DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 11-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12340360 in view of Hastings (US 9424480 B2).
Instant Application (19/216,634) Claim 1 and 11
US 12340360 Claim 1
1. A method comprising:
11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving one or more images from a camera of a user device, wherein the one or more cameras depict an item;
“1. A computer vision system for identifying merchandise, comprising: at least one processor adapted to obtain computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive one or more images of merchandise selected by a shopper from a camera of a user device;”
identifying one or more portions of the one or more images depicting a machine- readable label affixed to the item based on the one or more images of depicting the item,
“identify, in the one or more images of merchandise selected by a shopper, an identifier affixed to the selected merchandise by”
wherein each of the one or more portions is identified by: predicting an item category of the item;
“generating a naïve item category of the selected merchandise”
localizing the portion of the image containing the machine-readable label based on the item category;
“localizing a portion of the image containing the identifier based on the naïve item category”
identifying an item identifier encoded in the machine-readable label based on the identified one or more portions of the one or more images; and
“identify, in the one or more images of merchandise selected by a shopper, an identifier affixed to the selected merchandise by”
comparing the identifier with an identifier database to identify the item.
Patented claim 1 discloses all the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 as noted above, but fails to disclose and Hastings discloses comparing the identifier with an identifier database to identify the item (column 8 35-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claims by using barcode data to identify items. The motivation for the combination is improves system performance (column 3 40-65).
Claims 2/12 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 3.
Claim 3/13 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 4.
Claim 4/14 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 6.
Claim 5/15 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 8.
Claim 6/16 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 9.
Claim 7/17 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 10.
Claim 8/18 are rejected based on the above combination applied to the patented claim 11.
Claims 9, 10, 19, 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12340360 in view of Hastings (US 9424480 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 11 and further in view of Ron (US 11620822 B1).
Regarding claim 9/19, patented claim 1 as modified discloses the subject matter of claims 1/11, but fails to disclose and Ron discloses: updating a display of the user device to display content describing the identified item (fig. 9 902). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim as modified by displaying recognized items. The motivation for the combination is improved efficiency (paragraph 10 37).
Regarding claim 10/20, patented claim 1 as modified discloses the subject matter of claims 1/11, but fails to disclose and Ron discloses: updating an item database of a remote server based on the identified item. (column 27 30-55 server can maintain virtual cart database). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim as modified by displaying recognized items. The motivation for the combination is improved efficiency (paragraph 10 37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brakob (US 20230005342 A1) discloses a system for image based identification of items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights