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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. Claims 1-62 and 83-102 remain cancelled. Claims 63-82 and 103-105 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Applicant’s arguments, the 103 rejection remains and is updated below.
Response to Argument
With respect to the 103 arguments, Applicant argues that cited references, Tingler and Tanriover fails to teach or suggest “based on the deviations from the baseline signal characteristics in that at least one designated location, estimate a level of human traffic activity in the at least one designated location” (See Remarks at pgs. 13-14). Specifically, Applicant asserts that Tingler “contains no teaching about determining a quantity of customers with a threshold area,” such that Tingler teaches that “the tracking control circuit may utilize location information and/or tracked movement of customers to identify that there is no one within a threshold of an area of the shopping retail store” (See Remarks at pgs. 14-15). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s Specification’s in ¶0271 identifies that the system gathers traffic data, such as while there is no traffic in the store to determine a baseline for a location. Additionally, in Applicant’s Specification ¶0277-0278, “human traffic” may include an estimate number of people in the establishment from the difference of the baseline measurement. While Tingler’s disclosure in ¶0034 has a tracking control circuit that utilizes location information from RSSI signals to identify if there’s no customers within a threshold area of the shopping retail store, in ¶0035 of Tingler’s disclosure, the tracking control circuit evaluates the quantities of customers passing through such area. Therefore, Tingler’s disclosure assesses a baseline measurement where there is no traffic in a given area that is then used to evaluate level of customer traffic is more than sufficient to teach, suggest, or encompass directed to “based on the deviations from the baseline signal characteristics in that at least one designated location, estimate a level of human traffic activity in the at least one designated location.” The 103 rejection remains below.
Further with respect to the 103 arguments, Applicant argues that cited reference Tanriover “fails to teach or suggest “determine, based on the first signals, locations of at least a first subset of the plurality of wireless tags,” as recited in amended independent claim 63” (See Remarks at pgs. 15-16). Specifically, Applicant argues that Tanriover, in ¶0050, teaches “a particular location of items on a particular shelf as identified by the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage,” as opposed to a location determined based on the first signals (See Remarks at pg. 16). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first notes that Applicant’s Specification ¶0163 identifies that “the computing device may access the retail establishment layout by, for example, using storage location identifier(s) to determine the storage location(s) where the retail establishment layout may be stored, and receiving the retail establishment layout from the storage location(s).” Also, it is shown in ¶0161 of Applicant’s Specification that the layout is assessed to determine “designated locations.” It is clear that Applicant’s disclosure stores storage location information in a layout, as well. In addition to storing layout information, the cited reference Tanriover in the cited paragraphs ¶0051-0053, identifies a location for an identified RFID tag with a current RSSI value. Tanriover’s determined location based on the RSSI signals is then crosschecked with the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage in that same manner as the spatial arrangement for designating locations is detailed in Applicant’s Specification in ¶0161-0163. Accordingly, Tanriover’s disclosure teaches determining locations in the argued limitation above and the relied upon limitation of “determine, based on the determined locations, designated locations for at least one wireless tag of the first subset of the plurality of wireless tags, wherein the designated locations correspond to locations within the establishment where at least one item associated with the at least one wireless tag is located when not being interacted with by a customer” (See Remarks at pgs. 16-17). Therefore, the 103 rejection remains.
With respect to the 103 arguments, Applicant argues that the cited reference Tanriover “teaches away for the present claims,” such that Tanriover uses a camera “to identify and count the number of customers present around a particular location within a monitored environment at a given time period” (See Remarks at pgs. 18-19). Examiner notes that the cited reference Tanriover is not relied upon to count the number of customers, but relied upon to use signals to determine locations of tags and designated locations. Rather, Tingler is used to disclose the limitation directed to estimating the level of human traffic and counting the number of customers in a particular environment. See the above argument. Additionally, Applicant argues that because Tanriover’s reference uses a camera to estimate a level of human traffic activity in at least one designated location that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Tingler and Tanriover (See Remarks at pg. 19). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanriover is incorporate in Tingler to cure the deficiencies related to determining locations of tags and designated locations. Incorporating Tanriover’s utilization of RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits, predict inventory changes and evaluate product placement (See Tingler, ¶0026). Since both references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has indicated in the Application Data Sheet that the present application claims the benefit of Provisional Application 63/265,298 filed 13 December 2021 and 63/330,727 filed 13 April 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 63, 66, 69, 70-72, 75-79, 81 and 103-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingler et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2019/0080280, hereinafter referred to as Tingler) in view of Tanriover et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2021/0103708, hereinafter referred to as Tanriover).
As per Claim 63, Tingler discloses a system for detecting human traffic based on reception of wireless identification signals transmitted by a plurality of wireless tags, each of the plurality of wireless tags associated with an item in an establishment, the system comprising: at least one processor (Tingler: See ¶0013 where a retail store customer tracking system, comprising: multiple RFID (radio frequency identification) tag readers distributed throughout a retail store, and one or more tracking control circuits communicatively coupled with the multiple RFID tag readers. The RFID tag readers are each configured to detect a set of at least one of multiple different RFID tags that are each associated with one of multiple different items of products offered for sale at the retail store through emitted RFID signals. See ¶0035 where the system for tracking the movement of customers is used to evaluate the quantities of customers) configured to:
Receive, during a first predetermined time period of limited traffic activity, first signals transmitted from the plurality of wireless tags to a plurality of receivers within the establishment, (Tingler: See ¶0020 where the RFID tag readers are each positioned and configured to detect a set of at least one and typically multiple different RFID tags that are each associated with one of the multiple different items of products offered for sale at the retail store. See ¶0022 and 0028 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI (a received strength signal indicator for RFID tags) value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. See Fig. 4 where multiple RSSI signals are measured for multiple time periods, including a first period. Examiner notes that when there are no customers detected, it is a period of limited traffic activity.)
determine, based on the first signals, baseline signal characteristics for at least one… locations within the establishment (Tingler: Fig. 4 and ¶0021: Base information may be received from a first set of RFID signals from each RFID tag, which can determine base level parameters such as RSSI values and thresholds. See Fig. 4 where it is clear that signal characteristics of frequency and amplitude are used to measure the RSSI values. See ¶0028 where the location is a function of the received signals and any detected changes from the base level, whereas it can be detected that the designated location has changed when the RFID signals fluctuate from the base level parameters.);
receive, during a second time period, second signals transmitted from the plurality of wireless tags to the plurality of receivers within the establishment, wherein the second time period is a time period of increased traffic activity in the establishment relative to the first predetermined time period (Tingler: See ¶0022-0024 and 0028-0029 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. To detect changes from the base values, a first and second subset of RFID tag information may be received by a plurality of RFID tag readers. See ¶0024 and See Fig. 4 where in a second period of time where a threshold change occurs in the RSSI value of a signal to indicate increased traffic activity by a customer. See ¶0035 where the system for tracking the movement of customers is used to evaluate the quantities of customers in the retail store.);
determine, based on the second signals, signal characteristics for the at least one… location during the second time period (Tingler: See ¶0022-0024 and 0028-0029 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. To detect changes from the base values, a first and second subset of RFID tag information, such as parameters including RSSI values, may be received by a plurality of RFID tag readers. See ¶0024 and See Fig. 4 where in a second period of time where a threshold change occurs in the RSSI value of a signal to indicate increased traffic activity by a customer. See ¶0035 where the system for tracking the movement of customers is used to evaluate the quantities of customers.);
compare the baseline signal characteristics to the signal characteristics during the second time period to determine deviations from the baseline signal characteristics in the at least one… location, wherein the deviations of the second signals indicate interference in the second signals relative to the first signals (Tingler: See ¶0022-0024 and 0028-0029 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. To detect changes in movement and location from the base values, a first and second subset of RFID tag information, such as parameters including RSSI values, may be received by a plurality of RFID tag readers and compared to the base values. See ¶0026 and Fig. 4 where the graphical representations illustrate the comparison of the fluctuated signals to the base signals to determine corresponding interference.);
based on the deviations from the baseline signal characteristics in the at least one... location, estimate a level of human traffic activity in the at least one… location (Tingler: See ¶0022-0024 and 0028-0029 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. To detect changes from the base values, a first and second subset of RFID tag information, such as parameters including RSSI values, may be received by a plurality of RFID tag readers. The timing of the detected changes in RFID information can further be utilized by the tracking control circuit in determining a location, direction of travel and/or track the movement of the object through one or more portions of the retail store. See ¶0034-0035 where utilization of location information and/or the tracked movement of customers can be used to identify the quantity of customers within a threshold area of the shopping retail store.);
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover discloses:
wherein the first predetermined time period is a time period of limited traffic activity in the establishment (Tanriover: ¶0048 and 0092: A RSSI (a received strength signal indicator for RFID tags) baseline is captured after hours when the store is empty or closed to allow for a noise-free data-driven pdf. The RSSI baseline is monitored for an initial period of time.);
Determine, based on the first signals, locations of at least a first subset of the plurality of wireless tags (Tanriover: Fig. 1 and 5 and ¶0051-0053: A RFID reader receives RSSI signals from RFID tags and then obtains a unique RFID tag ID to determine a location of the associated current identified RFID tag. See Fig. 1 for a subset of wireless tags.);
c) Determine, based on the determined locations, designated locations for at least one wireless tag of the plurality of wireless tags, wherein the designated locations correspond to locations within the establishment where at least one item associated with the at least on wireless tag is located when not being interacted with by a customer (Tanriover: ¶0048-0050: A RSSI (a received strength signal indicator for RFID tags) baseline is captured after hours when the store is empty or closed and absent of customers to allow for a noise-free data-driven pdf. The RSSI baseline is monitored for an initial period of time. The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0053 where the RFID reader may identify a location for an item associated with an identified RFID tag, whereas the location is a designated shelf according to item layout information. See ¶0161 where the retail establishment layout is accessed to identify a designated location. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
d) designated location of the designated locations (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by
the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See Fig. 5 for plurality of designated locations. See ¶0161 where the retail establishment layout is accessed to identify a designated location. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
f) one designated location (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by
the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0161 where the retail establishment layout is accessed to identify a designated location. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
g) at least one designated location (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by
the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0161 where the retail establishment layout is accessed to identify a designated location. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
h) one designated location (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by
the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0161 where the retail establishment layout is accessed to identify a designated location. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits, predict inventory changes and evaluate product placement (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 79 and 81 recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies. With respect to Claim 79, Tanriover discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instruction that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor (See Tingler: Fig. 6 and ¶0045).
As per Claim 66, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calculate a plurality of human traffic activity level estimates over time (Tingler: See ¶0030 where the tracking control circuit 106 can use the detected change in RFID tags being detected over sequential time periods and corresponding to different subsets of RFID tag 112 and/or different RFID readers to track the movement of the object. See ¶0034-0035 where utilization of location information and/or the tracked movement of customers can be used to calculate the quantity of customers within a threshold area of the shopping retail store.).
As per Claim 69, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify, from the deviations from the baseline signal characteristics in the at least one… location, trajectories of individual persons passing through the establishment (Tingler: ¶0029: As a function of timing of the detected changes from the base information in one or more characteristics of the RFID tag information of the received RFID signals from the subset of RFID tags being read at each of the RFID tag readers of the set of RFID tag readers, the tracking control circuit determines locations in a retail store. The tracking control circuit uses a set of rules in tracking the movement of a person to confirm that the detected changes in at least one characteristic of the RFID tag information corresponding to a subsequent set of RFID tags being read at a subsequent RFID tag reader of a sub-set of RFID tag readers are within a threshold consistency of detected changes in the at least one characteristic of RFID tag information corresponding to a previous set of multiple RFID tags being read at a previous RFID tag reader of the sub-set of RFID tag readers. See ¶0033: The tracking control circuit, in using a direction evaluation set of one or more rules and/or criteria, is configured to identify a direction a person is traveling (i.e., a path/trajectory) based on detected sequential sets of the affected RFID tags).
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover discloses one designated location (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits, predict inventory changes and evaluate product placement (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 70, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 69.
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a plurality of particular products in the establishment associated with engagement events; and assign at least two of the particular products to a single engagement basket, based on a correlation between the at least two particular products and the trajectory of at least one individual person through the establishment (Tanriover: ¶0020-0022: Shopper interactions are tracked via motion tags, including shopper handling/carrying an item and the flow of a shopper [trajectory]. Accurate motion inference, in turn, enables the calculation of metrics and insights such as concurrent motion detection of multiple items indicating which related items shall be placed in close proximity to increase sales of matching items [correlating particular products], and the relationship between the placement and location of those items. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification, ¶0208, describes that “the single engagement basket may include, for example, any grouping, collection, category, set, or organization of products engaged with by customer(s).” Therefore, the grouping of matching items located and placed in a retail establishment represents a single engagement basket. See Fig. 1 and processor in ¶0029.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 71, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 70.
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to recommend a display pairing of the particular products in the single engagement basket (Tanriover: ¶0020-0022: Shopper interactions are tracked via motion tags. Accurate motion inference, in turn, enables the calculation of metrics and insights such as concurrent motion detection of multiple items indicating which related items shall be placed in close proximity to increase sales of matching items [pairing of particular products], and the relationship between the placement and location of those items. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification, ¶0208, describes that “the single engagement basket may include, for example, any grouping, collection, category, set, or organization of products engaged with by customer(s).” Therefore, the grouping of matching items located and placed in a retail establishment represents a single engagement basket. See Fig. 1 and processor in ¶0029.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 72, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 69, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the trajectory of a non-purchaser through the establishment (Tingler: ¶0033: The tracking control circuit, in using a direction evaluation set of one or more rules and/or criteria, is configured to identify a direction a worker is traveling (i.e., a path/trajectory) based on detected sequential sets of the affected RFID tags).
As per Claim 75, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the baseline signal characteristics for the… based on first location determinations of the wireless tags and at least one of amplitude data of the first signals, phase data of the first signals, direction data of the first signals, angle of arrival data of the first signals, angle of departure data of the first signals, and data content of the first signals (Tingler: Fig. 4 and ¶0021: Base information may be received from a first set of RFID signals from each RFID tag, which can determine base level parameters such as RSSI values and thresholds. See Fig. 4 where it is clear that frequency and amplitude characteristics are used to measure the RSSI values. See ¶0028 where the location is a function of the received signals and any detected changes from the base level, whereas it can be detected that the designated location has changed when the RFID signals fluctuate from the base level parameters.).
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover discloses one designated location (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits, predict inventory changes and evaluate product placement (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 76, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, during the first predetermined time period, a first signal transmitted from a given one of the wireless tags at a first location; receive, during the second period, a second signal transmitted from the given one of the wireless tags at a second location different from the first location; and determine the deviations from the baseline signal characteristics based, at least in part, on the first signal and the second signal (Tingler: See ¶0022-0024 and 0028-0030 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. To detect changes in movement and location from the base values, a first and second subset of RFID tag information, such as parameters including RSSI values, may be received by a plurality of RFID tag readers and compared to the base values. The detected changes are utilized to determine a change in location and/or tracked movement of an item (e.g., a change from the base location to a second location). The detected change of tracked movement is detected over sequential time periods. See ¶0026 and Fig. 4 where the graphical representations illustrate the comparison of the fluctuated signals to the base signals to determine corresponding interference.).
As per Claim 77, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to estimate the level of human traffic activity in the at least one designated location independent of image data of the at least one designated location (Tingler: See ¶0030 where the tracking control circuit 106 can use the detected change in RFID tags being detected over sequential time periods and corresponding to different subsets of RFID tag 112 and/or different RFID readers to track the movement of the object. See ¶0034-0035 where utilization of location information and/or the tracked movement of customers can be used to identify the quantity of customers within a threshold area of the shopping retail store.).
As per Claim 78, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63, wherein each wireless tag is configured to transmit a unique ID signal and is attached to an associated product within the establishment (Tingler: ¶0020: All of the RFID tags are unique having a unique identifier that uniquely identifies the specific item at the retail store with which the RFID tag is associated.).
As per Claim 103, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63.
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover wherein the first predetermined time period includes a time period during which the establishment is closed (Tanriover: ¶0048 and 0092: A RSSI (a received strength signal indicator for RFID tags) baseline is captured after hours when the store is empty or closed to allow for a noise-free data-driven pdf. The RSSI baseline is monitored for an initial period of time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 104 and 105 recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 103; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 64-65, 80 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingler et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2019/0080280, hereinafter referred to as Tingler) in view Tanriover et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2021/0103708, hereinafter referred to as Tanriover) in further view of Norby et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2020/0372521, hereinafter referred to as Norby).
As per Claim 64, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate… based on the deviations from the baseline signal characteristics in the at least one… location (Tingler: See ¶0022-0024 and 0028-0029 where RFID signals may be detected over time, a base RSSI value may be detected when there is no object (e.g., a cart or a person) interfering with the signal between the RFID tag on the item and the RFID reader. To detect changes from the base values, a first and second subset of RFID tag information, such as parameters including RSSI values, may be received by a plurality of RFID tag readers. The timing of the detected changes in RFID information can further be utilized by the tracking control circuit in determining a location, direction of travel and/or track the movement of the object through one or more portions of the retail store.);
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Tanriover discloses one designated location (Tanriover: ¶0049-0050: The RSSI baselining process in the monitored retail environment indicates the placement of items according to stored layout information. The pdf for each shelf cell may correspond, for instance, to all the RFID-tagged items placed in each cell, i.e., a designated location of items on a designated shelf as identified by the item layout information stored in the item placement and clustering data storage. See ¶0183 of Applicant’s Specification where a designated location in the retail establishment may be a shelf where the product may be placed for display.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Tanriover’s utilizing RFID motion tracking for shopper analytics and motion detection of multiple items in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits, predict inventory changes and evaluate product placement (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Tanriover does not explicitly disclose; however, Norby discloses generate a traffic heatmap for the establishment (Norby: ¶0028: Heat maps that provide real time analytics of a customer path in the location are generated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Norby’s customer tracking for generating retail analytics because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Norby’s customer tracking for generating retail analytics in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 80 and 82 recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 65, Tingler in view of Tanriover in further view of Norby discloses the system of claim 64.
Tanriover does not explicitly disclose; however, Norby discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to recommend positioning of products in the establishment based on the heatmap (Norby: ¶0028: Heat maps that provide real time analytics of a customer path are used to predict product performance in a potential display of the product.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Norby’s customer tracking for generating retail analytics because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Norby’s customer tracking for generating retail analytics in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 67-68 and 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingler et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2019/0080280, hereinafter referred to as Tingler) in view Tanriover et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2021/0103708, hereinafter referred to as Tanriover) in further view of Shaw et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2015/0235237, hereinafter referred to as Shaw).
As per Claim 67, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 66.
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Shaw discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to recommend staffing of the establishment based on the plurality of human traffic activity level estimates over time (Shaw: ¶0079-0080: The system may track customers traffic flows within a retail store. The traffic flow analytics may be used to recommend sales training and to modify staffing levels. See processor in Fig. 3A.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to schedule workers (See Tingler, ¶0016); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 68, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63.
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Shaw discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive information on a number of staff present in the establishment; and adjust the estimated level of human traffic activity to omit staff-related traffic activity (Shaw: ¶0290-0294: A processor may determine an overall count of individuals entering the real establishment. Wireless tags may be analyzed to determine if an employee is entering the establishment and the employees may be excluded from retail analytics for customer activity (i.e., traffic flow). See processor in Fig. 3A.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to schedule workers (See Tingler, ¶0016); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 73, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 72,
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Shaw discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to adjust the estimated level of human traffic activity based on the trajectory of the non-purchaser (Shaw: ¶0290-0294: A processor may determine an overall count of individuals entering the retail establishment and the individual path [trajectory]. Wireless tags may be analyzed to determine if an employee is entering the establishment and the employees may be excluded from retail analytics for customer activity (i.e., traffic flow or count level of individuals). See processor in Fig. 3A.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 74, Tingler in view of Tanriover discloses the system of claim 63.
Tingler does not explicitly disclose; however, Shaw discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive location information of a plurality of products within the establishment; and calculate, from the location information of the plurality of products and the level of human traffic activity in each location of the at least one location, an impression score for each product (Shaw: ¶0267-0272: Based on the strength of the wireless tag, a location tracking module can track locations of the wireless tracks and determine retail analytics for any time period. The traffic in a particular location in a store may be compared to previous period to determine conversions and difference (e.g., an increase) in the number of customers visiting the store. The conversions computed can include a metric such as the amount of traffic walking past a particular display. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification, ¶0329, identifies an impression score as a metric corresponding to a customer seeing a product on a display.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tingler with Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward utilizing tags and motion tracking to track shopper interactions, and because incorporating Shaw’s motion tracking for recommending staff levels in Tingler would have served Tingler’s pursuit of utilizing the RFID customer tracking system to evaluate customer’s shopping habits and predict inventory changes (See Tingler, ¶0026); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elias et al. (US 2021/0356576): A sensor system for determining occupancy in a space generally includes a transmitter radio device that transmits radio signals over a channel in the space; a receiver radio device that receives the transmitted radio signals that have traveled through the space; and at least one processor implementing an occupancy-centric algorithm that determines occupancy in the space based on the radio signals. The at least one processor determines channel state information based on the radio signals transmitted over the channel, determines occupancy in the space based on the channel state information, and outputs an occupancy signal based on the determined occupancy.
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 ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm ET, M-F.
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 Epstein can be reached on 5712705389. 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.
ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/ALLISON M ROBINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights