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 .
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 1–8, 10 and 27-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-8, 10, are directed toward system (apparatus) and claims 27-35 are directed towards method (process) and 36-42 are directed towards product. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
The claims are directed to:
detecting misplaced items;
assigning tasks to users;
guiding users to locations;
reporting task completion.
These steps constitute organizing human activity and information processing, which are abstract ideas
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
The claims merely use generic XR devices, cameras, and servers to implement the abstract idea. No claim recites an improvement to:
camera operation,
XR rendering,
localization algorithms, or
computer networking.
Regarding Step 2B
The additional elements (notifications, navigation overlays, incentives, servers) are:
well-understood,
routine,
conventional.
They do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims are not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–8, 10 and 27-42 are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 27-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2023/0274410, hereinafter Patil), in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0156695, hereinafter Zhang).
With respect to claims 1, 27 and 36 Patil discloses a feature of capturing shelf images using fixed cameras (¶¶ 31–34);
analyzing images to detect missing or misplaced retail items (¶¶ 41–44);
determining item identity and shelf location (¶¶ 45–47);
generating remediation tasks for store personnel (¶¶ 52–55);
transmitting task information via a backend server (¶¶ 56–58).
Patil does not explicitly disclose the feature of an augmented-reality device receiving tasks from a server, displaying a task notification with an option to accept, rendering AR navigation overlays guiding a user to a target indoor location, transmitting task acceptance and progress updates to the server.
However, Zhang teaches the feature of;
an augmented-reality device receiving tasks from a server (¶¶ 48–51);
displaying a task notification with an option to accept (¶¶ 52–54);
rendering AR navigation overlays guiding a user to a target indoor location (¶¶ 58–63);
transmitting task acceptance and progress updates to the server (¶¶ 64–66).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine:
Patil’s misplaced-item detection and task generation system, with Zhang’s AR navigation and task acceptance interface, in order to improve efficiency, reduce search time, and guide personnel directly to misplaced items.
This combination: involves analogous retail-store environments; applies a known navigation technique to a known retail problem; yields predictable results.
With respect to claims 2-4, 28-30 and 37-39 Patil discloses the feature of identifying multiple misplaced items and tracking their locations (¶¶ 44–47), and
Zhang teaches the feature of determining user position using spatial mapping and generating indoor navigation paths (¶¶ 36–39, 59–61).
With respect to claims 5-7, 31-33 and 40-42 Patil discloses the feature of verifying corrective actions and updating inventory status once items are relocated (¶¶ 60–63), and Zhangdiscloses the feature of transmitting task completion confirmations from AR devices (¶¶ 64–66).
With respect to claims 8, 10, 34 and 35 Patil discloses the feature of continuous shelf monitoring and repeated generation of remediation tasks (¶¶ 64–68).Providing incentives for task acceptance constitutes a known business practice implemented using generic computing systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627