DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated January 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9-10, and 15 have been amended.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 recite the limitation "capturing one or images" in the second and third phrases. The numeral “one” is not modified by an object. While “or images” is definite, the other object which may be captured during this step is not recited, and “one ____” has not been previously introduced. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 10, and 15, respectively, and inherit the same deficiency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method using a head-mounted display device including one or more processors, a camera and one or more displays, the method comprising: identifying a store location and accessing a store-specific product database containing product and pricing information for items available at the identified store location; capturing one or images by the camera of the head mounted display device; detecting, by the one or more processors, an optical code the one or images captured by the camera of the head-mounted display device; obtaining, over a network, product and pricing information for an item from the store-specific product database based on information in the optical code, the product and pricing information including an item identifier and a price; displaying the item identifier and the price in a first display area of the one or more displays of the head-mounted display device; and transferring the item identifier and the price from the first display area into a shopping cart list in a second display area of the one or more displays of the head-mounted display device, wherein the transferring of the item identifier and the price into the shopping cart checkout list occurs after a delay without user input, including without detecting a gesture input, for an item quantity greater than zero.
The above limitations that set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to transfer the price into a shopping cart list (Specification ¶0026). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a head-mounted display device, a camera, one or more displays, a processor, a store-specific product database, a network, and memory.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-9 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Dependent claim 2 recites the additional element a lower-resolution computer vision mode. Dependent claims 3 and 7 recite the additional element a touchpad. These additional elements are similarly recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 2-3 and 7 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, claims 4-6 and 8-9 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-9 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 10-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-9, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostick et al., US PG Pub 2016/0070439 A1 (hereafter “Bostick”), previously cited, in view of Wexler et al., US PG Pub 2016/0026853 A1 (hereafter “Wexler”), previously cited, in further view of Francis et al., US PG Pub 2021/0241351 A1 (hereafter “Francis”).
Regarding claim 1, Bostick teaches a computer-implemented method using a head-mounted display device including one or more processors, a camera and one or more displays (¶¶0003 and 0014), the method comprising:
identifying a store location and accessing a store-specific product database containing product and pricing information for items available at the identified store location (¶¶0012-0018 and 0029-0033)
capturing one or images by the camera of the head mounted display device (¶¶0014, 0023-0024, 0026-0027, and 0029);
detecting, by the one or more processors, an optical code in the one or images captured by the camera of the head-mounted display device (¶¶0018, 0022, and 0037);
obtaining, over a network, product and pricing information for an item from the store-specific product database based on information in the optical code, the product and pricing information including an item identifier and a price (¶¶0011-0018, 0025, and 0030-0033);
displaying the item identifier and the price in a first display area of the one or more displays of the head-mounted display device (¶¶0030-0031); and
transferring the item identifier and the price from the first display area into a shopping cart checkout list in a second display area of the one or more displays of the head-mounted display device, wherein the transferring of the item identifier and the price into the shopping cart list occurs after a delay without user input (¶¶0009, 0015, 0024, 0026, and 0034-0035).
Bostick does not teach for an item quantity greater than zero. Wexler teaches a method for a wearable apparatus processing image data including the known technique transferring the item into a shopping cart after a delay without user input for an item quantity greater than zero (¶¶0756 and 0778-0779). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bostick, to include an item quantity greater than zero as taught by Wexler, in order to “enhance one’s interaction in his environment with feedback and other advanced functionality based on the analysis of captured image data,” as suggested by Wexler (¶0005).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wexler, the results of the combination were predictable.
Bostick teaches transferring of the item identifier and the price into the shopping cart list occurs after a delay without user input but labeled as a gesture including a focal point of the user’s gaze after a threshold period of time. Francis teaches rules for web traffic control including the known technique without detecting a gesture input (¶¶0069, 0080, 0087, 0101, 0141, and 0169). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bostick, to include without detecting a gesture as taught by Francis, in order to “ensure the integrity of their system and provide the best user experience to their customers,” as suggested by Francis (¶0002)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Francis, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the detecting of the presence of the optical code occurs in a lower-resolution computer vision mode compared to photo or video image capture functions (Wexler ¶0209-0210, 0234-0236, 0482, 0528, 0533, 0706, and 0764). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the head-mounted display device includes a touchpad located on a side of the head-mounted display device, the method further comprising: displaying a default item quantity for the item in the first display area; and receiving an input on the touchpad to change the default item quantity for the item to an updated item quantity (Bostick ¶0024).
Regarding claim 4, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: based on the updated item quantity being zero, removing the item identifier and the price from the first display area without transferring the item identifier and the price into the second display area (Bostick ¶0024).
Regarding claim 7, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the head-mounted display device includes a touchpad located on a side of the head-mounted display device, the method further comprising: receiving user selection of an item identifier in the shopping cart list (Bostick ¶0015); displaying the item identifier and the price in the first display area (Bostick ¶¶0030-0031); and receiving user input on a touchpad to change an item quantity for the item to an updated item quantity (Bostick ¶¶0018 and 0035).
Regarding claim 8, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the product information for the item with product information in a user profile; based on the comparison, determining that the item is not preferred; and based on determining that the item is not preferred, setting the default item quantity for the item to zero (Wexler ¶¶0420-0437). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 14-17, all of the limitations in claims 10-12 and 14-17 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-4 and 7-8, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Claims 5-6, 9, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis, and in further view of Chachek et al., US PG Pub 2020/0302510 A1 (hereafter “Chachek”), previously cited.
Regarding claim 5, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising: comparing the product information for the item with product information in a user profile; based on the comparison, determining that the item is not preferred; and displaying a warning in the first display area. Chachek teaches augmented reality based mapping of a venue and navigation within a venue including the known techniques comparing the product information for the item with product information in a user profile (¶¶0094-0096); based on the comparison, determining that the item is not preferred (¶¶0096 and 0109); and displaying a warning in the first display area (¶¶0080-0086). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bostick, to include comparing to a user profile and displaying a warning as taught by Chachek, in order to “improve the accuracy of identifying a product,” as suggested by Chachek (¶0011).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chachek, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis and Chachek teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: based on determining that the item is not preferred, setting a default item quantity for the item to zero (Chachek ¶¶0096 and 0109). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Bostick in view of Wexler and Francis and Chachek teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the store location is determined from the group consisting of: scanning of an optical code located at the store, the optical code identifying the store; and a short range RF signal transmitted at the store, the short range RF signal identifying the store. (Chachek ¶¶0009-0010, 0057, 0081, and 0109). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claims 13 and 18-20, all of the limitations in claims 13 and 18-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 5-6 and 9, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument regarding the §101 rejection (Remarks p. 8), the examiner disagrees. As shown above, the amendments do not make the §101 rejection moot. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art (Remarks pp. 8-9) are rendered moot by the newly cited reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haddick et al., US PG Pub 2013/0127980 A1, teaches video display modification based on sensor input for a see-through near-to-eye display.
Non-patent literature Pierdicca, Roberto, et al. teaches the use of augmented reality glasses for the application in industry.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached on 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights