DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 19/145,961, filed on 07/07/2025. Claims 1-4 and 9-16 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 19/145,961 filed 07/07/2025 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2023/012859, International Filing Date: 03/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/07/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
7. Claims 1-4 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claimed device (claims 1-4), method (claims 9-12), and non-transitory, computer-readable medium (claims 13-16) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture, respectively), and therefore claims 1-4 and 9-16 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing tasks, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, and “Mental Processes” or concepts performed in the human mind such as via observation, evaluation, and judgment. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: identify a shelf that needs to be handled regarding display of a commodity; determine a target person to be notified of a handling request based on the identified shelf or a commodity displayed on the shelf and information relating to a worker; determine a notification method by which the target person can recognize the shelf or the commodity based on at least one of the identified shelf or the commodity displayed on the shelf, and the determined target person; and output notification information according to the determined notification method to the determined target person. These steps cover organizing human activity because the claim recites limitations related to managing work assignments and notifying workers to perform a task, and can also be performed mentally via human evaluation/judgment/opinion perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. Independent claims 9 and 13 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1 and are therefore found to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (claim 1), a computer (claim 9), a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a program and a computer (claim 13). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.”). Even if the step for outputting is evaluated as an additional element, this activity encompasses, at most, insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g), and is not enough to add significantly more since it is well-understood and conventional activity, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (claim 1), a computer (claim 9), a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a program and a computer (claim 13). The additional elements have been fully considered, but fail to add significantly more because they merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation) by describing the use of generic computing elements to implement the claimed invention, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim, similar to simply saying "apply it” or “apply it using a general purpose computer,” which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes generic off-the-shelf computing elements for implementing the claimed invention and suggests that virtually any generic computing devices could be used to implement the invention (See, e.g., Specification paragraph [0031]). Therefore, these additional elements describe generic computing elements that merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
Even if the outputting step is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-4, 10-12, and 14-16 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, merely recite further details of the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by, at most, the involvement of the same generic computing elements as the independent claims which, as noted above, are not sufficient to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In particular, dependent claims 2-4 recite “determine a notification method according to a number of target persons,” “wherein information relating to the worker is at least one of identification information of the worker associated with the commodity or the shelf, a behavior history of the worker, and position information or behavior information of the worker,” “change the target person according to an elapsed time from a time at which the notification information is output,” however, these claims also set forth steps falling within the same Certain methods of organizing human activity and/or Mental Processes abstract idea groupings recited in the independent claim. The other dependent claims have been fully considered as well; however these claims are also directed to the abstract idea itself without integrating it into a practical application and implemented by, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims are recited at a high level of generality and fails to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Pub. No.: US 2021/0027485 A1, [hereinafter Zhang], in view of Iwai et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0300181 A1, [hereinafter Iwai].
As per Claim 1, Zhang teaches an information processing device (paragraph 0165) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (paragraph 0165: “Embodiments of the invention and all of the functional operations described in this specification can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer software, firmware, or hardware...Embodiments of the invention can be implemented as one or more computer program products, e.g., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. The computer readable medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a memory device, a composition of matter effecting a machine-readable propagated signal, or a combination of one or more of them. The term “data processing apparatus” encompasses all apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 0168: “Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read only memory or a random access memory or both. The essential elements of a computer are a processor for performing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data.”; paragraph 0165) to:
identify a shelf that needs to be handled regarding display of a commodity (paragraph 0147, discussing that the system can then provide an notification or task for the display case to be adjusted, potentially showing an image representative of the cluster. Thus, if the Boston cream doughnut area is fully stocked, the system may provide a task that the display area should be adjusted to the state indicated in an example image from the cluster, with the image showing only partial stocking of that type of doughnut as the desired, target state to be achieved. A worker can then remove some of the doughnuts from display, to reach the partially-stocked state that the system determined is likely to increase the rate of sale of the product; paragraph 0004, discussing that the system can identify a worker having responsibility for that table and communicate the task to the worker. The system can also track the progress of the task, for example, detecting in subsequently captured images whether the table still needs to be cleaned and detecting when the table has been cleaned. The system can similarly detect issues and initiate corrective action in many other cases. For example, the system can detect that a line of people at checkout exceeds a certain number, and notify workers that an additional register needs to be opened. As another example, the system can monitor stock in display areas (e.g., display cases, shelves, etc.), determine when stock levels are low, and assign tasks to replenish stock of specific items or at specific areas; paragraph 0032, discussing that the detected condition comprises detection: that an object is dirty, that litter is present in an area,…., that a queue or group has greater than a threshold amount of people,…, that one or more people have occupied an area for longer than a threshold amount of time,…, that a display case or shelf is stocked with less than a desired amount of a product, or that a display case or shelf is stocked with an incorrect amount or type of product; paragraph 0097, discussing that the model may be used to determine a classification for the image of the monitored area or a specific portion of the image. This can include determining a classification for one or more properties of the monitored area or specific objects…The models may additionally or alternatively provide regression outputs, such as a value or score along a scale or range rather than a specific classification. For example, rather than classify a shelf among discrete classifications (e.g., empty, low-stock, medium-stock, or full), the models may output a score along a range indicating the stock level (e.g., 53%) or give a score indicating a likelihood or urgency of checking or correcting the stock level…As another example, the models can provide a score for the monitoring area as a whole or for individual objects or regions within the monitored area for different properties, e.g., occupancy, cleanliness, orderliness, etc. The computer system can then use the scores for these different properties and compare them to thresholds or baseline levels for the properties for the monitored area to determine if the monitored area is in a condition that requires attention or intervention);
determine a target person to be notified of a handling request based on the identified shelf or a commodity displayed on the shelf and information relating to a worker (paragraph 0004, discussing that he system can identify a worker having responsibility for that table and communicate the task to the worker. The system can also track the progress of the task, for example, detecting in subsequently captured images whether the table still needs to be cleaned and detecting when the table has been cleaned. The system can similarly detect issues and initiate corrective action in many other cases. For example, the system can detect that a line of people at checkout exceeds a certain number, and notify workers that an additional register needs to be opened. As another example, the system can monitor stock in display areas (e.g., display cases, shelves, etc.), determine when stock levels are low, and assign tasks to replenish stock of specific items or at specific areas; paragraph 0021, discussing accessing data indicating a set of workers associated with the monitored area; identifying, from among the set of workers, a worker having responsibility for the detected condition; and assigning the task to the identified worker. Providing data indicating the task to be performed includes providing an indication of the assigned task to a device associated with the identified worker);
determine a notification method (paragraph 0040, discussing providing the output comprises causing one or more devices to provide an audible output, a visual output, a haptic output, a text message, an indication in a graphical user interface, an e-mail message, or an output provided using an application programming interface; paragraph 0104, discussing that one of the functions of the module is to generate and assign tasks to address detected conditions. For example, the module determines based on the filtered results from the neural network models that litter is present in a particular portion of the image classified as being a table. The module can use the location information in the image data to identify a name of the table, e.g., Table 2, and determine that this status classification justifies creating a task to perform corrective action. In response, the module generates a new task “Clean Table 2” and assigns it to be completed. The task can be assigned in various ways. For example, the task may appear in a manager's interface, and the manager can choose to carry out the task or delegate the task to another worker. As another example, the computer system can store information indicating workers and their responsibilities in the restaurant, can determine which worker has responsibility for the area (e.g., Table 2) and/or the task type or condition, and can then select an appropriate worker to assign the task to. In this case, the assigned worker can be notified, for example, with a message sent to an electronic address, device, logged-in application, or other functionality associated with the selected worker. Information about the assigned task can also be added to a checklist or task list that is provided to a manager or other workers); and
output notification information according to the determined notification method to the determined target person (paragraph 0037, discussing accessing data indicating a set of workers at the monitored area; identifying, from among the set of workers, a worker having responsibility for the detected condition; and assigning the task to the identified worker. Providing data indicating the task to be performed comprises providing an indication of the assigned task to a device associated with the identified worker; paragraph 0104, discussing that the task can be assigned in various ways. For example, the task may appear in a manager's interface, and the manager can choose to carry out the task or delegate the task to another worker. As another example, the computer system can store information indicating workers and their responsibilities in the restaurant, can determine which worker has responsibility for the area (e.g., Table 2) and/or the task type or condition, and can then select an appropriate worker to assign the task to. In this case, the assigned worker can be notified, for example, with a message sent to an electronic address, device, logged-in application, or other functionality associated with the selected worker; paragraph 0150, discussing that FIG. 6 shows an example of various actions that can be performed to, for example, monitor the state of a monitored area by using machine learning models to process image data showing the area. The process can also provide output indicating, e.g., notifications, alerts, tasks, and other data to inform users of detected conditions determined to need attention or correction).
Zhang does not explicitly teach determine a notification method by which the target person can recognize the shelf or the commodity based on at least one of the identified shelf or the commodity displayed on the shelf, and the determined target person. However, Iwai in the analogous art of task assignment systems teaches this concept. Iwai teaches:
determine a notification method by which the target person can recognize the shelf or the commodity based on at least one of the identified shelf or the commodity displayed on the shelf, and the determined target person (paragraph 0011, discussing a goods monitoring system of the present invention is a goods monitoring system for monitoring a display state of goods based on captured images of a display area in a store, the system comprising: a camera for capturing images of an interior of the store; and a plurality of information processing devices, wherein any one of the plurality of information processing devices comprises: a goods detection unit that detects goods in the display area based on captured images of the display area; a goods state detection unit that detects a goods display state in the display area based on a result of detection by the goods detection unit; a person detection unit that detects persons staying in the store based on captured images of the interior of the store; a person state detection unit that detects a person staying state in the store based on a result of detection by the person detection unit; a notification determination unit that determines propriety of a notification instructing a store staff member to perform a goods management work based on a result of detection by the goods state detection unit and a result of detection by the person state detection unit; and a notification unit that makes the notification based on a result of determination by the notification determination unit; paragraph 0041, discussing that the goods state detection unit detects, as the goods display state, a display disturbance state and a display shortage state, and the goods monitoring device further comprises an input information acquisition unit that, in accordance with an input operation by a user, acquires an input information for selecting a type of notification corresponding to each of the display disturbance state and the display shortage state, wherein the aggregation unit acquires a result of aggregation relating to the state of generation of the notification of the type selected by the user based on the input information acquired by the input information acquisition unit, and wherein the display information generation unit generates the display information relating to the result of aggregation; paragraph 0087: “In this case, performing a goods management work (goods arranging work or goods replenishing work) at the display shelf that is in the arranging-required state or in the replenishment-required state would interfere with the customers, and hence, the store staff member cannot perform the goods management work. Therefore, a notification prompting the goods management work is not made.”; paragraph 0090: “In this case, the store staff member can perform a goods management work (goods arranging work or goods replenishing work) at the display shelf that is in the arranging-required state or in the replenishment-required state without problems, and therefore, a notification prompting the goods management work is made.”; paragraph 0150, discussing that a display disturbance state and a display shortage state are detected as the goods display state, and, in accordance with an input operation by a user, an input information for selecting a type of notification (display disturbance alert and display shortage alert) corresponding to each of the display disturbance state and the display shortage state is acquire. Further, a result of aggregation relating to the state of generation of the notification of the type selected by the user is acquired based on the input information, and display information relating to the result of aggregation is generated. Therefore, the user can grasp, for each type of the notification, at what timing the notification was generated while comparing it with the temporal transition of the goods display state. Thereby, it is possible to examine the problems relating to the goods management in the store in accordance with the type of the notification, namely, in accordance with the content of the defect in the goods display).
Zhang is directed towards monitoring tools that can automatically detect inconsistencies for locations. Iwai is directed to a goods monitoring system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for monitoring and task assignment systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with Iwai because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (task assignment systems), and because modifying Iwai to include Iwai’s feature for including determining a notification method by which the target person can recognize the shelf or the commodity based on at least one of the identified shelf or the commodity displayed on the shelf, and the determined target person, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a system being capable of making a notification instructing a goods management work at an appropriate and effective timing (Iwai at paragraph 0170); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 3, the Zhang-Iwai combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein information relating to the worker is at least one of identification information of the worker associated with the commodity or the shelf, a behavior history of the worker, and position information or behavior information of the worker (paragraph 0008, discussing that the system selectively notifies individuals by identifying one or more individuals that are responsible for or capable of correcting undesirable detected conditions and notifies these individuals. The system can additionally classify the issues it detects, and can even identify and recommend corresponding corrective actions; paragraph 0010, discussing that different workers are provided different task lists or status views with different sets of conditions and/or needed corrective actions for their role or area of responsibility. For example, three workers may each have different sets of item provided for view through an application on their respective mobile devices, each set corresponding to the workers responsibilities. A view provided on a mobile device of a manager can be provided a view of more comprehensive set of items, such as the combined list of all items for the store or a list of the highest priority items for the store; paragraph 0103, discussing that the module can access mapping data that maps different conditions to different types of outputs, different priorities, and different devices, users, and/or roles at the restaurant that should receive the outputs; paragraph 0119, discussing that the computer system may identify a specific employee who has responsibility for this task type or this region of the restaurant. For example, the computer system can access mapping data that maps workers or roles to different responsibilities. In this example, a worker “John” has responsibility for table 2, and so the task is assigned to him).
As per Claim 4, the Zhang-Iwai combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the target person according to an elapsed time from a time at which the notification information is output (paragraph 0120, discussing that after the condition of “litter present” is detected, the computer system can continue to monitor the associated location and determine if the condition has changed. For example, as the computer system continues to monitor the restaurant, such as at some period such as every 10 seconds, every minute, every 5 minutes, every 15 minutes, etc. At each of these monitoring cycles the computer system can evaluate the collected data to determine if the condition remains. If the condition remains for at least a threshold amount of time, such as 30 minutes, then the computer system can take additional actions, e.g., send a reminder about the condition or associated task, increase the priority of the task to correct the condition, notify an additional worker (e.g., supervisor, manager, etc.), re-assign the task to another worker or assign another worker to help with the task, etc. The computer system can continue to monitor conditions and initiate interactions with users until the undesired condition is removed. Similarly, if a worker marks the task shown in task entry complete, but the associated condition is not removed (e.g., litter still remains on table 2), the computer system can re-open or re-assign the task, send a notification of the situation to a supervisor or manager, or take other actions).
Claims 9 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 9 the Zhang-Iwai combination teaches an information processing method executed by a computer (Zhang, paragraph 0012: “a method performed by one or more computers includes…”; paragraph 0059). As per Claim 13, the Zhang-Iwai combination teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to execute (Zhang, paragraph 0165: “Embodiments of the invention and all of the functional operations described in this specification can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer software, firmware, or hardware...Embodiments of the invention can be implemented as one or more computer program products, e.g., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. The computer readable medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a memory device, a composition of matter effecting a machine-readable propagated signal, or a combination of one or more of them. The term “data processing apparatus” encompasses all apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers; paragraph 0168).
Claims 11 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 3, as discussed above.
Claims 12 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 4, as discussed above.
13. Claims 2, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Iwai, in further view of King et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0088096 A1, [hereinafter King].
As per Claim 2, the Zhang-Iwai combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. While Iwai describes that based on the number of persons staying in a goods access area, it is possible to estimate the goods display state in the display area corresponding to the goods access area (paragraph 0070) and that the determination relating to the result of detection of the person staying state in the payment areas and the determination relating to the result of detection of the person staying state in each goods access area are made depending on the presence or absence of a person, such that if there is even a single person in the payment area or the goods access area, the notification is not made. However, it is also possible not to make a notification if the number of persons exceeds a predetermined threshold value that may be two or more (paragraph 0091), the Zhang-Iwai combination does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine a notification method according to a number of target persons. However, King in the analogous art of shelf monitoring systems teaches this concept. King teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine a notification method according to a number of target persons (paragraph 0098, discussing Time Clock Alarm Modulation: Integration with the store's time clock system enables the System Controller to monitor the number of staff clocked in as “on duty” and can be used to intelligently filter the Type 1 and Type 2 alarms that actually result in notification to store personnel; paragraph 0119: ““Notification Modulation” avoids the generation of excessive Notifications (especially Type 1 alarms) based on various conditions including TOD Day Part, the amount of shopper traffic in the store (typically detected by entrance/exit sensors), and the amount of store staff available (typically determined through real time clock data). These factors may preclude the issuance of some Notifications and/or may define the minimum time intervals during which Notifications to a given routing destination (such as to personnel serving a specific department) will be launched.”).
The Zhang-Iwai combination describes features related to monitoring and task assignment. King is directed to a merchandise monitoring system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for monitoring and task assignment systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Zhang-Iwai combination with King because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (task assignment systems), and because modifying Iwai to include Iwai’s feature for including determining a notification method according to a number of target persons, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating more effective customer service, reduce theft and to provide additional analysis data related to merchandise/shopper interaction (King at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10 and 14 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gompei et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0147962 A1 – describes that if the worker determines that an inventory of a commodity A is insufficient in a stationary storage device installed in a certain building, or if the inventory management unit of the server is automatically determined, in the inventory management unit of the server, the inventory state of the insufficient commodity A is investigated.
Monovich et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0210962 A1 – describes the system may provide alerts to draw the user's attention to discrepancies. Optionally, the alerts consist of color-coding of areas in the view according to the presence and severity of discrepancies. Optionally, the alerts may include presenting to the user a list of alerts, possibly ranked and color-coded by their severity. Optionally, the alerts may include messages transmitted to users defined as being in charge of reacting and/or resolving each type of alert. Messages may be transmitted by phone, cellular messaging, e-mail, fax, and instant messaging. In addition, the alerts may include of any combination of the above mechanisms, configurable according to the user's personal preferences, user type, alert type, and organizational procedures.
Koch et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0182867 A1 – describes determining a type of broadcast message and acting according to the broadcast message type or content.
Gupta et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0148147 A1 – describes a system for alerting an employee or agent of a retailer regarding an unfavorable condition including the use of computer-aided visual recognition of products to aid in identifying the location of the unfavorable condition.
Dutcharo et al., Pub. No.: US 2004/0024789 A1 – describes a notification system and method.
Lyerly et al., Pub. No.: US 2007/0198329 A1 – describes providing selections of various types of notifications, which include email, pop-up screen or text message. The controls further enable the user to create different views for the notification message.
Frontoni, Emanuele, et al. "Information management for intelligent retail environment: The shelf detector system." Information 5.2 (2014): 255-271 – describes that shelf-out-of-stock is one of the leading motivations of technology innovation in the shelf of the future. The Shelf Detector project described in this paper aims to solve the problem of data knowledge in the shelf-out-of-stock problem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights