DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The Applicants selected group I, claims 1-16, without traverse. Claims 1-16 are pending, Claims 17-20 are non-elected and withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
1) “receiving, by a system…..; detecting, by the system…..,” as recited in claim 8.
The specification provide sufficient structure, material and/or act for the recited “system” to perform the recited functions such as disclosed in the instant specification’s [0006] wherein the system is illustrated in figure 2 to have a structure of a computer with special programmed processor to perform the program of the claimed invention.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a system/device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“detect a set of features included in the set of images, wherein the set of features includes different features of the object;
determine, based on at least one detected feature of the set of features, that the object corresponds to the item in the list of items;
select one or more detected features, of the set of features, based on the expected value associated with the item;
determine, based on the one or more detected features, an actual value associated with the object;
determine whether the actual value associated with the object satisfies a value condition that is based on a difference between the expected value associated with the item and the actual value associated with the object.”
The limitations as mentioned as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“detect a set of features….includes different features of the object” is a step, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, to observe images and detect features according to certain condition; “determine, based on at least one detected feature…..corresponds to the item in the list of items” is a step, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, to observe the detected features already found and given and determine a correspondence of an object according to a condition; “select one or more detected features…..expected value associated with the item” is a step, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, to observe a set of features already given and select more features according to a condition; “determine….an actual value….” is a step, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, to determine an output based on observing some data according to a condition/rule; “determine whether the actual value associated….and the actual value associated with the object” is a step, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, to determine an output based on observing some data according to a condition/rule such as recited in the claimed limitation.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
A system for verifying item-specific data based on data captured by an augmented reality device, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain item-specific data that indicates an expected value associated with an item in a list of items;
receive a set of images captured by the augmented reality device, wherein the set of images are of an object; and
provide an indication of whether the actual value associated with the object satisfies the value condition.
The additional elements as mentioned above include a generic system of a computer and computer components recited at high level of generality to perform generic well-known functions such as a computer to perform processing includes memories to store instructions to be executed by processors, and further additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering such as obtaining data/information, receiving and providing data/information, with further specification to recite what the data/information are still just merely, data/information gathering. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: the additional elements as discussed above being generic and insignificant, therefore, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-7 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1. Moreover, claim 2 recites, in part, “wherein the one or more characteristics…..detected features” is just a limitation of further specify what the data/information of the characteristics are to be of hence, still merely a step of data gathering insignificant extra-solution activity, post-solution activity of what the data/information are expected to be of as outcome; and the step of “provide an indication…..” is also an additional element of extra-solution activity of data gathering of providing data/information; the steps of “determine….identify…..” are steps of mental processes, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and determine and/or identify further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil. Claim 3 recites, in part, “determine…noncorresponding characteristics” is a step of mental process, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and determine further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil; “provide…..” is also an additional element of extra-solution activity of data gathering of providing data/information. Claim 4 recites, in part, “determine….” is a step of mental process, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and determine further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil; “provide…..” is also an additional element of extra-solution activity of data gathering of providing data/information. Claim 5 recites, in part, “wherein the value condition is that….satisfies a threshold” is a limitation of giving further specification of what a condition to be of and further specification of the data/information to be of hence, still merely an abstract idea and/or data gathering step being insignificant; “identify” is a step of mental process, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and identify further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil; “provide…..” is also an additional element of extra-solution activity of data gathering of providing data/information. Claim 6 recites, in part, “wherein the one or more characteristics….detected features” is just a limitation of further specify what the data/information of the characteristics are to be of hence, still merely a step of data gathering insignificant extra-solution activity, post-solution activity of what the data/information correspond to as outcome; “select….determine…identify….determine….determine….select” are steps of mental processes, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and determine and/or identify, select further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil. Claim 7 recites, in part, the steps of “determine….”are steps of mental processes, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and determine further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil, the step of “perform a search….” is a mental process wherein the human mind can perform a search according to a certain condition.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding the independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-16:
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method/process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 8 recites, in part:
“detecting, by the system, a plurality of features included in the set of images, wherein the plurality of features includes different features of an object;
identifying, by the system, an item, from a list of items, that corresponds to the object based on at least one feature of the plurality of features,
wherein the list of items identifies one or more characteristics that are expected to correspond to the plurality of features;
determining, by the system, whether the one or more characteristics correspond to the plurality of features;
identifying, by the system, one or more noncorresponding characteristics of the item based on determining that the one or more characteristics do not correspond to the plurality of features;
determining, by the system, a noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics; and
providing, by the system, an indication of the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics.”
The limitations as mentioned as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“detectingis a step, under BRI, a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe set of images to evaluate and detect features includes different features of an object in the image, “identifying,is a step, under BRI, a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe set of images and the detected object to evaluate and identify an item, from a list of items according to a condition that the list of items identifies one or more characteristics correspond to the features, which the human can observe and make the determination, “determiningis a step, under BRI, a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe the features and evaluate to determine the characteristics to correspond to the features, “identifying one or more noncorresponding characteristics….characteristics do not correspond to the plurality of features” “determining a noncorresponding value….noncorresponding characteristics” is a step, under BRI, a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe the characteristics and make an evaluation to identify the noncorresponding characteristics of the item based on another determining that the characteristics do not correspond to the features.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
an augmented reality device,
a system,
receiving, by a system and from the augmented reality device, a set of images captured during an augmented reality session of the augmented reality device,
providing, by the system, an indication of the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics.
The additional elements include “an augmented reality device, “a system” - recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a system recited at high level of generality to be a generic system recited as a mere attempt to implement the judicial exceptions [the mental process abstract ideas above] using a generic system; the augmented reality device being a generic recited at high level of generality device of augmented reality to perform a generic function) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
The additional elements include steps of insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activities of data gathering, data generating, data transmitting, etc. (receiving…., providing…..).
Step 2B Analysis: the additional elements as discussed above being generic and insignificant, therefore, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 8 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 9-16 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 8. Moreover, claim 9 recites, in part, “wherein the object is associated with an initial value” is a recitation to further specify that the object is associated with an initial value hence, still abstract idea of a mere further specification of the abstract idea, “adjusting the initial value…to generate an adjusted value” is mental process step, under BRI, a human mind can observe and evaluate to adjust the initial value to generate an adjusted value using pen and paper, “providing an indication of the adjusted value” is an additional element of data gathering, data providing. Claim 10 recites, in part, “determining…noncorresponding characteristics” is a step of mental process, based on BRI, such as the human mind can observe data/information and determine further data/information from them according to a certain condition with pen and pencil; “providing…..” is also an additional element of extra-solution activity of data gathering of providing data/information. Claim 11 recites, in part, “wherein the one or more noncorresponding…..noncorresponding characteristics” is a further specification limitation hence, still abstract idea, “ranking the multiple noncorresponding….ranked noncorresponding characteristics” is a step, under BRI, a human mind can perform through a process of observation and evaluation to rank characteristics using pen and paper, “providing….” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data providing. Claim 12 recites, in part, ”determining whether…..satisfied a threshold” is mental process of observation and evaluation which a human mind can determine whether the noncorresponding value satisfies a threshold, “generating an alert…satisfying the threshold” is a mental process abstract idea which the human mind can observe and evaluate to generate an alert according to the observable condition as recited in the claim, “providing…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data providing. Claim 13 recites, in part, “updating….noncorresponding characteristics” is a step of mental process abstract idea which the human mind can observe and evaluate to update some observable data/information such as recited in the claim, “providing…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data providing. Claim 14 recites, in part, “determining a visual characteristic….one or more noncorresponding characteristics” is a mental process abstract idea which the human mind can observe and evaluate to determine visual characteristic corresponding to certain observable condition, “providing…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data providing. Claim 15 recites, in part, “obtaining…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data obtaining. Claim 16 recites, in part, “wherein the object is associated with an initial value” is a further specification limitation of an abstract idea, “obtaining…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data obtaining, “adjusting the initial value….augmented reality device” is a mental process abstract idea which the human mind can observe and evaluate to adjust the value according to some observable condition such as recited in the claim.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 9-16 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen Hu (Foreign Patent Document “CN 112884545 A” hereinafter as “Hu”) in view of Martin Enthed et. al. (“US 2023/0298050 A1” hereinafter as “Enthed”) (mapping is based on page numbers of the translation of the foreign patent document).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a system for verifying item-specific data based on data captured by an augmented reality device, the system comprising (page 1, “Background technique” section, discloses recognition or products and judging whether to purchase them based on the commodities themselves): one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (page 2, 3rd par., discloses the invention through a software program hence, indicates the use of a computer known to include memories, processors to execute the program): obtain item-specific data that indicates an expected value associated with an item in a list of items (page 1, at step 5, expected price data is obtained from the user for the target product among many products); receive a set of images captured by the augmented reality device, wherein the set of images are of an object (page 1, step 1, the user scans or photographs the target product as part of an augmented reality experience [page 2, 4th par.], page 1, step 3 discloses a plurality of product images being used of the target object from photographing it from multiple angles [page 3, 3rd par.]); determine, based on the one or more detected features, an actual value associated with the object (page 2, at step 6, discloses based on the input of the user and the images of the product [detected features], determine an actual device of the target product); determine whether the actual value associated with the object satisfies a value condition that is based on a difference between the expected value associated with the item and the actual value associated with the object (page 2, at step 6, discloses determining whether the actual value of the object satisfied a value condition that the difference between the expected value and the actual value is within an established difference plan); and provide an indication of whether the actual value associated with the object satisfies the value condition (page 2, last par., and page 3, 1st par., discloses indicating to the user if the condition is satisfied of the value condition).
However, Hu does not explicitly disclose select one or more detected features, of the set of features, based on the expected value associated with the item; detect a set of features included in the set of images, wherein the set of features includes different features of the object; determine, based on at least one detected feature of the set of features, that the object corresponds to the item in the list of items.
In the same field of product scanning using augmented reality and pricing (title and abstract, Enthed) Enthed discloses select one or more detected features, of the set of features, based on the expected value associated with the item ([0110-0113] and [0124-0127] discloses identifying the product in the image based on the detected features of the product in the image; therefore, the features of the product here being the recited one or more detected features of the set of features); detect a set of features included in the set of images, wherein the set of features includes different features of the object (as discussed previously and disclosed in [0110-0113] and [0124-0127], the features of the product include different features of the object being detected in the images, in order to identify the product [dynamic variables]); determine, based on at least one detected feature of the set of features, that the object corresponds to the item in the list of items (as discussed, then the system identify that the product in the image being identified which product it is in the data to correspond to the item in the list of items).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hu to perform obtain item-specific data that indicates an expected value associated with an item in a list of items; receive a set of images captured by the augmented reality device, wherein the set of images are of an object; detect a set of features included in the set of images, wherein the set of features includes different features of the object; determine, based on at least one detected feature of the set of features, that the object corresponds to the item in the list of items; select one or more detected features, of the set of features, based on the expected value associated with the item as taught by Enthed to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to identify product correctly to determine price of the product efficiently (abstract, Enthed).
Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Hu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the item-specific data indicates one or more characteristics associated with the item (the input expected price data as discussed above in claim 1 to be analogous to the recited item-specific data which indicates a characteristic associated with the item being the expected price data in form of multiple coupons [characteristics according to page 2, 1st par.]), wherein the one or more characteristics are expected to correspond to the one or more detected features (as disclosed in Hu, in page 1, last par., the expected price are expected to correspond to the item’s actual price which, as discussed above in claim 1, being determined based on detected features as disclosed in Enthed), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the one or more characteristics correspond to the one or more detected features (Hu, page 1, last par., discloses comparing the expected price with the actual selling prices to determine whether the characteristic corresponds to the detected features [the actual price of the item as disclosed in Enthed]); identify one or more noncorresponding characteristics based on determining that the one or more characteristics do not correspond to the one or more detected features (as disclosed in Hu, last par., the system compares to the price, when the expected price does not correspond with the difference plan, then it can be understood that the expected price is noncorresponding characteristic); and provide an indication of the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (as disclosed in Hu’s page 1, last par., indicating the transaction is unsuccessful). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Hu discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (as disclosed in Hu’s page 1, last par., when the difference does not meet the difference plan, it is determined to confirm that the transaction is terminated and push the results to the user and show the actual price data to the user terminal and terminate the transaction [determine a value associated with the non-compliant data/noncorresponding characteristics]); and provide an indication of the value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (Hu, page 1, last par., the information as discussed being provided as an indication to the user).
Regarding claim 4, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Hu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a difference value based on determining that the actual value associated with the object does not satisfy the value condition; and provide an indication of the difference value (as disclosed in Hu, page 1, last par., when the difference between the expected value and the actual value does not meet the difference plan, then the system indicate to the user of the result [the difference value]).
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Hu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the value condition is that the difference between the actual value associated with the object and the expected value associated with the item satisfies a threshold (as discussed above in claim 1 and disclosed in Hu’s page 1, last par., the difference plan is that the difference between the expected price and the actual selling price is within the difference plan threshold), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify a subset of the one or more detected features that enable the value condition to be satisfied (page 2, 1st par., discloses the difference in step 6 refers to a plurality of artificially set differences, and the difference is fed back to the user terminal by the back-end server together with expected price data in the form of multiple coupons [a subset of one or more detected features] that enables the value condition to be satisfied, by BRI); and provide an indication of the subset of the one or more detected features (Hu, page 2, last par., the coupons are being shown to the user).
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Hu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the item-specific data indicates one or more characteristics associated with the item, wherein the one or more characteristics are expected to correspond to the one or more detected features (Hu, page 2, last par., discloses the expected price is expected to be compliant, hence the characteristic being expected to correspond to the actual price [from detected by the system of the product and determined actual price of the product such as the process taught in Enthed]), and wherein, to select the one or more detected features, the one or more processors are further configured to (as discussed above in claim 1): determine whether the one or more characteristics correspond to the one or more detected features (the system of Hu determines whether the expected price complies with the actual price as discussed above in claim 1); identify one or more noncorresponding characteristics based on determining that the one or more characteristics do not correspond to the one or more detected features (and when the prices are not compliant, the result is that the expected price is determined to be non-compliant [noncorresponding characteristic], such as discussed above in claim 1 and disclosed in Hu’s page 2, last par.); determine whether the one or more noncorresponding characteristics includes at least one nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic (the non-compliant price is determined to not being compliant with the difference plan including set differences [Hu, page 3, 2nd par] being nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic, by BRU); determine, based on determining that the one or more noncorresponding characteristics includes the at least one nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic, at least one nonstandard value associated with the at least one nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic (page 2, last par., of Hu, when its determined that the noncompliant price being the expected price not meeting the difference plan, then it’s determined that the expected price include non-compliant prices [the noncorresponding characteristic includes nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic]); and select the one or more detected features, of the set of features, based on the expected value associated with the item and the at least one nonstandard value associated with the at least one nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic (the select the one or more detected features, of the set of features as discussed above in claim 1, now is based on the item being expected a price noncompliant with the difference plan; that the expected value associated with item having a non-compliant price being analogous to the nonstandard value associated with the determined expected price not meeting the difference plan [nonstandard noncorresponding characteristic], according to Hu, page 2, last par.).
Regarding claim 7, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Enthed discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, to determine that the object corresponds to the item (as discussed above in claim 1), the one or more processors are further configured to: determine one or more visual characteristics that correspond to the at least one detected feature ([0123] discloses detecting features in the scene and identify the produce based on the detected features [0124]); perform a search using an image repository and based on the one or more visual characteristics to identify one or more aspects associated with the item ([0124] discloses the system search in the image repository [elimination of produces not matching the detected features and are not likely to be included in the catalog of furnishings for one instance] to identify the product and its features being compared against a set of rules [aspects being associated with the item]); determine that the one or more aspects correspond to the at least one detected feature based on the one or more aspects including features having visual characteristics that have a threshold degree of similarity with the one or more visual characteristics ([0124] the identification of the produce is being performed based on the detected features in the image and filter the objects against a set of rules; further disclosed in [0126] wherein the detected potential produces are analyzed by comparing the image data of the potential produces with models of sample images of the products based on a prioritization score [degree of similarity] to generate similar produce arrangement for showing the virtual price tag [012]); and determine that the object corresponds to the item based on determining that the one or more aspects correspond to the at least one detected feature (and identify the products based on the processing as discussed according to [0127-0128]). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Hu discloses a method of verifying item-specific data based on data captured by an augmented reality device, comprising (page 1, “Background technique” section, discloses recognition or products and judging whether to purchase them based on the commodities themselves): receiving, by a system and from the augmented reality device, a set of images captured during an augmented reality session of the augmented reality device (page 2, 3rd par., discloses the invention through a software program hence, indicates the use of a computer known to include memories, processors to execute the program; page 1, step 1, the user scans or photographs the target product as part of an augmented reality experience [page 2, 4th par.], page 1, step 3 discloses a plurality of product images being used of the target object from photographing it from multiple angles [page 3, 3rd par.]); identifying, by the system, an item, from a list of items, that corresponds to the object based on at least one feature of the plurality of features (page 1, at step 5, expected price data is obtained from the user for the target product among many products); determining, by the system, whether the one or more characteristics correspond to the plurality of features (page 2, at step 6, discloses based on the input of the user and the images of the product [detected features], determine an actual device of the target product).
However, Hu does not explicitly disclose detecting, by the system, a plurality of features included in the set of images, wherein the plurality of features includes different features of an object; wherein the list of items identifies one or more characteristics that are expected to correspond to the plurality of features; identifying, by the system, one or more noncorresponding characteristics of the item based on determining that the one or more characteristics do not correspond to the plurality of features; determining, by the system, a noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics; and providing, by the system, an indication of the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics.
In the same field of product scanning using augmented reality and pricing (title and abstract, Enthed) Enthed discloses detecting, by the system, a plurality of features included in the set of images, wherein the plurality of features includes different features of an object ([0110-0113] and [0124-0127] discloses identifying the product in the image based on the detected features of the product in the image; therefore, the features of the product here being the recited one or more detected features of the set of features; as discussed previously and disclosed in [0110-0113] and [0124-0127], the features of the product include different features of the object being detected in the images, in order to identify the product [dynamic variables]; as discussed, then the system identify that the product in the image being identified which product it is in the data to correspond to the item in the list of items); wherein the list of items identifies one or more characteristics that are expected to correspond to the plurality of features (the input expected price data as discussed above in claim 1 to be analogous to the recited item-specific data which indicates a characteristic associated with the item being the expected price data in form of multiple coupons [characteristics according to page 2, 1st par.]); identifying, by the system, one or more noncorresponding characteristics of the item based on determining that the one or more characteristics do not correspond to the plurality of features (as disclosed in Hu, in page 1, last par., the expected price are expected to correspond to the item’s actual price which, as discussed above in claim 1, being determined based on detected features as disclosed in Enthed; Hu, page 1, last par., discloses comparing the expected price with the actual selling prices to determine whether the characteristic corresponds to the detected features [the actual price of the item as disclosed in Enthed]); determining, by the system, a noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (as disclosed in Hu, last par., the system compares to the price, when the expected price does not correspond with the difference plan, then it can be understood that the expected price is noncorresponding characteristic); and providing, by the system, an indication of the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (as disclosed in Hu’s page 1, last par., indicating the transaction is unsuccessful).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hu to perform detecting, by the system, a plurality of features included in the set of images, wherein the plurality of features includes different features of an object; wherein the list of items identifies one or more characteristics that are expected to correspond to the plurality of features; identifying, by the system, one or more noncorresponding characteristics of the item based on determining that the one or more characteristics do not correspond to the plurality of features; determining, by the system, a noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics; and providing, by the system, an indication of the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics as taught by Enthed to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to identify product correctly to determine price of the product efficiently (abstract, Enthed).
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Enthed discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the object is associated with an initial value (the product being given a virtual tag such as disclosed in [0166]); and the method further comprises: adjusting the initial value based on the noncorresponding value to generate an adjusted value ([0167] discloses the virtual price tag can be changed or updated [adjusted as claimed]); and providing an indication of the adjusted value (as displayed to the user according to [0127]).
Regarding claim 11, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Enthed discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more noncorresponding characteristics includes multiple noncorresponding characteristics (as discussed above in claim 8, wherein the non-compliant being the noncorresponding characteristic as taught in Hu, wherein when the customer since the difference plan includes a plurality of set differences according to Hu’s page 3, 2nd par.), wherein the multiple noncorresponding characteristics are associated with priority levels (moreover, in Enthed’s [0126] discloses the produces can be given priority levels for potential products for produce arrangement; therefore, the produce can be given virtual prices; since the expected values are always given to the produce by the user in Hu’s invention, therefore, in the case wherein the expected price is non-compliant [noncorresponding] or compliant, in both cases, the produces are always being identified first before even this compliance determination, therefore, there must been a step wherein it results in the priority leveling as taught in Enthes, therefore, even the non-compliant prices associated with the item being identified would have been given their result in priority levels of all the produces being identified in Enthed; moreover, in this case, the priority levels are being mapped to be the noncorresponding characteristics since some of these products are not corresponding to the actual product captured in the image), and wherein the method further comprises: ranking the multiple noncorresponding characteristics, based on the associated priority levels, to generate ranked noncorresponding characteristics (as disclosed in Enthed’s [0126] discloses the system rank the priority levels for the products based on prioritization scores for every detected product); and providing an indication of the ranked noncorresponding characteristics ([0125-127] discloses the product arrangement is given based on the prioritization). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 12, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Hu discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics satisfies a threshold (as disclosed in Hu, last par., the system compares to the price, when the expected price does not correspond with the difference plan, then it can be understood that the expected price is noncorresponding characteristic); generating an alert based on the noncorresponding value associated with the one or more noncorresponding characteristics satisfying the threshold (as disclosed in Hu’s page 1, last par., indicating the transaction is unsuccessful); and providing an indication of the alert (as disclosed in Hu’s page 1, last par., indicating the transaction is unsuccessful alerting the user).
Regarding claim 13, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Enthed discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: updating the list of items to generate an updated list of items such that the updated list of items does not include at least a portion of the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (moreover, in Enthed’s [0126] discloses the produces can be given priority levels for potential products for produce arrangement; therefore, the produce can be given virtual prices; since the expected values are always given to the produce by the user in Hu’s invention, therefore, in the case wherein the expected price is non-compliant [noncorresponding] or compliant, in both cases, the produces are always being identified first before even this compliance determination, therefore, there must been a step wherein it results in the priority leveling as taught in Enthes, therefore, even the non-compliant prices associated with the item being identified would have been given their result in priority levels of all the produces being identified in Enthed; moreover, in this case, the priority levels are being mapped to be the noncorresponding characteristics since some of these products are not corresponding to the actual product captured in the image; as disclosed in Enthed’s [0126] discloses the system rank the priority levels for the products based on prioritization scores for every detected product, therefore, the list being updated); and providing the updated list ([0125-127] discloses the product arrangement is given based on the prioritization). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 14, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Enthed discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining a visual characteristic corresponding to an aspect included in at least a portion of the one or more noncorresponding characteristics ([0123] discloses detecting features in the scene and identify the produce based on the detected features [0124]; [0124] discloses the system search in the image repository [elimination of produces not matching the detected features and are not likely to be included in the catalog of furnishings for one instance] to identify the product and its features being compared against a set of rules [aspects being associated with the item]); and providing, to the augmented reality device, information that identifies the visual characteristic to cause the augmented reality device to display the information that identifies the visual characteristic for display via a user interface of the augmented reality device ([0124] the identification of the produce is being performed based on the detected features in the image and filter the objects against a set of rules; further disclosed in [0126] wherein the detected potential produces are analyzed by comparing the image data of the potential produces with models of sample images of the products based on a prioritization score [degree of similarity] to generate similar produce arrangement for showing the virtual price tag [012]; and identify the products based on the processing as discussed according to [0127-0128] for the virtual reality). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 15, Hu in view of Enthed discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising: obtaining user input provided via the user interface of the augmented reality device (Hu, page 1, step 1, the user enters input through the interface of the augmented reality device), wherein the user input indicates a confirmation or a nonconfirmation that the visual characteristic corresponds to a visual characteristic associated with one or more features of the plurality of features (the user enters the expected value for the item and determine to purchase the item or not based on rationality based on the output of the system; and the user scan the produce with the virtual reality device hence indicating confirming the product visually based on its characteristics such as the features of Enthed of the produce in the image).
Regarding claim 16, Hu in view of Enthed, wherein Enthed discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the object is associated with an initial value; and the method further comprises: obtaining location information that identifies a location of the augmented reality device ([0167] discloses obtaining the location of the identified object based on using the augmented reality device); and adjusting the initial value based on obtaining the location information that identifies the location of the augmented reality device (the product being given a virtual tag such as disclosed in [0166]; [0167] discloses the virtual price tag can be changed or updated [adjusted as claimed]). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 8 above.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen Hu (Foreign Patent Document “CN 112884545 A” hereinafter as “Hu”) in view of Martin Enthed et. al. (“US 2023/0298050 A1” hereinafter as “Enthed”) (mapping is based on page numbers of the translation of the foreign patent document) and Kai Li Lim et. al. (“REView: A Unified Telemetry Platform for Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure, Jan. 2020, Connected Vehicles in the Internet of Things, pp. 167-219” hereinafter as “Lim”).
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Enthed discloses the method of claim 8 (as discussed above in claim 8).
However, Hu in view of Enthed does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining an itemized value for at least one noncorresponding characteristic of the one or more noncorresponding characteristics; and providing an indication of the itemized value for the at least one noncorresponding characteristic.
In the same field of augmented reality shopping (title and abstract, Lim) Lim discloses further comprising: determining an itemized value for at least one noncorresponding characteristic of the one or more noncorresponding characteristics (the information of the items identified through the augmented reality such as all of these processing mapped to Hu and Anthed, being billed as itemized billing as taught in Lim’s abstract); and providing an indication of the itemized value for the at least one noncorresponding characteristic (then the indication of the noncorresponding characteristic of Hu, as discussed above in claim 8, would be displayed in itemized value according to LIm).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hu in view of Enthed to perform determining an itemized value for at least one noncorresponding characteristic of the one or more noncorresponding characteristics; and providing an indication of the itemized value for the at least one noncorresponding characteristic as taught by Lim to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to identify objects in augmented reality more efficiently (abstract, Lim).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hee Soo Kim et. al., “US 2021/0142378 A1” discloses bicycle trading (abstract) based on expected price and actual price ([0020]) based on Virtual reality video of the bike.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673