Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 4/27/2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 18, 20-22 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 2-4, 7, 9, 12-14, 17, and 19 stand cancelled. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Applicant is invited to request a telephonic interview prior to next response.
Claim Rejection - 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, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, and 21 are directed to a process, and claims 11, 15-6, 18, 20, and 22 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 18, and 20-22 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1 and 11 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
selectively requesting a user to locate an item in a retail store in exchange for a coupon for the item, the value of the coupon proportional to an amount of use of location identifying features by the user, the user being one of a plurality of users;
directing the user to an expected location of the item via directional objects to facilitate movement in the retail store to the expected location;
receiving confirmation from the user that the item has been located;
capturing a current location of the item, wherein the current location of the item is derived by a tracker module that:
monitors movement as the user traverses a path through the retail store based on successive measurements;
determines, based on the successive sensor measurements, a position of the user along predefined path segments or nodes defining the path, wherein the position is updated as the user progresses between successive nodes along the path; and
in response to receiving the confirmation that the item has been located, derives the current location of the item based on the determined position along the path at a time corresponding to receipt of the confirmation; and
updating an item location record to include the captured current location of the item.
The above limitations recite the concept of inventory mapping. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 18, and 20-22 an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
A mobile shopping application on a mobile device
An augmented reality visual interface provided by the mobile shopping application in which data is overlaid onto a video signal of the mobile device
A module operating in conjunction with the application
sensor measurements from at least one of a camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, or depth sensor of the mobile device
A database
A system, comprising: a server having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the server coupled to a mobile shopping application on a mobile device of a user, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to perform operations
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 8, 10, 18, and 20-22 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 5-6, 15-6, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of capturing a photograph, capturing a barcode. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A mobile shopping application on a mobile device
An augmented reality visual interface provided by the mobile shopping application in which data is overlaid onto a video signal of the mobile device
A module operating in conjunction with the application
sensor measurements from at least one of a camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, or depth sensor of the mobile device
A database
A system, comprising: a server having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the server coupled to a mobile shopping application on a mobile device of a user, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to perform operations
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 non-
obviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek et al (US 20200302510 A1), hereinafter Chachek, in view of Taylor et al (US 20160350709 A1), hereinafter Taylor.
Regarding Claim 1, Chachek discloses a method, comprising:
incentivizing a user of a mobile shopping application on a mobile device to locate items in a retail store via the mobile shopping application in exchange for a coupon for the items, the value of the coupon proportional to an amount of use of location identifying features of the mobile shopping application by the user (Chachek: “incentivize customers to participate in such crowd-sourced effort of mapping and localization of the venue … by providing to such participating customers one or more incentives, rewards, prizes, discounts, coupons” [0005] - “a user that enabled the uploading and/or the sharing of images and/or video frames from his AR-based application to the system's server (and thus has helped to improve or to update the system/s database and/or map …) may be rewarded with 1 credit point per image or per each 10-seconds of video sharing … the collected credit points may be exchanged …for coupons” [0138]),
the user being one of a plurality of users (Chachek: “multiple end-users having multiple respective end-user devices” [0006]);
directing the user to an expected location of an item via an augmented reality visual interface [AR-based navigation instructions] provided by the mobile shopping application in which directional objects [arrows] are overlaid onto a video signal of the mobile device in order to facilitate movement in the retail store to the expected location (Chachek: “AR-based navigation instructions that are generated, displayed and/or conveyed to the user, may include AR -based arrows or indicators that are shown as an overlay on top of an aisle or shelf of products, which guide the user to walk or move or turn to a particular direction in order to find a particular product; such as, the user stands in front of the Soda shelf…he requested to be navigated to Sprite …system generates AR - based content, such as an AR - based arrow that points to the left and has a textual label of “walk 3 meters to your left to see Sprite”, and that content is shown on the visualization of the Pepsi shelf on the user device. … the system proceeds to perform rapid real-time recognition of the products that are currently imaged in the field - of - view of the imager of the end-user device, … then proceeds to generate and displayed AR-based … emphasis of such sub - set of products [0063] – “collect the input … video of the current surrounding of the user), and to extract form such input (I) an indication of the current location of the user, and/or (II) an indication of the destination that the user wants to reach within the store (or the mapped environment).” [0065] – See also [0139]);
receiving confirmation from the user device that the item has been located via the mobile shopping application (Chachek: “analyze an image or a captured frame, and may determine that it shows three boxes of “Corn Flakes”; and may optionally detect a logo or a brand-name which may be compared to or match with a list of product makers or product manufacturing; thereby enabling the system to determine which product is located in real life at which locations in the store” [0059] – “user Adam may utilize his smartphone within the store to navigate …The imager is thus continuously operational, and may periodically capture and send or upload images to the system's server or database, together with an indication of the precise user location and spatial orientation… stitch together such uploaded or streamed images or frames, and/or to construct from them the store map or updates thereto; and/or to perform computerized vision and/or image analysis and/or OCR on the captured images or frame… a fresh image from a customer shows that only Four boxes are on the shelf” [0118]);
capturing a current location of the item in conjunction with the mobile shopping application (Chachek: “periodically capture and send or upload images to the system's server or database, together with an indication of the precise user location and spatial orientation. … a fresh image from a customer shows that only Four boxes are on the shelf” [0118]), wherein the current location of the item is derived by a tracker module operating in conjunction with the mobile shopping application that:
monitors movement of the mobile device as the user traverses a path through the retail store based on successive sensor measurements from at least one of a camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, or depth sensor of the mobile device (Chachek: “As the user walks within the store, the system continuous to monitor his current real-time location …collect the input from the unit via … image or video of the current surrounding of the user … to extract form such input (I) an indication of the current location of the user …the current location of the user may be deduced by the system via one or more suitable ways; for example, by computer vision analysis or OCR analysis of image(s) or video taken by the user” [0064-0066] - “The precise localization of the device is determined, based on computer vision analysis of image(s) captured” [0081]);
determines, based on the successive sensor measurements, a position of the mobile device along predefined path segments or nodes defining the path, wherein the position is updated as the mobile device progresses between successive nodes along the path (Chachek: “As the user walks within the store, the system continuous to monitor his current real-time location; … detects a deviation from the suggested walking route; … generating an alert that “You have turned left at Aisle 5, …re-calculate a new walking route, from the current deviated location to the planned destination point or destination product, and may convey to the user the updated walking instructions.… the current location of the user may be deduced by the system …by computer vision analysis or OCR analysis of image(s) or video taken by the user” [0064-0066] - “The particular location of the user within the store or the venue, as derived from his portable device location via one or more of the above-mentioned methods … may further be used to construct a Shopping Route or a Traveling Route that each particular user exhibits or follows” [0067] – See also [0076] & Fig. 4. It is recognized that turning points along the route constitute nodes between route segments.); and
in response to receiving the confirmation that the item has been located, derives the current location of the item based on the determined position of the mobile device along the path at a time corresponding to receipt of the confirmation (Chachek: “the Store Map may be generated and/or updated dynamically, based on real-life photos or images or video-frames that are captured and/or uploaded by end-users (e.g., consumers, customers). For example, user Adam may utilize his smartphone within the store to navigate …The imager is thus continuously operational, and may periodically capture and send or upload images to the system's server or database, together with an indication of the precise user location and spatial orientation. A Stitching Unit 121 may operate to stitch together such uploaded or streamed images or frames, and/or to construct from them the store map or updates thereto; and/or to perform computerized vision and/or image analysis and/or OCR on the captured images or frame;” [0118] – See also [0058]); and
updating an item location database to include the captured current location of the item (Chachek: “ the Store Map may be generated and/or updated dynamically, based on real-life photos or images or video-frames that are captured and/or uploaded by end-users (e.g., consumers, customers)… stitch together such uploaded or streamed images or frames, and/or to construct from them the store map or updates thereto; and/or to perform computerized vision and/or image analysis and/or OCR on the captured images or frame; and/or to update the Inventory Database accordingly (e.g., to indicate to the system that even though the Inventory Database currently shows that Seven boxes of corn flakes are in the store, a fresh image from a customer shows that only Four boxes are on the shelf, thereby indicating to the system that Four other boxes are possibly misplaced within the store … to construct and update a map of the store (or venue) and the items or products therein.” [0118] – “Databases are updated or augmented with the localization data, including store map, inventory map and real-time product inventory database,” [0177]),
but does not specifically teach selectively requesting the user to locate an item; and receiving the confirmation from the user.
However, Taylor teaches methods for inventory management in a retail store [Abstract], including:
selectively requesting the user to locate an item (Taylor: “Communication module 114 transmits informational data capture request 124 to mobile computing device 106” [0026] – “Informational data capture request 124 is formulated to request an additional data capture from customer 104 that will provide useful inventory information to inventory management system 110.” [0025] – “receiving data capture 122 that is the scan of … product 180” [0031]); and
receiving the confirmation from the user (Taylor: “Customer 104 transmits a customer response 226 that includes photo 140 of the location of product 180. Inventory module 118 is able to tell that product 180 is on feature by photo 140.” [0048] – “Customer response 126 will include informational data capture 128 when customer 104 responds to informational data capture request 124 by capturing the requested data. In the example embodiment shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, customer … 104 received informational data capture request 124 with mobile computing device 106, looked for, and found, the second store product that a barcode scan was requested for in informational data capture request 124, and scanned the second store product barcode with mobile computing device 106.” [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Chachek would continue to teach incentivizing a user of a mobile shopping application on a mobile device to locate items in a retail store via the mobile shopping application in exchange for a coupon for the items; and receiving confirmation from the user device that the item has been located via the mobile shopping application, except that now it would also teach selectively requesting the user to locate an item; and receiving the confirmation from the user, according to the teachings of Taylor. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to maximize the accuracy of inventory data (Taylor: [0051]).
Regarding Claim 5, Chachek/Taylor teach the method of claim 1, wherein the user confirms a location of the item by capturing a photograph of the item via the mobile shopping application (Chachek: “periodically capture and send or upload images to the system's server or database, together with an indication of the precise user location and spatial orientation. … a fresh image from a customer shows that only Four boxes are on the shelf” [0118]).
Regarding Claim 6, Chachek/Taylor teach the method of claim 1, wherein the user confirms a location of the item by capturing a barcode on the item via the mobile shopping application (Chachek: “images captured by end-user devices are collected and gathered, and are categorized or classified based on location, date and time, depicted barcode,” [0179] – “automated scanning and tagging of products (e.g., based on a product barcode that is shown in the image taken by an end-user device, in combination with computer vision analysis that identifies the product itself)” [0014]).
Regarding Claim 10, Chachek/Taylor teach the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a notification from the user of a location of a potentially hazardous condition within the retail store (Chachek: “the store map has recently been updated … to indicate that there is a liquid spill on the floor there … based on user-submitted reports (e.g., a shopper and/or an employee have reported a hazard in Aisle 3).” [0074]).
Regarding Claims 11, 15-16, and 20, the limitations of claims 11, 15-17, and 20 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 10, with the additional limitations of a system, comprising: a server having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the server coupled to a mobile shopping application on a mobile device of a user, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to perform operations (Chachek: [0199]), and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claim 21, Chachek/Taylor teach the method of claim 1, wherein the item is an upsell item (Taylor: “Informational data capture request 124, in an example embodiment, is a request for a barcode scan of a second store product that inventory management system 110 thinks should be nearby product 180.” [0025] – “Providing customer 104 with a reward for providing informational data capture 128 incentivizes customer 104 to participate in gathering inventory data.” [0035] – “Reward 132 can be a coupon” [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Taylor with Chachek for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are closely parallel to the limitations of claim 21, and are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek, in view of Taylor, and further in view of Richardson (US 20140129378 A1), hereinafter Richardson.
Regarding Claim 8, Chachek/Taylor teach the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach that the item location database is updated based on assigning greater weight to more recent location identifications by users.
However, Richardson teaches crowdsourcing of intra-store product locations (Richardson: Abstract), including that the item location database is updated based on assigning greater weight to more recent location identifications by users (Richardson: “if a retail chain or other party operating store location 102A relocates a product, Such as first item 306, to a different aisle and/or shelf, the shopping assistant system may collect and update the intra-store location information for first item 306 (e.g., via … user input entered at mobile devices 116). In examples, the shopping assistant system may utilize date- and/or time-stamps in determining which information is current, thus providing up to-date product-related information to users of mobile devices 116 in real time. For instance, the shopping assistant system may execute one or more algorithms that use date and/or time-stamps as parameters. The executed algorithm(s) may employ one or both of voting-based and authority-based techniques, which in turn may … take into account recent tendencies in location reporting, cross-check incoming data for statistical consistency, etc.” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Chachek/Taylor would continue to teach updating an item location database to include the captured current location of the item, except that now it would also teach that the item location database is updated based assigning greater weight to more recent location identifications by users, according to the teachings of Richardson. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to present consumers with accurate, up-to-date product location information (Richardson: [0012]).
Regarding Claim 18¸the limitations of claim 18 are closely parallel to the limitations of claim 8, and are rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues that “claims 1 and 11 recite a specific technological process for determining physical location within an indoor environment using sensor-based tracking constrained to a defined traversal path.” Applicant argues that the claims’ “limitations define a concrete technological process for tracking device movement and computing spatial position within a physical environment using real-time sensor data.” Applicant argues that “continuous processing of successive sensor measurements, maintenance of a dynamically updated device position constrained to a structured path model, and synchronization of location derivation with a specific event boundary” each “rely on sensor fusion, temporal state tracking, and real-time computation that cannot be practically or accurately performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the argued steps for monitoring movement, determining a position along predefined path segments, and deriving an item location based on the position, are part of the abstract idea itself, which amounts to a concept for inventory mapping. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. The ability to track user locations based on successive readings within a known mapped environment, and to determine item locations based on user locations, are similarly part of the abstract idea except for a general linking to computer technology provided by the computer-related additional elements, such as measurements being made by a generic sensor on a generic mobile device [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. At best, these elements can offer, beyond the abstract idea, only the improved speed or efficiency inherent to a generic computer[ MPEP 2106.05(a)].
Applicant further argues that “the claims utilize measurements from multiple onboard sensors to determine device position within a constrained path-based reference framework…and derive item location by anchoring that position to a specific confirmation event. Applicant argues that “this configuration improves the accuracy and reliability of indoor localization in environments where conventional techniques such as GPS are unavailable or unreliable.” Applicant further argues that the approach “reduces ambiguity and improves reliability of computed positions.”
Examiner disagrees, and notes that the claims do not require “multiple onboard sensors” as argued. The argued ability to determine user position along fixed paths connected by nodes, to utilize successive measurements to monitor users’ current position, and to identify item locations based on user location at the time the user confirms they have found the item, are all part of the identified abstract idea, such that the argued improvements to accuracy and reliability stem solely from the abstract idea itself. The additional elements, rather than integrating the abstract functionalities argued into a practical application, are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, e.g. for measurements to be made by a generic sensor, for a user to be represented by a generic mobile device, etc. [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Applicant further argues that “the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea,” arguing that “the claims define a non-conventional arrangement of elements that perform coordinated sensor-based tracking and event-synchronized spatial computation, rather than a generic implementation of an abstract concept.”
Examiner disagrees. Similar to the reasons addressed above, the additional elements are invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, [MPEP 2106.05(f)] providing only a general linking between computer technology and the abstract ability to track user movement using successive measurements, determine position along predefined path segments or nodes with successive updates, and derive item location based on tracked user position at the time corresponding to user confirmation of locating an item.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §103
Applicant argues that “Taylor does not disclose or suggest tracking continuous movement of a mobile device using onboard sensors, determining device position along a traversal path, or deriving an item’s location based on a tracked device position at a specific point in time,” and that “Chachek does not disclose selectively requesting users to locate items in exchange for incentives as in Taylor, nor does it disclose using a tracked device position, constrained to a path model, as the basis for deriving and storing item location in response to a user confirmation event.” Applicant argues that the claims require “a trajectory-based, position-driven localization technique, which is fundamentally different from the image-driven inference of Taylor and the mapping/navigation framework of Chachek.” Applicant concedes that “Chachek may determine user position for navigation,” but claims that “it does not teach or suggest using that position, in a path-constrained form, as the authoritative source of item location data synchronized to a confirmation event.”
Examiner disagrees, and notes that the claims do not recite “tracking continuous movement,” “a path model,” “trajectory-based” calculations, or define any “authoritative source” of item location data. Instead, the actual limitations of the claims are taught by Chachek, in view of Taylor. Specifically, Chachek teaches incentivizing customers to participate in such crowd-sourced effort of mapping and localization of the venue by providing to such participating customers coupons [0005], or credits based on the amount of use of the item-locating system that are redeemable for coupons [0138]. The system provides AR-based navigation instructions, which include AR -based arrows or indicators that are shown as an overlay on top of an aisle or shelf of products, which guide the user to walk or move or turn to a particular direction in order to find a particular product [0063]. The user device provides confirmation of the location of an item by capturing images of items as the user traverses the store; the system detects the items in these images [0059] and the images are associated with the user’s precise location at the time of image capture [0118]. The user’s real-time location is continually monitored as they walk through the store, by analysis of images captured from the user’s mobile device camera [0064-0066] to allow for a precise localization of the user based on vision analysis of their camera images [0081]. Based on these continuous measurements the user’s location is determined along a walking route [0067] or among aisles and represented walking paths with turning points [00664-00066]. The system updates a store map/inventory database with the determined location of captured items by performing image analysis on a user’s onboard camera’s images, along with the precise user location, to recognize and localize the items within the store.[0118] While Chachek does not specifically teach that the user is selectively requested to find a particular item within the store, or that the confirmation from locating the item comes from the user themselves, Taylor teaches a user-specific data-capture request for taking an image of a product, and receiving a “customer response that includes photo of the location of the product,” provided by the user.
Applicant further argues that “the claims require that the device be guided along a path, that its movement be continuously tracked using successive sensor measurements, that its position be updated as it progresses between nodes of that path, and that the item location be derived based on the tracked position at the time of confirmation. These elements operate together as part of a coordinated process in which location derivation depends on a temporally synchronized device state within a path-constrained model. Neither Taylor nor Chachek teaches or suggests this sequence or this interdependence.”
Examiner disagrees. Chachek teaches each of these elements – AR navigation through a store along a defined path, monitoring of user location based on on-board camera data to track a user’s position and orientation within the store and along path segments and turning points/nodes therebetween, and determining a precise location of a product based on the user’s tracked location at the time of image-capture of the product within the store.
Applicant argues with respect to claims 8 and 18 that “Richardson does not, however, disclose the aspects of claims 1 and 11 recited above missing from Taylor and Chachek.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection and response above, the combination of Chachek and Taylor is not missing any claimed aspects of claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-22, with Richardson relied upon to teach additional limitations of claims 8 and 18 in the manner addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Publicover et al (US 20160253710 A1) teaches the ability to crowdsource a map of a store’s inventory, updating items to new locations as new logs are made, and weighting recent logging of item locations in updating the predicted location of items.
Holman et al (US 20180144356 A1) teaches systems for crowdsourcing real-world data, including mapping the location of items on shelves within a retailer and incentivizing the collection of data by observers with coupons.
Jones et al (US 20160342939 A1) teaches systems for determining the locations/placement of items within a store using reports generated by shoppers, including gamification to present incentive in exchange for shoppers’ collection of data.
Adato et al (US 20210398198 A1) teaches crowdsourced, incentive-based in-store product location collection, including determining shelf location of items by user reports made by mobile device.
Reference U (NPL – see attached) discusses geo-locating specific items using crowdsourcing techniques to create a searchable map of products.
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 THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9-5 ET.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights