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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
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, 9-20 and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed toward an abstract idea without any significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites (A) receiving a plurality of video sequences each comprising a sequence of frames, captured by a first camera covering at least a portion of the scene, said plurality of video sequences including at least one staff person and at least one customer; (B) detecting, using at least one computer processor, persons in the plurality of video sequences; (C) classifying, using the at least one processor, the persons to customers, and to staff persons; (D) calculating a signature for at least one of the staff person, enabling a recognition of said at least one of the staff persons appearing in other frames of the plurality of video sequences of a second camera; wherein the signature is a sequence of numbers calculated from an image or a video, wherein the signature is calculated such that similar objects yield similar signatures, wherein the signature is computed using neural network which is pre-trained on a plurality of images and videos of persons; (E) tracking the at least one person at the scene across the second camera by re-identifying the at least one person in at least one video sequence of the second camera based on the at least one person’s signature; (F) carrying out a visual analysis, using the at least one computer processor and based on applying computer vision algorithms to the video sequence of at least one customer interaction which is visible at the scene captured by the first and the second camera, to yield an indication of the interaction between said staff and at least one customer; and (G) recording interaction data descriptive of each of the detected interactions, by visually analyzing, using the at least one computer processor, a sequence of postures and gestures carried out by the staff person and the customer at the video sequences captured by the first and the second camera; and (H) analyzing, using the at least one computer processor, the interaction data, and providing statistics related to the interaction data associated with the staff person.
Limitation (B), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually locating persons in the plurality of video sequences.
Limitation (C), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “classifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing which of the persons are customers and which are staff persons.
Limitation (D), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. . That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining the sequence of numbers (e.g., a badge number or barcode) of a staff person to identify them in other video frames. The recitation of “using a neural network” in limitation (D) merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a neural network” limits the identified judicial exception “calculating a signature” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Similarly, limitations (E)-(H), as drafted, are processes that, under their BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “tracking”, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually locating a staff person in a plurality of video frames, observing at least one customer interaction between the staff person and the customer in the plurality of video sequences through visual analysis, recording data of said interaction by visually analyzing a sequence of postures and gestures carried out by the staff person and the customer at the video sequences and manually analyzing the interaction data. These claim limitations, under their BRI covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The recitation of “based on applying computer vision algorithms” in limitation (F) merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “based on applying computer vision algorithms” limits the identified judicial exception “carrying out a visual analysis” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (artificial intelligence) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations beyond the abstract idea (receiving a plurality of video sequences each comprising a sequence of frames (limitation A); and providing statistics for the interaction events of the staff person (limitation H)) merely amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
As discussed above, there are two additional elements. The additional element of “using a neural network” and “based on applying computer vision algorithms” are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of a computer to perform the limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
Independent claims 15 and 20 recite the corresponding system and non-transitory computer readable medium to the method of claim 1 and are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Claim 2 recites “The method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining customer data relating to the at least one customer, said customer data comprising at least one of: data of the at least one customer extracted from data sources other than the at least one video sequence, or data of the at least one customer extracted from the at least one video sequence captured by the first camera, wherein the visual analysis is further based on said customer data.” The obtaining step is recited a at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data of the at least one customer for use in the visual analysis), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The at least one computer processor that performs the visual analysis is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the visual analysis step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the at least one computer processor).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the at least one computer processor). Accordingly, even in combination, 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 not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first camera is a camera mounted on the staff person.”
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations beyond the abstract idea (capturing the video using a camera) merely uses a computer to perform the abstract idea and generally links the abstract idea to a technological field of use (video surveillance).
Furthermore, using a camera to capture video is a well understood, routine and conventional activity and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first camera is a camera which is pre-installed in fixed location.”
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations beyond the abstract idea (capturing the video using a camera) merely uses a computer to perform the abstract idea and generally links the abstract idea to a technological field of use (video surveillance).
Furthermore, using a camera to capture video is a well understood, routine and conventional activity and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein said customer interaction of the at least one customer comprises movement pattern of the at least one customer at said scene.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually observing the movement pattern of the at least one customer at said scene through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein said customer interaction of the at least one customer comprises an interaction of at least one customer with goods displayed for sale at said scene.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually an interaction of the at least one customer with goods displayed for sale at the scene through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer corresponds with no interaction.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually observing no interaction at said scene through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the customer interaction of the customer is derived based on visual analysis carried out based on the recognition of said at least one customer in said one or more video sequence.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user deriving the customer interaction by manually recognizing the at least one customer at said scene through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “The method according to claim 1, further comprising classifying, using the at least one computer processor, the persons to at least one staff person.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “classifying”, encompass the user manually identifying one of the persons as at least one staff person. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “The method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one visible interaction between at least one staff person present at the scene and the at least one customer, is based on at least one video sequence in which both the staff person and the customer appear.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually identifying that both the staff person and the customer appear in at least one video sequence through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “The method according to claim 1, further comprising generating a report, based on the indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer, and providing said report in a format usable for observing performance of the at least one staff person.” The generating step is recited a at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data, based on the indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the at least one computer processor).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations beyond the abstract idea (providing statistics for the interaction events of the staff person) merely uses a computer to perform the abstract idea and generally links the abstract idea to a technological field of use (video surveillance).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the at least one computer processor). Accordingly, even in combination, 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 not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “The method according to claim 1, further comprising generating a report, based on the indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer, and providing said report in a format usable for the at least one staff person to improve the interaction with the customer.” The generating step is recited a at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data, based on the indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the at least one computer processor).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations beyond the abstract idea (providing statistics for the interaction events of the staff person) merely uses a computer to perform the abstract idea and generally links the abstract idea to a technological field of use (video surveillance).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the at least one computer processor). Accordingly, even in combination, 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 not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-19 recite the corresponding systems to the methods of claims 2-5 and are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Claim 22 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction data comprises an appearance time of the customer, and a duration from the appearance time of customer until a start time of the interaction.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually observing the appearance time of the customer and the amount of time between the appearance time and the start of the interaction through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction data comprises a duration of the interaction.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually observing how long the interaction lasts through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction data comprises detection of the customer leaving the scene without an interaction with the staff person.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using at least one computer processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using at least one computer processor” language, “detecting”, “classifying”, “calculating, “carrying out visual analysis”, “recording”, and “analyzing” encompass the user manually observing the customer leaving the scene without an interaction with the staff person through visual analysis. This claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, falling under the abstract idea group: “Mental Processes (Human Observation)”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 25-27 recite the corresponding systems to the methods of claims 22-24 and are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent claims 28-30 recite the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium to the methods of claims 22-24 and are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 9-20 and 22-30 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.
Independent claims 1, 15 and 30 recite the limitation “…tracking the at least one person at the scene across the second camera by re-identifying the at least one person in at least one video sequence of the second camera based on the at least one person's signature…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one person” in the claims. The claims teach detecting “persons” and then classifying them into “customers” and to “staff persons”. In identifying these persons, the claims continuously refer to them as “customer/customers” and “staff person/staff persons”. Accordingly, the use of “the at least one person” is inconsistent with the entirety of the pending claims and is unclear.
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.
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 1-5, 10-20, 23, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20180285802 A1, hereinafter Lewis) in view of Fairbanks (US 20150363735 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Lewis teaches receiving a plurality of video sequences each comprising a sequence of frames, captured by a first camera covering at least a portion of the scene, said plurality of video sequences including at least one staff person and at least one customer (fig. 3: cameras 304 & 308, ¶¶0036-0039: The cameras of system 300 collect associate (i.e., staff) action data including video from a retail store (i.e., a portion of a scene).);
detecting, using at least one computer processor, persons in the plurality of video sequences (¶¶0036-0039: The cameras of system 300 track associate interaction with customers (i.e., persons));
classifying, using the at least one computer processor, the persons to staff persons (¶0037: The cameras of system 300 may scan an employee badge and/or barcode to identify the employee or associate.);
calculating a signature for the at least one staff person, enabling a recognition of said at least one staff person appearing in other frames of the plurality of video sequences of a second camera (¶0037: The cameras of system 300 may scan an employee badge and/or barcode to identify the employee or associate; ¶¶0044-0047: An employee/associate may be tracked in such a way that it is determined if they come within a predefined distance to a customer and/or if they deviate away from particular area.; ¶0045: Any one of the cameras may transmit the associate action data.);
wherein the signature is a sequence of numbers calculated from an image or a video, wherein the signature is calculated such that similar objects yield similar signatures (¶0037: The cameras of system 300 may scan an employee badge and/or barcode to identify the employee or associate), wherein the signature is computed using neural network which is pre-trained on a plurality of images and videos of persons (¶0037: The one or more cameras of system 300 may also provide associate action data which may be analyzed (i.e., video analytics) to identify the employee of associate. Examiner Note: Video Analytics are known, by those skilled in the art, to use advanced algorithms and machine learning to manage large volumes of video);
tracking the at least one person at the scene across the second camera by re-identifying the at least one person in at least one video sequence of the second camera based on the at least one person's signature (¶¶0044-0047: An employee/associate may be tracked in such a way that it is determined if they come within a predefined distance to a customer and/or if they deviate away from particular area.; ¶0045: Any one of the cameras may transmit the associate action data.; ¶0056: “Additionally, associate body cameras, store cameras, and/or microphone data may be used to determine an associate's movement about a store and whether the associate lead the customer to a product.”);
carrying out a visual analysis, using the at least one computer processor and based on applying computer vision algorithms to the video sequence of at least one customer interaction which is visible at the scene captured by the first and the second camera, to yield an indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer (¶0039: The one or more associate interaction tracking (AIT) processes use video analytics in determining whether the interaction between the associate and the customer has been initiated and determining whether the associate acted in accordance with an electronically defined associate-customer interaction policy during the interaction.);
recording interaction data descriptive of each of the detected interactions, by visually analyzing, using the at least one computer processor, a sequence of postures and gestures carried out by the staff person and the customer at the video sequences captured by the first and the second camera (¶0055: Associate action data may be received from the body cameras and may represent a skeletal image of the associate's body or the customer's body. In particular, skeletal images of the arms, wrists, and/or hands of the associate and a person approaching the associate (e.g., a customer) may be used by various analytics and algorithms to detect if the arms, wrists, and/or hands of the associate and the customer join, move up or down, or otherwise move to indicate that a handshake occurred. Associate action data corresponding to the skeletal images of the arms, wrists, and/or hands of the associate and/or customer may be analyzed to determine if, for example, the arms, wrists, and/or hands moves up and/or down relative to a y-axis with different degrees of speed to determine if the handshake occurred, if the handshake was a relatively long or big or small hand shake, if the right hand was used, etc.); and
analyzing, using the at least one computer processor, the interaction data, and providing statistics related to the interaction data associated with the staff person (¶0056: Further, in an implementation, AIT process 10 may determine whether the associate acted in accordance with the electronically defined associate-customer interaction policy during the interaction by determining (220) whether the associate lead the customer to a product. Determining (220) whether the associate lead the customer to a product may be based on the associate action data received from the electronic sensor. For example, AIT process 10 may use the associate action data and various video, audio, and/or location-based analytics (among other types of analytics at the associate-customer interaction server) to determine (220) whether the associate lead the customer to a product and further determine whether the associate acted in accordance with the electronically defined associate-customer interaction policy.). Not explicitly taught is classifying the persons to customers.
Fairbanks, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying both the customer and personnel (¶0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the teachings of Fairbanks into the Lewis invention in order to aid the system in properly identifying the customer (Fairbanks, ¶0073).
Concerning claim 2, Lewis in view of Fairbanks further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining customer data relating to the at least one customer, said customer data comprising at least one of: data of the at least one customer extracted from data sources other than the at least one video sequence (Lewis, ¶0042: heat sensor; ¶¶0053-0054: audio from microphones), or data of the at least one customer extracted from the at least one video sequence captured by the first camera, wherein the visual analysis is further based on said customer data (Lewis, ¶0055: skeletal images of arms, wrists, and/or hands of the customer are analyzed; Fairbanks, ¶0073: voice and/or facial recognition).
Concerning claim 3, Lewis further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first camera is a camera mounted on a staff person (fig. 3: body camera 308; ¶0042).
Concerning claim 4, Lewis in view of Fairbanks further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first camera is a camera which is pre-installed in a fixed location (Lewis, fig. 3, camera 304 & ¶0036; Fairbanks, ¶0104).
Concerning claim 5, Lewis in view of Fairbanks further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said customer interaction of the at least one customer comprises movement pattern of the at least one customer at said scene (Lewis, ¶0055; ¶0072: tracking customer interactions (e.g., a simple greeting or more involved actions) via video data).
Concerning claim 10, Lewis in view of Fairbanks further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the customer interaction of the customer is derived based on visual analysis carried out based on the recognition of said at least one customer in said one or more video sequence (Lewis, ¶0055; Fairbanks, ¶0073: voice and/or facial recognition).
Concerning claim 11, Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising classifying, using the at least one computer processor, the persons to at least one staff person (Lewis, ¶0037: The cameras of system 300 may scan an employee badge and/or barcode to identify the employee or associate. Fairbanks, ¶0073).
Concerning claim 12, Lewis in view of Fairbanks further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the at least one visible interaction between at least one staff person present at the scene and the at least one customer, is based on at least one video sequence in which both the staff person and the customer appear (Lewis, ¶0055; Fairbanks, ¶¶0073, 0101).
Concerning claim 13, Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a report, based on the indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer, and providing said report in a format usable for observing performance of the at least one staff person (Lewis, fig. 2: 208, ¶0041, ¶0057; Fairbanks, ¶¶0077, 0079-0080).
Concerning claim 14, Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a report, based on the indication of the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer, and providing said report in a format usable for the at least one staff person to improve the interaction with the customer (Lewis, ¶0060: tactical feedback; Fairbanks, ¶0108: using a poor rating to rectify the situation with the customer).
Claim 15 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Concerning claim 23, Lewis further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction data comprises a duration of the interaction (¶0052: how long the associate-customer interaction was).
Claim 26 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 23 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 29 is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium to the method of claim 23 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 22, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20180285802 A1, hereinafter Lewis) in view of Fairbanks (US 20150363735 A1) and Subramanian et al. (US 20220083767 A1, hereinafter Subramanian).
Concerning claim 22, Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method according to claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the interaction data comprises an appearance time of the customer, and a duration from the appearance time of customer until a start time of the interaction.
Subramanian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method to provide real time interior analytics, wherein the interaction data comprises an appearance time of the customer (fig. 5: 504-508; ¶¶0057-0061), and a duration from the appearance time of customer until a start time of the interaction (¶0033; ¶0051; fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the features of Subramanian in order to further determine if the associate is complying with the associate-customer interaction policy.
Claim 25 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 22 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 28 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 22 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 9, 24, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20180285802 A1, hereinafter Lewis) in view of Fairbanks (US 20150363735 A1) and Bondareva et al. (US 20210287226 A1, hereinafter Bondareva).
Concerning claim 6, Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein said customer interaction of the at least one customer comprises an interaction of at least one customer with goods displayed for sale at said scene.
Bondareva, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method of managing transactions in physical retail stores, wherein said customer interaction of the at least one customer comprises an interaction of at least one customer with goods displayed for sale at said scene (¶0041; ¶0054; ¶0065). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bondareva in order to keep track of items the customer interacted with (Bondareva,¶0041).
Concerning claim 9, Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer corresponds with no interaction.
Bondareva, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method of managing transactions in physical retail stores, wherein the interaction between said staff person and the at least one customer corresponds with no interaction (fig. 2B: 230-235; ¶¶0065-0066: determining the customer is attempting to leave without picking up the transaction item (e.g., not returning to pick up a prescription from the pharmacy or meat from the butcher)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bondareva in order to record the relevant movements and activities (i.e., interactions) of the staff person and customers.
Concerning claim 24, , Lewis in view of Fairbanks teaches the method according to claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the interaction data comprises detection of the customer leaving the scene without an interaction with the staff person.
Bondareva, in a similar field of endeavor, describes a method of managing intangible shopping transactions, wherein a customer may electronically make a request for a product (e.g., sending an electronic prescription to a pharmacy) and the method comprises means for detecting a customer leaving the store without the item they requested (¶¶0011-0013; ¶0043; ¶0066). That is to say, Bondareva’s method comprises detection of the customer leaving the scene (e.g., leaving the pharmacy area or the store) without an interaction with the staff person (e.g., picking up the requested item from the pharmacist). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bondareva in order to record the relevant movements and activities (i.e., interactions) of the staff person and customers.
Claim 27 is the corresponding system to the method of claim 24 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 30 is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium to the method of claim 24 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13 of the remarks, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 9-20, and 22-30 under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection except for those addressed below.
Concerning the Lewis reference, Applicant alleges
“Lewis discloses using one or more body cameras worn by an associate to derive skeletal images of arms, wrists, and/or hands of an associate and/or a customer, and analyzing such skeletal images to detect a specific hand-to-hand interaction, namely a handshake. However, Lewis does not teach or suggest the presently claimed derivation of staff-customer interactions at a scene, captured by one or more stationary cameras at known locations, using a skeleton representation that comprises a simplified model of a human body represented by straight lines connected by joints to represent major body parts, and used to derive interactions between staff and customers at the scene. (Lewis paragraph [0055]).
Lewis is silent regarding the newly claimed tracking the at least one person at the scene across the second camera. Therefore, Lewis cannot remedy the aforementioned deficiencies o Fairbanks, Subramanian Kovach, or Buban.”
This is not persuasive. Lewis, in paragraph [0037], teaches identifying an employee or associate using an employee badge or barcode. Furthermore, in paragraph [0047], Lewis discloses that the system may determine if an associate has deviated from an assigned area in a retail store. The system may assume that the associate has left the area to assist a customer. Using associate body cameras and store cameras, the system may further determine an associates movement throughout a store and whether the associate lead the customer to a product (Lewis, paragraph [0056]). Based on these teachings, it is the examiner’s position that Lewis, in using body cameras and store cameras, may track an associate throughout the store across multiple cameras.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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 PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights