform with respect to a computing device, such as adjusting a display associated with the item to reflect an offer of the item at a discount. In such examples, the merchant may adjust an image 304(2) and/or 304(4) to emphasize and/or highlight the soon-to-be expired items” Col. 21 Ln. 40-48 and “the merchant may advertise the discount aurally, and/or via a separate and distinct display [i.e. as the other display place, multiple display places], sign, or the like” Col. 21 Ln. 59-61), and
the known technique of displaying the collection target product at a display place that applies a higher price reduction rate as the collection target product approaches its expiration date, based on the expiration date information of the products (Capers, see at least: “in examples, in which one of the one or more options includes offering the soon-to-be expired item at a discount, the service computing device may determine the discount associated with each soon-to-be expired item. For example, based at least in part on the muffins expiring before the bagels, the muffins may be discounted at 10% and the bagels discounted at 5% [i.e. that applies a higher price reduction rate as the collection target product approaches its expiration date, based on the expiration date information of the products]” Col. 22 Ln. 8-14 and “the action(s) may include physical actions for the merchant to perform, such as moving a location of an item to a front of a display containing the muffins and/or bagels [i.e. display the collection target product at a display place]. In some examples, the action(s) may include an action to perform with respect to a computing device, such as adjusting a display associated with the item to reflect an offer of the item at a discount. In such examples, the merchant may adjust an image 304(2) and/or 304(4) to emphasize and/or highlight the soon-to-be expired items” Col. 21 Ln. 40-48 and “the merchant may advertise the discount aurally, and/or via a separate and distinct display [i.e. display the collection target product at a display place], sign, or the like” Col. 21 Ln. 59-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adato with Capers for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Sugahara et al. (US 2019/0080278 A1) teaches a robot that positions products in a store.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
