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
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/202,746 filed on 05/06/2023.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 and 18-20 (Group I) in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-17 and 21-24 (Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05/26/2023 has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to for the following reason:
The Specification contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code (See paragraphs [0166] and [0179]). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code. See 37 CFR 1.57(e) and MPEP § 608.01 (VII).
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. In the instant application, these claim limitations are: a receiver (claims 1 and 18) and a customer service determiner (claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 18). However, the Examiner has reviewed the Specification and notes that the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of the receiver and customer service determiner and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions corresponding to these means-plus-function limitations. Accordingly, §112(a) and §112(b) rejections are applied to claims 1-9 and 18 in the instant office action to address these deficiencies.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The claims recite the following means-plus-function limitations a receiver (claims 1 and 18) and a customer service determiner (claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 18). However, the written description fails to specifically disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to perform the function corresponding to the recited receiver and customer service determiner. For example, paragraph [0010] of the Specification describes functions of the receiver and customer service determiner, but fails to describe any specific corresponding structure by which the receiver and customer service determiner is embodied. Accordingly, the lack of specific structure in the Specification for performing the claim functions of the receiver and customer service determiner results in a finding that the written description fails to satisfy §112(a) such that there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 18 fail to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a) because there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and claim 5 depends from claim 4 and therefore claims 2-9 and 5 inherit the §112(a) deficiencies of parent claims 1/4, respectively, due to the their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 and 18: The claims recite the following means-plus-function limitations: a receiver (claims 1 and 18) and a customer service determiner (claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 18), which are generic placeholders and are recited in the claims as performing one or more functions though without having sufficient structure recited in the claim to perform those functions, and therefore these are interpreted as means-plus-function claim limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the specific corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure to the functions corresponding to these elements. Applicant’s Specification refers to the receiver and customer service determiner and their functions, but fails to describe the structure for performing the functions of the receiver and customer service determiner
If the receiver and customer service determiner are intended as being computer-implemented, it is noted that, for computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP 2181.
In this instance, Specification is silent regarding any particular structure by which the receiver and customer service determiner are embodied. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and claim 5 depends from claim 4 and these dependent claims fail to cure the deficiency of parent claims 1/4, and therefore claims 2-9 and 5 inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of parent claims 1 and 4, respectively..
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 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed apparatus (claims 1-9), system (claim 18), method (claim 19), non-transitory recording medium (claim 20) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machines, process, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 18-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that describe activities considered commercial interactions (sales or marketing activity, e.g., customer service) or managing personal behavior relationships or interactions (customer interactions), may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
a receiver that receives an image generated by image-capturing with a plurality of customers as subjects (This step is additional element addressed below under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B);
a customer service determiner that determines whether or not customer service is necessary for each of the customers on the basis of the received image (This step describes commercial interactions (sales or marketing activity) or managing personal behavior relationships or interactions (customer interactions) because it describes activity that may encompass providing sales assistance to a customer seeking to make a purchase, and furthermore, but for the generic implementation by the determiner, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” such as via human evaluation, judgment, or opinion to make the determination by observing the image); and
a hardware processor that determines, when it is determined that customer service is necessary for a plurality of customers, an order of customer service for the plurality of customers for which customer service is necessary (This step describes commercial interactions (sales or marketing activity) or managing personal behavior relationships or interactions (customer interactions) because it describes activity that may encompass providing sales assistance to a customer seeking to make a purchase, and furthermore, but for the generic hardware processor, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” such as via human evaluation, judgment, or opinion to make the determination as to order of customer service, e.g., deciding placement of customers in a service queue).
Independent claims 18-20 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1 as discussed above, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 18-20 include additional elements of a receiver that receives an image generated by image-capturing with a plurality of customers as subjects, a customer service determiner, a hardware processor, apparatus, and non-transitory recording medium. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The receiver that receives an image generated by image-capturing with a plurality of customers as subjects at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1 and 18-20 include additional elements of a receiver that receives an image generated by image-capturing with a plurality of customers as subjects, a customer service determiner, a hardware processor, apparatus, and non-transitory recording medium. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea (See, e.g., Spec. at par. [0042]), which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Accordingly, the generic computer implementation merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The receiver that receives an image generated by image-capturing with a plurality of customers as subjects at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the claims. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings discussed above along with the same generic computing elements (hardware processor, determiner) as recited in the independent claims, which merely serve the purpose of tying the invention to a particular technological environment and which, as discussed above, is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Nadler et al. (US 2016/0189170, hereinafter “Nadler”) in view of Argue et al. (US 2015/0379434, hereinafter “Argue”).
Claim 1: Nadler teaches a customer service management apparatus (par. 38 and Fig. 2: data processing apparatus) that manages a customer service method for a customer staying in a predetermined region, the apparatus comprising:
a receiver that receives an image generated by image-capturing with a plurality of customers as subjects (pars. 43-44, 55, and Fig. 2: customer 210 at a store is tracked by sensor(s) 201 by detecting the customer and acquiring data of his location at different times … sensor may be…video capturing equipment such as a camera or a network of cameras, motion detection sensor(s), proximity sensor, light flicker and/or any other sensor installed in the store; photograph of customer 210 may be acquired, for example, from the data collected by sensor(s) 201 when they include imaging sensors and/or an image of customer 210 may be included in the customer information stored in information dataset 205 and automatically extracted);
a customer service determiner that determines whether or not customer service is necessary for each of the customers on the basis of the received image (pars. 19, 49, 51, and 55-56: identify a potential requirement of assistance by the customer; movement pattern is analyzed by pattern analysis module 203 to identify a potential requirement of assistance by the customer; photograph of customer 210 may be acquired, for example, from the data collected by sensor(s) 201 when they include imaging sensors and/or an image of customer; recognizing customers requiring assistance); and
a hardware processor that determines, when it is determined that customer service is necessary for a plurality of customers, … customer service for the plurality of customers for which customer service is necessary (pars. 18-20, 29, 41, 56, and Figs. 1 and 4: recognizing customers requiring assistance…and triggering a providing of the assistance to the customer; the providing of assistance is triggered).
Nadler does not explicitly teach determines…an order of customer service.
Argue teaches determines…an order of customer service (Abstract, pars. 43-44, 48, and claim 1: within a computerized processor, establishing a place in the queue for the first customer, wherein the queue operates to establish among a plurality of customers a customer currently being served by a store employee and an order in which other customers of the plurality will be served; customer location module 240 monitors and receives constant updates about the whereabouts of a shopper so that his or her proximity to the deli counter is known. This information can update a shopper's place in a virtual queue if the shopper misses his or her arrival time; At step 408, the deli counter ticket machine is updated so the next paper ticket that it prints will be the next number in the queue. At step 410, the server responds to the smartphone application with a message indicating a queue number of a customer currently being served and/or a queue number of the customer, e.g. “Now Serving X, You Are Y.” At step 412, the server uses historical shopper data, including individual shopper history, the time of day, the available deli counter staff, and other trends to estimate the waiting time for each shopper in the virtual queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadler with Argue because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing the provision of assistance to customers, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of customer service management, and because modifying Nadler to incorporate Argue’s feature for determining an order of customer service, as claimed, would serve the motivation to manage a customer service queue that helps shoppers achieve a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14) and because a customer’s order in a queue would provide the benefit of an estimated wait time related thereto (Argue at par. 21); and further obvious because 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 18-20 are directed to a customer service management system, method, and non-transitory recording medium for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and addressed above. Nadler, in view of Argue, teaches a customer service management system, method, and non-transitory recording medium for performing the limitations discussed above (Nadler at pars. 33-34: system, a method, and/or a computer program product; computer readable storage medium; See also, Argue at pars. 36-37: device, process, or computer program product), and claims 18-20 are therefore rejected as obvious under §103 using the same references and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 2: Nadler further teaches wherein the hardware processor further calculates a time during which each of the customers stays in the region (par. 47: identifying the movement pattern from the data provided by sensor(s) 201 and/or tracking module 202. The movement pattern may be, for example, extended dwell time of customer 210 at a specific location or different locations in the store, repeat visits to a particular location in the store), and determines…customer service for the plurality of customers for which it is determined that customer service is necessary (par. 57: determine which store employee is sent to assist customer 210. For example, a closest store employee to customer 210 is sent or a store employee that has the most knowledge of the products in the area of the store where customer 210 dwells), but does not teach determines, using the calculated time, the order of customer service.
Argue teaches determines, using the calculated time, the order of customer service (pars. 15-17: e.g., If the customer is on the other side of a large store or stepped out of the store, then the interval can be set at a larger time in order to permit the customer to traverse the large distance. If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nadler/Argue such that Nadler’s dwell time is used for Argue’s feature for determining the order of customer service, as claimed, in pursuit of reducing customer waiting time and thereby providing a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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 3: Nadler further teaches wherein the hardware processor gives priority … to a customer staying in the region for a time longer than a predetermined threshold value among the plurality of customers for which it is determined that customer service is necessary (pars. 47-49: identifying the movement pattern from the data provided by sensor(s) 201 and/or tracking module 202. The movement pattern may be, for example, extended dwell time of customer 210 at a specific location [wherein Nadler’s “extended dwell time” is a predetermined threshold value]; movement pattern is analyzed by pattern analysis module 203 to identify a potential requirement of assistance by the customer), but does not teach gives priority, in the order of customer service.
Argue teaches gives priority, in the order of customer service (par. 17: A warning interval can be adjusted based upon a location of the customer in relation to the counter. If the customer is thirty feet away from the counter, the interval can be set at one minute. If the customer is on the other side of a large store or stepped out of the store, then the interval can be set at a larger time in order to permit the customer to traverse the large distance. If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue [i.e., customer’s priority in the queue may be assigned/changed]. In such an instance, the customer can be notified that the assigned spot in the queue has been lost based upon the location of the customer; The bumped customer can be re-entered at the end of the queue with a new number. In the alternative, the bumped customer can be provided with a new space in the queue between two existing spaces in the queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nadler/Argue such that Nadler’s staying time for determining customer service is used in conjunction with Argue’s priority ordering of customer service, as claimed, in pursuit of reducing customer waiting time and thereby providing a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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 4: Nadler does not teach the limitations of claim 4.
Argue teaches wherein the hardware processor further calculates, for each of the customers for which it is determined that customer service is necessary, a time during which the customer stays in the region from a time point when it is determined, by the customer service determiner, that customer service is necessary (pars. 17-18, 21, 48 and Figs. 1 and 4: e.g., determine that a location of the customer within the store or in an area proximate to the store…interval can be adjusted based upon a location of the customer in relation to the counter; server uses historical shopper data, including individual shopper history, the time of day, the available deli counter staff, and other trends to estimate the waiting time for each shopper in the virtual queue; displaying a “Start Virtual Queue” button 11, a queue number status indication 13, an estimated waiting time; server sends this estimated waiting information to the smartphone of the waiting shopper), and determines the order of customer service using the calculated time for the plurality of customers for which it is determined that customer service is necessary (pars. 16, 18, 45, 48 and Fig. 1: e.g., Judy is using the queue software, customers behind Judy can include longer warning intervals even though Judy has not yet actually placed an order; customer in the queue can wait until his or her number is called, and then can proceed; customer's device can be activated at the appropriate time by queue place-keeping module; server sends this estimated waiting information to the smartphone of the waiting shopper, and periodically updates it. This step includes a “X” minute warning that the server sends to the shopper prior to the scheduled time. Step 416 is the scheduled time for the shopper to be at the deli counter. At step 418 the shopper shows his or her smartphone screen or presents his or her paper ticket, and is served. At step 420, if the shopper is delayed, the deli has the option of “bumping” the shopper back in the queue so that the shopper does not lose his or her place [Examiner’s Note: It is further noted that the customers’ wait times in the queue are necessarily used for determining order because a queue embodies a standard first-in first-out principle, i.e., first come first serve such that order and ascending wait times are necessarily interdependent by virtue of a queue’s logical FIFO arrangement]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nadler/Argue to include Argue’s calculation of stay time and determination of the order of customer service using the stay time, as claimed, in pursuit of reducing customer waiting time and thereby providing a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14) and to ensure the shopper is aware when customer service will be provided (Argue at par. 46: e.g., alerting the shopper that he or she should go to the deli counter); and further obvious because 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 5: Nadler further teaches wherein the hardware processor gives priority … to a customer staying in the region for a time longer than a predetermined threshold value among a plurality of customers for which it is determined that customer service is necessary (pars. 47-49: identifying the movement pattern from the data provided by sensor(s) 201 and/or tracking module 202. The movement pattern may be, for example, extended dwell time of customer 210 at a specific location [wherein Nadler’s “extended dwell time” is a predetermined threshold value]; movement pattern is analyzed by pattern analysis module 203 to identify a potential requirement of assistance by the customer), but does not teach gives priority, in the order of customer service.
Argue teaches gives priority, in the order of customer service (par. 17: A warning interval can be adjusted based upon a location of the customer in relation to the counter. If the customer is thirty feet away from the counter, the interval can be set at one minute. If the customer is on the other side of a large store or stepped out of the store, then the interval can be set at a larger time in order to permit the customer to traverse the large distance. If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue [i.e., customer’s priority in the queue may be assigned/changed]. In such an instance, the customer can be notified that the assigned spot in the queue has been lost based upon the location of the customer; The bumped customer can be re-entered at the end of the queue with a new number. In the alternative, the bumped customer can be provided with a new space in the queue between two existing spaces in the queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nadler/Argue such that Nadler’s staying time for determining customer service is used in conjunction with Argue’s priority ordering of customer service, as claimed, in pursuit of reducing customer waiting time and thereby providing a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Nadler et al. (US 2016/0189170, hereinafter “Nadler”) in view of Argue et al. (US 2015/0379434, hereinafter “Argue”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshitake et al. (US 2015/0199698, hereinafter “Yoshitake”).
Claim 6: Nadler further teaches the hardware processor further calculates a time during which each of the customers stays in the region (par. 47: identifying the movement pattern from the data provided by sensor(s) 201 and/or tracking module 202. The movement pattern may be, for example, extended dwell time of customer 210 at a specific location or different locations in the store, repeat visits to a particular location in the store), and determines…customer service for the plurality of customers for which it is determined that customer service is necessary (par. 57: determine which store employee is sent to assist customer 210. For example, a closest store employee to customer 210 is sent or a store employee that has the most knowledge of the products in the area of the store where customer 210 dwells), but does not teach wherein an order of customer service is determined according to an order in which each of the customers enters the region, when it is determined, by the customer service determiner, that customer service is necessary for one customer, the hardware processor determines to increase the order of customer service by one for the customer, and the hardware processor determines whether or not the calculated time is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value for the customer for which it is determined that customer service is necessary, and when it is determined that the calculated time is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold value, the hardware processor determines to increase the order of the customer service by one.
Argue teaches wherein:
an order of customer service is determined according to an order in which each of the customers enters the region (Abstract, pars. 14, 22, 43-44, 48, and claim 1: e.g., within a computerized processor, establishing a place in the queue for the first customer, wherein the queue operates to establish among a plurality of customers a customer currently being served by a store employee and an order in which other customers of the plurality will be served; customer location module 240 monitors and receives constant updates about the whereabouts of a shopper so that his or her proximity to the deli counter is known. This information can update a shopper's place in a virtual queue; “Start Virtual Queue” button 11. Selecting this connects the user's portable computerized device 10 in direct communication with the store's remote server 30. The remote server 30 then enters the shopper into a virtual queue),
when it is determined, by the customer service determiner, that customer service is necessary for one customer, the hardware processor determines to increase the order of customer service by one for the customer (pars. 17-18, 21, 48 and Figs. 1 and 4: e.g., determine that a location of the customer within the store or in an area proximate to the store…interval can be adjusted based upon a location of the customer in relation to the counter; server uses historical shopper data, including individual shopper history, the time of day, the available deli counter staff, and other trends to estimate the waiting time for each shopper in the virtual queue; displaying a “Start Virtual Queue” button 11, a queue number status indication 13, an estimated waiting time; server sends this estimated waiting information to the smartphone of the waiting shopper; If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue; deli has the option of “bumping” the shopper back in the queue so that the shopper does not lose his or her place [wherein bumping customers within the queue increases the order of all customers in the deli queue as a result]), and
the hardware processor determines to increase the order of the customer service by one (pars. 17-18, 21, 48 and Figs. 1 and 4: e.g., determine that a location of the customer within the store or in an area proximate to the store…interval can be adjusted based upon a location of the customer in relation to the counter; If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue; deli has the option of “bumping” the shopper back in the queue so that the shopper does not lose his or her place [wherein bumping customers within the queue increases the order of all customers in the deli queue as a result]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadler/Argue to include Argue’s features for determining an order for customer service and increasing an order of customer serviced by one, as claimed, in pursuit of adjusting a queue based on customer location (Argue at par. 17) or to aid a customer in keeping their place in line after previously losing their place (Argue at par. 48), which would help to reduce overall customer waiting time and thereby provide a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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.
Nadler and Argue do not teach the hardware processor determines whether or not the calculated time is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value for the customer for which it is determined that customer service is necessary, and when it is determined that the calculated time is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold value.
Yoshitake teaches the hardware processor determines whether or not the calculated time is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value for the customer for which it is determined that customer service is necessary, and when it is determined that the calculated time is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold value (pars. 63, 141, 151, 154-155, and 279: determines appropriate threshold values in accordance with the duration; classifying the numbers of persons staying in each area calculated at the predetermined time intervals by using the determined threshold values; calculates an average value of reference values for the respective time groups to obtain a threshold value; determining different threshold values for the time periods during which a store is crowded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadler/Argue with Yoshitake because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for evaluating customer behavior to manage the provision of customer service, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of customer service management, and because modifying Nadler/Argue with Yoshitake’s calculated time based threshold values, as claimed, would provide customer service intelligence such as to help shoppers achieve a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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 7: Nadler, in view of Argue, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nadler does not teach the limitations of claim 7.
Argue teaches the hardware processor determines the order of customer service in the sub region (Abstract, pars. 14, 43-44, 48, and claim 1: operating a computerized queue for customers seeking service from the deli counter [i.e., a sub region]; within a computerized processor, establishing a place in the queue for the first customer, wherein the queue operates to establish among a plurality of customers … an order in which other customers of the plurality will be served; server uses historical shopper data, including individual shopper history, the time of day, the available deli counter staff, and other trends to estimate the waiting time for each shopper in the virtual queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadler/Argue to include Argue’s ordering of customer service, as claimed, in pursuit of reducing customer waiting time and thereby providing a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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.
Nadler and Argue do not teach wherein the region includes a plurality of sub regions, the customer service management apparatus further comprising a number calculator that calculates, for each of the sub regions, a number of customers staying in the sub region on the basis of the received image, and the hardware processor … using the number of customers calculated for each of the sub regions.
Yoshitake teaches wherein the region includes a plurality of sub regions, the customer service management apparatus further comprising a number calculator that calculates, for each of the sub regions, a number of customers staying in the sub region on the basis of the received image, and the hardware processor … using the number of customers calculated for each of the sub regions (pars. 6, 50-51, 69, and 119: numbers of persons staying in the plurality of areas within the store; capturing an image of inside of the store; generating stay information in which a location at which a person stays; presenting the states of customers who have stopped in each area within a store by displaying the states of customers who have stopped in each area within the store in a distinguishable manner by using a different display style in accordance with the number of customers staying in the area; stay information D600 stores the number of stayers, which is the number of customers who stayed in each area, the number of new stayers, which is the number of customers who moved to each area from a different location, and date and time in association with one another; may be performed by a processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadler/Argue with Yoshitake because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for evaluating customer behavior to manage the provision of customer service, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of customer service management, and because modifying Nadler/Argue to incorporate Yoshitake’s features for calculating using information about the number of customers staying in subregions of a store, as claimed, in order to provide marketing intelligence that would be helpful for decisions such as allocation of resources (e.g., employees) or placement of advertising displays (e.g., in high-traffic areas); and further obvious because 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 8: Nadler does not teach the limitations of claim 8.
Argue teaches the hardware processor increases the order of customer service by one for all of the customers staying in the sub region (pars. 17 and 48: If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue; deli has the option of “bumping” the shopper back in the queue so that the shopper does not lose his or her place [wherein the bumping of customers in the queue increases the order of all customers in the deli queue as a result]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadler/Argue/Yoshitake to include Argue’s increasing of the order of customer service for customers staying in a sub region, as claimed, in pursuit of adjusting a queue based on customer location (Argue at par. 17) or to aid a customer in keeping their place in line after previously losing their place (Argue at par. 48), which would help to reduce overall customer waiting time and thereby provide a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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.
Nadler and Argue do not teach wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not the number of customers calculated for each of the sub regions is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value, and when it is determined that the calculated number of customers is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold value.
Yoshitake teaches wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not the number of customers calculated for each of the sub regions is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value, and when it is determined that the calculated number of customers is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold value (pars. 132-133, 136, 141, 179, 190, 213, and 279: threshold values are used to classify the numbers of stayers in respective areas; The condition saving unit 404 saves condition information that specifies the condition for determining threshold values used to classify the numbers of stayers in the respective areas; determines appropriate threshold values in accordance with the duration indicated by the display target period, and classifies the numbers of stayers in the respective areas by using the threshold values; classifying the numbers of stayers in each area calculated by the acquisition unit 403 at predetermined time intervals by using threshold values, and display the generated map screens in chronological order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadler/Argue/Yoshitake by increasing the order of customer service using Yoshitake’s predetermined threshold value, as claimed, in order to provide marketing intelligence that would be helpful for decisions such as dynamic queue management based on customer priority, load balancing, or the like; and further obvious because 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 9: Nadler further teaches the hardware processor calculates, for each of the customers who need customer service, a time during which the customer stays … from a time point when it is determined, by the customer service determiner, that customer service is necessary (par. 47: identifying the movement pattern from the data provided by sensor(s) 201 and/or tracking module 202. The movement pattern may be, for example, extended dwell time of customer 210 at a specific location or different locations in the store, repeat visits to a particular location in the store) and determines, by using the calculated time, the … customer service by giving priority to a customer staying longer than a predetermined threshold value … (pars. 47-49: identifying the movement pattern from the data provided by sensor(s) 201 and/or tracking module 202. The movement pattern may be, for example, extended dwell time of customer 210 at a specific location [wherein Nadler’s “extended dwell time” is a predetermined threshold value]; movement pattern is analyzed by pattern analysis module 203 to identify a potential requirement of assistance by the customer), but does not teach the region includes a plurality of sub regions, the customer service management apparatus further comprising a number calculator that calculates, for each of the sub regions, a number of customers who stay in the sub region and need customer service on the basis of the received image, … customer stays in each of the sub regions…, and determines…the order of customer service by giving priority…for each of the sub regions.
Argue teaches determines…the order of customer service by giving priority (par. 17: A warning interval can be adjusted based upon a location of the customer in relation to the counter. If the customer is thirty feet away from the counter, the interval can be set at one minute. If the customer is on the other side of a large store or stepped out of the store, then the interval can be set at a larger time in order to permit the customer to traverse the large distance. If the customer is too far away for an estimated time until the customer's number is going to be called, the customer can be bumped down the queue [i.e., customer’s priority in the queue may be assigned/changed]. In such an instance, the customer can be notified that the assigned spot in the queue has been lost based upon the location of the customer; The bumped customer can be re-entered at the end of the queue with a new number. In the alternative, the bumped customer can be provided with a new space in the queue between two existing spaces in the queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nadler/Argue such that Nadler’s staying time for determining customer service is used in conjunction with Argue’s priority ordering of customer service, as claimed, in pursuit of reducing customer waiting time and thereby providing a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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.
Nadler and Argue do not teach the region includes a plurality of sub regions, a plurality of customers stays in each of the sub regions, the customer service management apparatus further comprising a number calculator that calculates, for each of the sub regions, a number of customers who stay in the sub region and need customer service on the basis of the received image, … customer stays in each of the sub regions, and for each of the sub regions.
Yoshitake teaches the region includes a plurality of sub regions, a plurality of customers stays in each of the sub regions, the customer service management apparatus further comprising a number calculator that calculates, for each of the sub regions, a number of customers who stay in the sub region and need customer service on the basis of the received image, … customer stays in each of the sub regions …, and …for each of the sub regions (pars. 6, 50-51, 69, and 119: numbers of persons staying in the plurality of areas within the store; capturing an image of inside of the store; generating stay information in which a location at which a person stays; presenting the states of customers who have stopped in each area within a store by displaying the states of customers who have stopped in each area within the store in a distinguishable manner by using a different display style in accordance with the number of customers staying in the area; stay information D600 stores the number of stayers, which is the number of customers who stayed in each area, the number of new stayers, which is the number of customers who moved to each area from a different location, and date and time in association with one another; may be performed by a processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadler/Argue with Yoshitake because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for evaluating customer behavior to manage the provision of customer service, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of customer service management, and because modifying Nadler/Argue with Yoshitake’s calculated customers with respect to sub regions, as claimed, would provide customer service intelligence such as to help shoppers achieve a faster shopping experience (Argue at par. 14); and further obvious because 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:
Sorensen (US 2004/0111454): discloses shopping environment analysis techniques, including features for exposing areas in which staff are insufficiently allocated to help shoppers (par. 64).
Derza (US Patent No. 11,763,366): discloses automatic customer assistance initialization based on computer vision video analysis.
Oh et al. (US 2022/0180640): discloses an electronic device for providing a response for a customer (e.g., a mobile robot that responds to a customer, Spec. at par. 54).
D. A. Mora Hernandez, O. Nalbach and D. Werth, "How Computer Vision Provides Physical Retail with a Better View on Customers," 2019 IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Moscow, Russia, 2019, pp. 462-471: discloses technologies employing computer vision to assist retailers in improving customers’ shopping experience.
C. H. Cheng, C. Y. Chen, J. J. Liang, T. N. Tsai, C. Y. Liu and T. H. S. Li, "Design and implementation of prototype service robot for shopping in a supermarket," 2017 International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Systems (ARIS), Taipei, Taiwan, 2017, pp. 46-51: discloses a service robot system to create flexible interaction with customers in a retail shopping environment.
L. Jeanpierre et al., "COACHES: An assistance multi-robot system in public areas," 2017 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), Paris, France, 2017, pp. 1-6: discloses techniques for using fixed cameras and mobile robots to assist humans in public spaced.
I. Kramer, R. Memmesheimer and D. Paulus, "Customer Interaction of a Future Convenience Store with a Mobile Manipulation Service Robot," 2021 IEEE International Conference on Omni-Layer Intelligent Systems (COINS), Barcelona, Spain, 2021, pp. 1-7: discloses features for integrating mobile manipulation service robots to support customer interaction in convenience stores.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
03/05/2026