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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The examiner appreciates the amendment to the title and the objection is withdrawn.
The examiner has considered the amendments in relation to the 112f and 112b issues/rejections and the amendments cause the raised issues/rejections to be withdrawn.
The amendments overcome the 101 rejections and those rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to. It appears that the word person should be at the end of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/255096, Shetty et al. (hereafter Shetty) in view of US 2020/0311655, Shen (hereafter Shen).
1. An analysis system comprising:
An imaging apparatus to detect a position of a person in a space; (Shetty ¶36, first camera/software monitors movements of a user)
a positioning device that comprises an access point or locator configured to communicate with a communication tag attached to an object and detect a position of the object in the space; and (Shetty ¶36-37 other cameras/software detects positions of products on the shelf; RFID on the products)
a computer comprising a controller, and a memory storing a program that, when executed by the controller, causes the controller to analyze a behavior of the person in response to the object, which includes: (Shetty ¶25 computer/memory performing process)
Shetty does not disclose
a positioning device that comprises an access point or locator configured to communicate with a communication tag attached to an object and detect a position of the object in the space. Shetty also does not explicitly teach the position of the object acquired from the positioning device.
Shen ¶23 discloses items with RFID tags on them and is configured to detect the position of the item in the store.
It would have been obvious to modify the system to Shetty to include RFID tags on items in order to better track a user’s interaction with an item to increase sales as taught by Shen (¶45-46).
When considered in combination with Shetty and Shen:
determining that the person has picked up the object when a relative distance between the position of the person acquired from the imaging apparatus and the position of the object acquired from the positioning device has decreased, and
determining that the person has returned the object when a relative distance between the position of the person and the position of the object has increased. (Shetty ¶36-37 camera monitors the person picking up and replacing the object, Shen as noted above discloses the position of the object acquired from the positioning device; note that the relative distance between the person and the object as detected for picking up and returning the object merely describes the natural relationship as a person moves toward the object as a person would need to be within reach in order to pick up the object and the distance would increase after a person replaces the object and leaves and thus is obvious as a recitation of what happens when one picks up and drops off items)
Claims 17-18 are rejected similarly.
2. The analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis of the behavior of the person in response to the object, is further based on a temporal change in the position of the person or the object. (Shetty ¶36 based on interaction with the object)
3. The analysis system according to claim 2, wherein the temporal change in the position of the person or the object comprises: the position of the person or the object at a predetermined point of time; an amount of movement, number of times of movement, or route of movement of the person or the object; a position of stay, duration of stay, or number of times of stay of the person; or a duration of existence of the object. (Shetty ¶36 based on interaction with the object)
6. The analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis of the behavior of the person in response to the object is further based on change in a height of the object detected by the positioning device in a predetermined range around where the imaging apparatus is installed. (Shetty ¶36 lift up, put back, reads, etc.)
7. The analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis of the behavior of the person in response to the object includes calculating an score that quantifies willingness of the person to buy the object, based on the behavior of the person based on a result of detection by the imaging apparatus and the positioning device. (Shetty ¶36 predict user’s purchase patterns; see also ¶75)
8. The analysis system according to claim 6, wherein the analysis of the behavior of the person in response to the object is further based on information indicating that the buyer touched the object or held the object and acquired based on a result of detection by the imaging apparatus and the positioning. (Shetty ¶36 lift up, put back, reads, etc.)
12. The analysis system according to claim 6, wherein the analysis of the person in response to the object further comprises acquiring information indicating an attribute of the person and analyzing the behavior of the person in response to the object in units of attributes of the person. (Shetty ¶44 demographic info of the users)
13. The analysis system according to claim 6, wherein the program, when executed by the controller, further causes the controller to perform a hot-selling analysis on the object bought, perform an analysis of a reason that the object did not sell, or perform inventory management of the object, based on the buying behavior of the [person]. (Shetty ¶75-78 inventory management)
14. The analysis system according to claim 6, wherein the analysis of the behavior of the person is performed while excluding analysis of persons other than said person. (Shetty ¶36 is monitoring each user individually)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg Morse can be reached on 571-272-38383838. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ming Shui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights