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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed November 7, 2025, are responsive to the office action mailed August 8, 2025. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 were previously pending and claims 1-12, 15, 17, and 18, have been amended. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to claim objections in the previous office action
Claim 1 was objected to because of informalities. The amendment has remedied the informality and the objection is withdrawn.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC§ 102 in the previous office action
Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 17-18, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanska et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0093274 A1). The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant recites the claim limitations, including additional elements and the steps they are recited as performing, and declares
“these features cannot be considered fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people. Therefore, the features cannot be considered as certain methods of organizing human activity.” Remarks pp.10-11.
This declaration is entirely conclusory and offers the examiner no rational basis for coming to applicant’s desired conclusion. The claim is directed to identifying a customer and providing the customer a route to a product on the customer’s shopping list. This falls squarely in the ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ category as detailed below in the body of the rejection. The statement that “related methods require projection or robot devices” is not relevant. Remarks p.12. Applicant’s assertions concerning “well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,” are also not relevant because no determination has been made that any limitation is insignificant extra solution activity or that any particular step is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claims do not recite a solution, merely reciting an abstract process and using generic components to “apply it.”
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC§ 102 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, and 18, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 17-18, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanska et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0093274 A1). The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection. Upon further consideration however, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of BERALDO (ES 2774548 T3).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the independent claims recite “the display device determines the face feature amount of the customer by extracting the plurality of facial feature points from the image of the face”. This is not described in the specification. The specification recites “The face feature amount is, for example, one or a plurality of facial feature points…. The face feature amount is obtained, for example, by extracting a facial feature point or the like from a face image,” but does not describe the display device performing this extraction or making this determination.
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 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-15 and 19 are directed to a machine, claim 17 is directed to a process, and claim 18 is directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“displaying… a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer…; receiving a face feature amount of the customer … wherein the face feature amount indicates a plurality of facial feature points of the customer, … captures the image of the face of the customer and … determines the face feature amount of the customer by extracting the plurality of facial feature points from the image of the face; identifying the customer by authenticating to match the face feature amount of the customer with a customer database, wherein the customer database stores a face feature amount for each customer; acquiring a list including information on products to be purchased by the identified customer; generating a route … to the products based on a position of each of the products included in the acquired list and a position …; displaying the generated route…; detecting… that the identified customer has moved away …; and terminating display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away ….” Claim 17.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the groupings of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in present claims 1-15 and 19 are a memory storing instructions, one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, a display device fixedly installed at a store, an imaging device installed on the display device, and a motion sensor installed on the display device. Claim 17 includes only the display device fixedly installed at a store, an imaging device installed on the display device, and a motion sensor installed on the display device, and claim 18 includes a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute the steps, the display device fixedly installed at a store, an imaging device installed on the display device, and a motion sensor installed on the display device. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the display device displays a screen and the imaging device captures an image of the user’s face. As recited “the display device determines the face feature amount of the customer by extracting the plurality of facial feature points from the image”. This is not described in the specification. The specification recites “The face feature amount is, for example, one or a plurality of facial feature points…. The face feature amount is obtained, for example, by extracting a facial feature point or the like from a face image,” but does not describe the display device performing this extraction or making this determination and does not describe how this extraction is performed or how this determination is made by any means. Specification ¶0052. It must therefore be interpreted broadly and generically as merely identifying data in an image and perhaps adding together multiple data points. These are abstract recitations of steps not performed by a particular device. The resulting amount is then compared with data saved in a database. The identification, adding, and comparison of data, if appearing together on their own would be considered a mental process, which is simply another category of abstract idea. Likewise the motion sensor “installed on the display device” that only performs the most basic function of any such sensor, detecting the presence or absence of the customer. Although the display device has two other roles, both are passive ones. It serves as a map location, essentially a pin indicating the user location, and it is used by the processor(s) as a canvas for displaying the information resulting from the abstract recited process.
The processors and memories are generic devices broadly recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities. All of these additional elements do not therefore integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a series of abstract ideas using generic components. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic devices. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding general purpose device components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements are recited at a high level of generality, merely implement abstract ideas using generic devices, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h). No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem.
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims (claims 2-15 and 19) do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 17-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanska et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2004/0093274 A1) in view of RASTOGI et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2017 /0364889 A1) and further in view of BERALDO (ES 2774548 T3).
Vanska teaches a system that generates a route around a shop for a shopper to use to acquire items. Vanska also teaches, pertaining to
Claim 1. A system comprising: ● a memory storing instructions (see at least Vanska fig. 2, ¶¶0023, 0027 “shopping mini-application storage”); and ● one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (see at least Vanska fig. 2, ¶0022 “processor,” ¶0030 “Terminal 100 also includes a CPU 200 and associated programming”).
Vanska teaches the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device.
RASTOGI also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, and further discloses ● display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device (see at least RASTOGI figs. 2, 7-19, ¶0029 “The retail checkout system 14 can include an input device 32, a display device 36,” ¶0031 “The input device 32 can also include a camera, … for receiving information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face”);
● receive a face feature amount of the customer from the display device, wherein the face feature amount indicates a plurality of facial feature points of the customer, and the imaging device captures the image of the face of the customer and the display device determines the face feature amount of the customer by extracting the plurality of facial feature points from the image of the face (see at least RASTOGI figs. 7-8, ¶0031 “information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face,” ¶0034 “customer identification analyzer 53 can verify received unique customer identification information, for example, … biometric data,” ¶0060 “biometric data such as an image of the customer's face can he captured using a camera”. Please note: the specification does not introduce or describe this feature as claimed. It is interpreted as best understood based on what is described in the specification. See Specification objection under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) above.);
● identify the customer by authenticating to match the face feature amount of the customer with a customer database, wherein the customer database stores a face feature amount for each customer (see at least RASTOGI abstract “customer identification analyzer verifies that the received unique customer identification information is included in the registered identification information of the customer record,” figs. 1-6a, ¶0064 “customer identification analyzer 53 can verify received unique customer identification information, for example,… biometric data, for comparison to a customer record that includes previously recorded information about the customer to confirm the identity of the customer,” ¶0060 “biometric data such as an image of the customer's face can he captured using a camera … and compared to a previously stored image provided with the customer record stored at the customer registration database,” ¶0071 “customer's unique customer identification information is verified, for example, … biometric data can be captured by input devices of the retail checkout system 14, and compared to a customer record that includes previously recorded information about the customer to confirm the identity of the customer”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska to include wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, and related features, as taught by RASTOGI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from RASTOGI in the method of Vanska. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Vanska further discloses wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to
● acquire a list including information on products to be purchased by the identified customer (see at least Vanska abstract “A user creates and stores a shopping list,” figs.3,6, ¶0007 “accessing a user's electronic shopping list”); ● generate a route from the display device to the products based on a position of
each of the products included in the acquired list and a position of the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “an optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list,” fig.3, ¶0007 “providing the user with a route for purchasing items on the shopping list”); ● display the generated route on the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs.3, 8A, ¶0018 “shopping route displayed to a consumer”).
Vanska in view of Rastogi teaches all of the above as noted and discloses a) identification of a user, b) merchandise offered for sale, c) a display device with a screen related to capturing an image of a customer, and d) capturing an image of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, but does not explicitly disclose one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to detect, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device, and terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device.
BERALDO also teaches a) identification of a user, b) merchandise offered for sale, c) a display device with a screen related to capturing an image of a customer, and d) capturing an image of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, and further discloses one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to
● detect, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device (see at least BERALDO abstract “device also including … at least two web cameras … and automatic activation and deactivation means of an offer session for the sale of merchandise on said monitor (7), said automatic activation and deactivation means including said web cameras (8, 9), which enable the activation of the session when they detect a presence of users in the changing room (5) and the deactivation of the session when they detect an absence of users in the changing room”); and
Vanska in view of Rastogi and further in view of BERALDO teaches
● terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs.3, 8A, ¶0018 “shopping route displayed to a consumer,” in view of BERALDO abstract “device also including … at least two web cameras … and automatic activation and deactivation means of an offer session for the sale of merchandise on said monitor (7), said automatic activation and deactivation means including said web cameras (8, 9), which enable … the deactivation of the session when they detect an absence of users in the changing room”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska in view of Rastogi to include detect, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device, and terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device, as taught by BERALDO since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from BERALDO in the method of Vanska in view of Rastogi. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Vanska further discloses
Claim 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● receive selection of information of one of the products included in the list by an operation of the customer (see at least Vanska fig. 3, ¶0056 “application receives the user's selections (if any) of the items”); ● delete information of the selected product from the list to obtain an updated list (see at least Vanska ¶0043 “application determines whether the user has modified the shopping list 400, e.g., to delete an unavailable item,” ¶0056 “application receives the user's selections (if any) of the items … and … deletes items from, shopping list,” ¶0069 “deletion of items from the list 400 because either the user has decided not to purchase them or has added them to her shopping cart”); and ● generate the route based on the updated list (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal route and recommendations may be updated at any time throughout the shopping experience in response to either the user's request, modifications to the shopping list,” figs.3, 8B, ¶0019 “updated optimal shopping route”).Claim 3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● newly receive an input of product information (see at least Vanska fig. 3, ¶0043 “user has modified the shopping list 400, e.g., to … add a substitute item,” ¶0052 “received the user's selection of one or more of the suggested substitute and/or complimentary items and updated the shopping list”); ● add information of the received product to the list to obtain an updated list (see at least Vanska fig. 3, ¶0043 “user has modified the shopping list 400, e.g., to … add a substitute item,” ¶0052 “received the user's selection of one or more of the suggested substitute and/or complimentary items and updated the shopping list”); and ● generate the route based on the updated list (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal route and recommendations may be updated at any time throughout the shopping experience in response to either the user's request, modifications to the shopping list,” figs.3, 8B, ¶0019 “updated optimal shopping route”).Claim 4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● receive, from a terminal device, information of a product to be checked out which acquired by an operation of the customer in the terminal device (see at least Vanska ¶0009 “providing a user of a mobile terminal with a reminder concerning an item for purchase,” ¶0024 “guides the consumer through a shopping experience by providing her with, among other things: … reminders to buy items … including any recommended substitute or complimentary items as well as any items about which the user received a reminder,” ¶0037 “An exemplary shopping list … comprises one or more items 402 that the user of mobile terminal 100 intends to purchase. … other information may be included … may include the quantity of each item to be purchased and a more detailed item description”); and ● delete the received information of the product to be checked out from the list to obtain an updated list (see at least Vanska ¶0069 “deletion of items from the list 400 because either the user … has added them to her shopping cart”); and ● generate the route based on the updated list (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal route and recommendations may be updated at any time throughout the shopping experience in response to either the user's request, modifications to the shopping list,” figs.3, 8B, ¶0019 “updated optimal shopping route”).Claim 5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● generate the route based on an order of a distance from a position of the display device to a position of each of the products included in the list (see at least Vanska abstract “an optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items,” fig. 3, ¶0025 “determining a user's location within a shop for use in calculating an optimal shopping route,” ¶0062 “Once the user's location within the shop has been determined then, in step 334, the shopping mini-application determines the locations of each of the items on shopping list,” ¶0063 “optimal route (e.g., the shortest route) for purchasing the items on shopping list”).Claim 6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● generate the route based on an order of information of each of the products added to the list (see at least Vanska ¶0051 “items on the user's shopping list 400 (including any substitutes added to the list 400),” ¶0066 “an item suggested by the shopping mini-application … that the user selected and added to shopping list 400. The path 818 illustrates how the optimal route 816 would have been computed and displayed by the shopping mini-application to guide the user from location 812a to location 812c had the user not added the suggested item found at location 812b to shopping list 400”).Claim 7. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● generate the route based on an order according to an attribute of each of the products included in the list (see at least Vanska fig. 3, ¶0007 “route includes a location of the substitute item”. Please note: location is an attribute).
Claim 11. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● generate the route based on an order of a category to which the products in the list belongs in an order of a predetermined category of each of the products (see at least Vanska figs. 4, 7, ¶0037 “other information may be included in shopping list 400. This additional information may include … species descriptors (e.g., "ham" rather than, or in addition to, "meat") and brand names (e.g., "Nokia" handsets) or other quality indicators (e.g., "Grade A" or "1st Choice")”).Claim 12. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● generate the route from the display device to each of the products and an other product based on a position of each of the products included in the list, a position of the display device, and a position of the other product when there is the other product that can satisfy a discount condition by combination with the products included in the list (see at least Vanska abstract “checks item availability and provides recommended substitute and complimentary items …. Special offers are also presented to the user. Once the shopping list has been finalized, an optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” fig. 3, 5, ¶0045 “if an item on shopping list 400 is available, a substitute item may be recommended, particularly in conjunction with a special offer”).Claim 13. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● display an entire route passing through all the products included in the list (see at least Vanska abstract “an optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs. 3, 8).
Pertaining to method claim 17, Vanska teaches a method that generates a route around a shop for a shopper to use to acquire items, and Vanska also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device.
RASTOGI also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, and further discloses, regarding
Claim 17. A method comprising:
● displaying, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device (see at least RASTOGI figs. 2, 7-19, ¶0029 “The retail checkout system 14 can include an input device 32, a display device 36,” ¶0031 “The input device 32 can also include a camera, … for receiving information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face”);
● receiving a face feature amount of the customer from the display device, wherein the face feature amount indicates a plurality of facial feature points of the customer, and the imaging device captures the image of the face of the customer and the display device determines the face feature amount of the customer by extracting the plurality of facial feature points from the image of the face (see at least RASTOGI figs. 7-8, ¶0031 “information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face,” ¶0034 “customer identification analyzer 53 can verify received unique customer identification information, for example, … biometric data,” ¶0060 “biometric data such as an image of the customer's face can he captured using a camera”. Please note: the specification does not introduce or describe this feature as claimed. It is interpreted as best understood based on what is described in the specification. See Specification objection under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) above.); ● identifying the customer by authenticating to match the face feature amount of the customer with a customer database, wherein the customer database stores a face feature amount for each customer (see at least RASTOGI abstract “customer identification analyzer verifies that the received unique customer identification information is included in the registered identification information of the customer record,” figs. 1-6a, ¶0064 “customer identification analyzer 53 can verify received unique customer identification information, for example,… biometric data, for comparison to a customer record that includes previously recorded information about the customer to confirm the identity of the customer,” ¶0060 “biometric data such as an image of the customer's face can he captured using a camera … and compared to a previously stored image provided with the customer record stored at the customer registration database,” ¶0071 “customer's unique customer identification information is verified, for example, … biometric data can be captured by input devices of the retail checkout system 14, and compared to a customer record that includes previously recorded information about the customer to confirm the identity of the customer”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska to include wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, and related features, as taught by RASTOGI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from RASTOGI in the method of Vanska. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Vanska further discloses
● acquiring a list including information on products to be purchased by the identified customer (see at least Vanska abstract “A user creates and stores a shopping list,” figs.3,6, ¶0007 “accessing a user's electronic shopping list”);
● generating a route from a the device to the products based on a position of each of the products included in the acquired list and a position of the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “an optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list,” fig.3, ¶0007 “providing the user with a route for purchasing items on the shopping list”); ● displaying the generated route on the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs.3, 8A, ¶0018 “shopping route displayed to a consumer”).
Vanska in view of Rastogi teaches all of the above as noted and discloses a) identification of a user, b) merchandise offered for sale, c) a display device with a screen related to capturing an image of a customer, and d) capturing an image of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, but does not explicitly disclose a method comprising detecting, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device, and terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device, and terminating display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device.
BERALDO also teaches a) identification of a user, b) merchandise offered for sale, c) a display device with a screen related to capturing an image of a customer, and d) capturing an image of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, and further discloses a method comprising
● detecting, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device (see at least BERALDO abstract “device also including … at least two web cameras … and automatic activation and deactivation means of an offer session for the sale of merchandise on said monitor (7), said automatic activation and deactivation means including said web cameras (8, 9), which enable the activation of the session when they detect a presence of users in the changing room (5) and the deactivation of the session when they detect an absence of users in the changing room”); and
Vanska in view of Rastogi and further in view of BERALDO teaches
● terminating display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs.3, 8A, ¶0018 “shopping route displayed to a consumer,” in view of BERALDO abstract “device also including … at least two web cameras … and automatic activation and deactivation means of an offer session for the sale of merchandise on said monitor (7), said automatic activation and deactivation means including said web cameras (8, 9), which enable … the deactivation of the session when they detect an absence of users in the changing room”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska in view of Rastogi to include detect, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device, and terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device, as taught by BERALDO since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from BERALDO in the method of Vanska in view of Rastogi. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Pertaining to medium claim 18, Vanska teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute said program that generates a route around a shop for a shopper to use to acquire items, and Vanska also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the program executes instructions to display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device.
RASTOGI also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, and further discloses, regarding
Claim 18. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute:
● displaying, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device (see at least RASTOGI figs. 2, 7-19, ¶0029 “The retail checkout system 14 can include an input device 32, a display device 36,” ¶0031 “The input device 32 can also include a camera, … for receiving information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face”);
● receiving a face feature amount of the customer from the display device, wherein the face feature amount indicates a plurality of facial feature points of the customer, and the imaging device captures the image of the face of the customer and the display device determines the face feature amount of the customer by extracting the plurality of facial feature points from the image of the face (see at least RASTOGI figs. 7-8, ¶0031 “information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face,” ¶0034 “customer identification analyzer 53 can verify received unique customer identification information, for example, … biometric data,” ¶0060 “biometric data such as an image of the customer's face can he captured using a camera”. Please note: the specification does not introduce or describe this feature as claimed. It is interpreted as best understood based on what is described in the specification. See Specification objection under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) above.); ● identifying the customer by authenticating to match the face feature amount of the customer with a customer database, wherein the customer database stores a face feature amount for each customer (see at least RASTOGI abstract “customer identification analyzer verifies that the received unique customer identification information is included in the registered identification information of the customer record,” figs. 1-6a, ¶0064 “customer identification analyzer 53 can verify received unique customer identification information, for example,… biometric data, for comparison to a customer record that includes previously recorded information about the customer to confirm the identity of the customer,” ¶0060 “biometric data such as an image of the customer's face can he captured using a camera … and compared to a previously stored image provided with the customer record stored at the customer registration database,” ¶0071 “customer's unique customer identification information is verified, for example, … biometric data can be captured by input devices of the retail checkout system 14, and compared to a customer record that includes previously recorded information about the customer to confirm the identity of the customer”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska to include wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to display, on a display device fixedly installed at a store, a screen related to capturing an image of a face of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, and related features, as taught by RASTOGI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from RASTOGI in the method of Vanska. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Vanska further discloses
● acquiring a list including information on products to be purchased by the identified customer (see at least Vanska abstract “A user creates and stores a shopping list,” figs.3,6, ¶0007 “accessing a user's electronic shopping list”); ● generating a route from the display device to the products based on a position of each of the products included in the acquired list and a position of the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “an optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list,” fig.3, ¶0007 “providing the user with a route for purchasing items on the shopping list”); ● displaying the generated route on the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs.3, 8A, ¶0018 “shopping route displayed to a consumer”).
Vanska in view of Rastogi teaches all of the above as noted and discloses a) identification of a user, b) merchandise offered for sale, c) a display device with a screen related to capturing an image of a customer, and d) capturing an image of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, but does not explicitly disclose a method comprising detecting, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device, and terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device, and terminating display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device.
BERALDO also teaches a) identification of a user, b) merchandise offered for sale, c) a display device with a screen related to capturing an image of a customer, and d) capturing an image of a customer by an imaging device installed on the display device, and further discloses a method comprising
● detecting, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device (see at least BERALDO abstract “device also including … at least two web cameras … and automatic activation and deactivation means of an offer session for the sale of merchandise on said monitor (7), said automatic activation and deactivation means including said web cameras (8, 9), which enable the activation of the session when they detect a presence of users in the changing room (5) and the deactivation of the session when they detect an absence of users in the changing room”); and
Vanska in view of Rastogi and further in view of BERALDO teaches
● terminating display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device (see at least Vanska abstract “optimal shopping route is computed for gathering the items on the list and is displayed to the user in the form of a map,” figs.3, 8A, ¶0018 “shopping route displayed to a consumer,” in view of BERALDO abstract “device also including … at least two web cameras … and automatic activation and deactivation means of an offer session for the sale of merchandise on said monitor (7), said automatic activation and deactivation means including said web cameras (8, 9), which enable … the deactivation of the session when they detect an absence of users in the changing room”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska in view of Rastogi to include detect, by a motion sensor installed on the display device, that the identified customer has moved away from the display device, and terminate display of the route upon detecting that the customer has moved away from the display device, as taught by BERALDO since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from BERALDO in the method of Vanska in view of Rastogi. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
RASTOGI further discloses
Claim 19. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
● identify the customer by face image of the customer captured by a camera installed in the display device (see at least RASTOGI ¶0031 “device 32 can also include a camera, … for receiving information that uniquely identifies the customer 17, for example, biometric data such as an image of the customer's face”).
Claims 8, 10, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanska et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2004/0093274 A1) in view of RASTOGI et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2017 /0364889 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Zivin (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2007 /0150369 A1).
Vanska in view of RASTOGI teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the attribute of the product is at least one of a weight of the product and a size of the product.
Zivin also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, and further discloses, pertaining to
Claim 8. The system according to claim 7, wherein the attribute of each of the products is at least one of a weight of each of the products and a size of each of the products (see at least Zivin ¶0031 “Product and service data might contain data points such as the … package size, … size, weight, …, or any other relevant data.” Please note: The phrase "at least one of" (or "one or more of") precedes the recitation of alternative or optional limitations only one of which is required. Language claiming elements in the alternative is anticipated by the presence of any single alternative. Beyond that it does not result in any further limitation because it merely represents contingencies that are not required. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").).
Claim 10. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● generate the route based on an order according to a congestion status of the store (see at least Zivin abstract “recommendation is provided based on variables such as the customer's estimated value of time, traffic conditions,” ¶0026 “customers can switch their purchasing decisions …. For example, if … traffic congestion develops, then the customer can be alerted and provided with alternate solutions in real-time. … the alert is presented on the customer's navigation system and an updated shopping list is presented”).
Claim 14. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: ● output a voice that guides the generated route (see at least Zivin ¶0087 “Customers are able to get more information on a location [505] by … using spoken commands …. For example, a navigation system may use voice recognition to allow a customer to request more information such as the exact street address or hours of operation. The system could then use an artificial voice to speak the information back to the customer”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska in view of RASTOGI to include wherein the attribute of the product is at least one of a weight of the product and a size of the product, as taught by Zivin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Zivin in the method of Vanska in view of RASTOGI. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanska et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2004/0093274 A1) in view of RASTOGI et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Pub. No. US 2017 /0364889 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of in view of Cancro et al. (Paper No. 20250729; Patent No. US 9,589,294 B2).
Vanska in view of RASTOGI teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the attribute of the product is at least one of frozen, refrigerated, raw, and fresh.
Cancro also teaches a) identification of a user, b) acquisition of a shopping list, c) location of products, and d) generating a route between a display device and products, and further discloses, pertaining to
Claim 9. The system according to claim 7, wherein the attribute of each of the products is at least one of frozen, refrigerated, raw, and fresh (see at least Cancro c10:1-20 “route may be optimized to reduce the distance and time required to retrieve the items in the shopping list, … in a manner that preserves the freshness of perishable, frozen, and refrigerated items”. Please note: The phrase "at least one of" (or "one or more of") precedes the recitation of alternative or optional limitations only one of which is required. Language claiming elements in the alternative is anticipated by the presence of any single alternative. Beyond that it does not result in any further limitation because it merely represents contingencies that are not required. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").).
Claim 15. The system according to claim 1, wherein the display device is a device fixed installed in the store (see at least Cancro c5:43-50 “a mobile computing device 112 affixed to a shopping cart”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vanska in view of RASTOGI to include wherein the attribute of the product is at least one of frozen, refrigerated, raw, and fresh, as taught by Cancro since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Cancro in the method of Vanska in view of RASTOGI. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● SWAFFORD, J., CN107864679A: teaches activation of a streaming video shopping display in response to proximity of a shopper, and a display management system that captures an image of a user and performs facial recognition.
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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 February 4, 2026