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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits. Claim(s) 1-20, as filed on 07/07/2025, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claim(s) 1, 8, 15 recite(s):
Claim 1: “ A
detect, from a 2-dimensional map of a product storage facility, a plurality of structures located within the product storage facility;
identify a plurality of structure groupings each comprising a subset of the plurality of structures;
define a plurality of department areas of the product storage facility and a size of each of the plurality of department areas based on the plurality of structure groupings;
assign, to each of the plurality of department areas, a department label based on the size of the department area;
obtain, using the department labels, structure height data from a database, the structure height data comprising a structure height for each of the department labels defining the height of structures for the corresponding department area; and
convert the 2-dimensional map to a 3-dimensional map including 3-dimensional representations of the plurality of structures using the structure height data.
wherein the distance data is obtained
The limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 recite concepts of facility layout, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that receive data (A, E, G), identify data (B), define and assign data (C, D), convert data (F), and thus are considered Fundamental Economic practice and activities and Commercial practice and activities known in the inventory business.
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claims 1, 8, 15 additional elements are:
Claim 1: “A system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by the processor to:”,
Claim 8: “A method comprising:”,
Claim 15: “A computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by a processor to:”, see specification para. 46 “non-transitory computer readable medium”;
Claims 3, 10, 17: “by a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor of a motorized device configured to move about the product storage facility to capture the distance data”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations A and E and G are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than receive data, and thus are considered insignificant extra-solution activity; the claimed additional elements that perform limitation B is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than identifying data such as structure groupings, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the claimed additional elements that perform limitations C, D are claimed at a high level of generality are considered nothing more than defining and assigning data such as defining departments and departments size based on structured grouping, and assigning it, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the claimed additional elements that perform limitations C, D are claimed at a high level of generality is considered nothing more than converting 2D data to 3D data using a existent technology (i.e.; computer) without the recitation of an improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; when view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1, 8, 15 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Further, Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
Further, the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g). The processing data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claims 1, 8, 15, and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12380400 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than those in the issued patent. Therefore, because the claims in the instant application are broader than those in the issued patent, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (US 20180001481 A1, hereinafter Shah), in view of Marquette et al. (US 12039488 B2, hereinafter Marquette), in view of SARA et al. (US 20190354641 A1, hereinafter SARA), and further in view of Nemati et al. (US 20190042995 A1, hereinafter Nemati).
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, Shah discloses:
Claim 1: “A system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by the processor to:”, Claim8: “A method comprising:”, Claim 15:” A computer-readable medium storing instructions operative by a processor to:” (Figures 1-5)
detect, from a 2-dimensional map of a product storage facility, a plurality of structures located within the product storage facility; (para. 14 and 32-33 - robotic system collects distance data using LIDAR and send raw data to the server that transformers the raw data into 2D floor plan / 2D map; see para. 21);
identify a plurality of structure groupings each comprising a subset of the plurality of structures;(para. 58 - Block S140 of the method S100 recites generating a normalized metaspace by aligning features in the architectural metaspace to features in the (real) map…in Block S140, the system aligns virtual elements within the architectural metaspace to real features within the real map of the store—collected from the robotic system in Block S120—thereby transforming the architectural metaspace into a normalized metaspace containing labeled elements representing real positions of aisles, shelving structures, and/or shelving segments, etc”, see para.60; )
define a plurality of department areas of the product storage facility based on the plurality of structure groupings; assign, to each of the plurality of department areas, a department label based on the shelf segment; (para. 74 “the system can generate a set of waypoints for a subset of shelving segments within the store. For example, the system can label each virtual shelving structure or each virtual shelving segment in the normalized namespace with a category (e.g., cosmetics, boxed cereal, canned goods, detergent, loose produce, loose deli meats) In this example, the system can generate waypoints for shelving segments corresponding to cosmetics, boxed cereal, canned goods, and detergent categories and/or for shelving segments with pegboard-type and flat shelf-type labels,”; [0011][0067] Block S160 of the method S100 recites defining a set of waypoints within the normalized metaspace based on positions of shelving structures within the normalized metaspace and imaging capabilities of the robotic system, wherein each waypoint defines a location and orientation relative to the coordinate system; and Block S170 of the method S100 recites labeling each waypoint in the set of waypoints with an address of a shelving structure proximal the waypoint”; [0074] “the system can label each virtual shelving structure or each virtual shelving segment in the normalized namespace with a category (e.g., cosmetics, boxed cereal, canned goods, detergent, loose produce, loose deli meats)”, see para. 14);
Shah discloses label shelf segments or structures as categories – cosmetic; does not disclose the limitations below:
Marquette discloses:
convert the 2-dimensional map to a 3-dimensional map including 3-dimensional representations of the plurality of structures using the structure height data - Claim 1 “the processor converts data, which have been captured by the camera and which are indicative for two-dimensional space coordinates of at least a part of the storage goods and/or of at least a part of the storage regions, to three-dimensional space coordinates of at least a part of the storage goods and/or of at least a part of the storage regions.”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shah to include the above limitations as taught by Marquette, in order to access to the individual storage regions with still higher precision, see Marquette para. 29.
Shah discloses the department labels are defined and assigned to shelfs segments or structured - para. 67-74; however, does not disclose define “a size of each of the plurality of department areas” and assign “based on the size of the department area”;
SARA discloses: Para. 35 “the layout redesign 108 may include a plurality of parameters or other information for optimizing a layout and resource allocation for a facility 110, such that the layout redesign 108 may define a desired topology (size, position, and orientation) of the departments 112 of the facility 110, and allocation of resources 114 for the departments 112 of the facility 110”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shah to include the above limitations as taught by SARA, in order to precise estimate of each department's size, see SARA para. 32.
Shah discloses the department labels are define and assigned to shelfs segments or structured - para. 67-74; however, does not disclose “obtain, using the department labels, structure height data from a database, the structure height data comprising a structure height for each of the department labels defining the height of structures for the corresponding department area; and”;
Nemati discloses para. 32 “two or more item categories 120 can be selected at the GUI 112 for simultaneous assortment” para. 38 “generate a first assortment 166 of the sample of items 160 based on the item attributes 122 and the shelf attributes 152… The first module 116 determines a variety of combinations of the items in the non-polynomial processing time to determine the best or optimal combination of items for the item and shelf attributes”; para. 28 “The database 102 electronically stores data corresponding to a variety of item characteristics or attributes 122 for each item located in the item categories”; para. 32 “The shelf category 156 can correspond to the department in which the shelf is located and the one or more item categories 120 associated with a particular shelf (e.g., a shelf is generally associated with breakfast items). The shelf dimensions 158 can correspond to the physical characteristics or constraints of the shelf, such as the height, length, depth, width, height between shelves, the number of shelves at each shelving unit, or the like”, wherein zones (e.g., zone for loading in items by pallets, zone for stocking items on shelves/picking items from shelves, zone for packing items by orders, and zone for shipping items out in pallets)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shah to include the above limitations as taught by Nemati, in order to solve a non-deterministic polynomial-time problem associated with automated item assortment selection from a plurality of items in an efficient manner, see Nemati para. 3.
Regarding claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 16-17, Shah discloses:
Claim 2 “wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: obtain, from the database, distance data related to positions of the plurality of structures located within the product storage facility; and generate the 2-dimensional map based on the distance data.”, Claim 3: “wherein the distance data is obtained by a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor of a motorized device configured to move about the product storage facility to capture the distance data and transmit the distance data to the database.”; (para. 21 the robotic has “a set of mapping sensors (e.g., fore and aft scanning LIDAR systems)” para. 32-33 - collect distance data as raw data sent to the server; access by the server to reconstruct these raw map data into a 2D floor plan; and Figure 1)
Regarding claim(s) 4, 11, 18, Shah discloses:
wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: define the plurality of department areas further by correlating detected shapes of the plurality of structure groupings to known shapes of the plurality of department areas. Para. 60 “the system scales and rotationally aligns the architectural metaspace to the real map by matching large or “global” features (clusters of shelving structures, doors, perimeter walls, etc.) in the architectural metaspace to like features in the real map. The system then: associates virtual shelving structures identified in the architectural metaspace with features (e.g., lines, lines of adjacent points) in the real map based on positional and geometric similarities; and locally skews, scales, rotates, translates, or otherwise modifies line vectors representing shelving structures in the architectural metaspace to locally align with associated features (e.g., lines, lines of adjacent points) in the real map, as shown in FIG. 1, thereby transforming the architectural metaspace into a normalized metaspace containing a vectorized line map representing real locations of shelving structures within the store and labeled with addresses of shelving structures, shelving segments, etc. linking such features to a preexisting planogram (or a product position database) for the store”
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 13, Shah does not disclose: wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: obtain image data of one of the plurality of structures depicting a plurality of storage bins stored thereon; detect the plurality of storage bins and products stored therein using a computer vision model; and generate the 3-dimensional map to include 3-dimensional representations of the detected plurality of storage bins and products stored therein.
Marquette discloses: [0055][0073]-[0078] “a processor 122, and which may be configured for determining a data record that may be stored in a database 153… the determination device 110 for determining the data record may be configured even such that the data record for each one of the storage goods 102 may be indicative as to in which sub-region 111 of a respective storage region 104 the respective storage good 102 may be located”; “the capturing device 114 may capture and/or record capturing data as a basis for the determining of the data record. For this purpose, the capturing device 114 may record image data of the storage regions 104 and/or of the storage goods 102 in the storage regions 104”; “the determination device 110 may convert two-dimensional space coordinates of the storage goods 102 and the storage regions 104 that may have been captured by the capturing device 114 to three-dimensional space coordinates of the storage goods 102 and the storage regions 104. This may be effected for example using methods of triangulation. It may also be possible to use for this conversion additional information, which may have been read out from the storage region identification devices 106 and the storage goods identification devices 108.”. Please note: by converting from 2D to 3D depth information is add.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shah to include the above limitations as taught by Marquette, in order to access to the individual storage regions with still higher precision, see Marquette para. 29.
Regarding claim(s) 7, 14, 20 Shah discloses:
generate the 3-dimensional map to include 3-dimensional representations of the detected plurality of storage bins using the depth information. Claim 20: “generate the 3-dimensional map to include 3-dimensional representations of the detected plurality of storage bins and products stored therein using the depth information” (para. 21 the robotic has “a set of mapping sensors (e.g., fore and aft scanning LIDAR systems)” para. 32-33 - collect distance data as raw data sent to the server; access by the server to reconstruct these raw map data into a 2D floor plan; and Figure 1-4);
Shah does not disclose “wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: calculate depth information including a depth of each of the plurality of storage bins stored on the one of the plurality of storage structures based on pixel sizes of each of the plurality of storage bins from the image data; and” claim 20: “further storing instructions operative by the processor to: obtain image data of one of the plurality of structures depicting a plurality of storage bins stored thereon; detect the plurality of storage bins and products stored therein using a computer vision model; calculate depth information including a depth of each of the plurality of storage bins stored on the one of the plurality of storage structures based on pixel sizes of each of the plurality of storage bins from the image data”;
Marquette discloses: [0055][0073]-[0078] “a processor 122, and which may be configured for determining a data record that may be stored in a database 153… the determination device 110 for determining the data record may be configured even such that the data record for each one of the storage goods 102 may be indicative as to in which sub-region 111 of a respective storage region 104 the respective storage good 102 may be located”; “the capturing device 114 may capture and/or record capturing data as a basis for the determining of the data record. For this purpose, the capturing device 114 may record image data of the storage regions 104 and/or of the storage goods 102 in the storage regions 104”; “the determination device 110 may convert two-dimensional space coordinates of the storage goods 102 and the storage regions 104 that may have been captured by the capturing device 114 to three-dimensional space coordinates of the storage goods 102 and the storage regions 104. This may be effected for example using methods of triangulation. It may also be possible to use for this conversion additional information, which may have been read out from the storage region identification devices 106 and the storage goods identification devices 108.”. Please note: by converting from 2D to 3D depth information is add.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shah to include the above limitations as taught by Marquette, in order to access to the individual storage regions with still higher precision, see Marquette para. 29.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, Marquette, SARA, Nemati combination as applied to claim(s) 1, and further in view of Bergstrom et al. (US 10991036 B1, hereinafter Bergstrom).
Regarding claim(s) 5, 12, 19, Shah does not disclose: wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: transmit the 3-dimensional map to a user device for displaying the 3-dimensional map along with a notification associated with the 3-dimensional map.
Bergstrom discloses: “FIGS. 10A and 10B illustrate example mappings 1000, 1020 of a store layout which may be generated by the map building application 146 of the server device 102 and displayed on the server device 102 or another computing device. FIG. 10A illustrates an example table 1000 indicating the results of the mapping of the store layout. The example table 1000 may include several entries 1002-1014 indicating a retail department for an object, a location of the object within the retail area, and a specific set of coordinates for the location. For example, entry 1002 may indicate that a first object at Location A and X-Coordinate 1 is associated with the cold medicine department” and Figure 10;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Bergstrom, in order to efficiently and accurately map a store layout, see Bergstrom para. 87.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights