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
Applicant’s argument with respect to the “recognized image of a numerical value positioned adjacent to the object” has been considered. While the examiner believes that applicant intends the language of the claim to be interpreted as akin to price tag is in the physical environment and is recognized by the system, the claim language does not support only such a reading. The use of the words “in a physical environment and a cost indicator” can also be understood to be a second clause unrelated to the object present in the physical environment other than the cost indicator should be placed adjacent (whether as a “price tag” or an augmented image) to the object. Further, in other claims, there is no requirement that a physical object be present in the physical environment – the claims are broad enough to support an interpretation where a virtual object is placed in a physical environment. The examiner would suggest that applicant amend the claims to indicate that both the object and cost indicator are present in the physical environment. The examiner is unable, however, to offer a suggestion as to claim language that would make this clear.
Further, the examiner suggests an interview be held in order to discuss potential avenues for moving prosecution forward, such as discussing language to reflect applicant’s desired interpretation of the claim language and some additional clarification as to the capture an image step that may lead to allowable subject matter.
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.
Claim 1-2, 3-5, 8 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by 2022/0374965 Bronicki et al. (hereafter Bronicki)
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and computer-readable storage media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to: (Bronicki ¶8 computer and software)
capture, via a glasses device, image data from an adjacent physical environment and perform object recognition using the image data to recognize an object present in the physical environment and a cost indicator as a recognized image of a numerical value positioned adjacent the object; (Bronicki ¶102 glasses are indicated as a capturing device; ¶106 product in a retail physical environment, including price; see also ¶461, ¶562)
determine that the object meets a relevancy threshold that includes identities of products of interest to a user by comparing an identity of the recognized object with identities of the products of interest; (Bronicki ¶276 identify target product and identities of products on shopping list)
capture an image of the physical environment and store an object record that includes the captured image of the physical environment, an object identifier for the object, the recognized cost indicator, and location for the object. (Bronicki ¶119 stores a record of items on a shelf, see also ¶187, ¶200 product, placement, cost, location of the object is provided to the user and is therefore retrieved from a storage location, see also ¶280, ¶445, ¶467 showing actual image)
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to detect that the glasses device moves from a first location to a second location associated with the physical environment, and to initiate performing the object recognition based at least in part on the move to the second location. (Bronicki ¶416 tracks customer path through the store and performs object recognition based on the customer’s location)
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the relevancy threshold comprises an indication of objects of interest to a user associated with the glasses device. (Bronicki ¶7-8 alternative products)
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to capture, in an event that the object data at least meets the relevancy threshold, an image of the physical environment and store the image as part of the object record. (Bronicki ¶119 stores a record of items on a shelf, see also ¶187, ¶200 product, placement, cost, location of the object is provided to the user and is therefore retrieved from a storage location, see also ¶280, ¶445, ¶461, ¶467 showing actual image)
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a cost difference between the object present in the physical environment and a similar object available from a different source; and (Bronicki ¶314 price comparison)
output, via the glasses device, an alert indicating the cost difference. (Bronicki ¶318 alert)
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by 2015/0012426 Purves et al. (hereafter Purves)
10. A method comprising:
receiving an object record that includes an object identifier for an object, (Purves ¶198 receives info about a product)
a cost indicator for the object, and location information for the object identifying a physical environment in which the object and the cost indicator are detected; (Purves ¶198 location and object data; ¶227 price)
searching an object database using the object identifier to obtain one or more search results that include information about one or more similar objects to the object and one of more cost indicators for the one or more similar objects; and (Purves ¶316 price comparison)
generating a cost record based at least in part on a comparison of the cost indicator for the object with the one or more cost indicators for the one or more similar objects. (Purves ¶316 shows the price comparison)
11. The method of claim 10, wherein receiving the object record comprises receiving the object record from a glasses device. (Purves ¶198 glasses perform object recognition)
12. The method of claim 10, wherein the cost record indicates at least one of that the cost indicator for the object has a lesser value than the one or more cost indicators for the one or more similar objects, or that the cost indicator for the object has a greater value than the one or more cost indicators for the one or more similar objects. (Purves ¶316 price comparison)
13. The method of claim 10, further comprising outputting an alert comprising at least some information from the cost record. (Purves ¶316 shows the price comparison)
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising outputting the alert in response to determining that a current location corresponds to the physical environment in which the object is detected. (Purves ¶198 location in the store)
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the alert comprises an indication that the cost indicator for the object has a lesser value than the one or more cost indicators for the one or more similar objects. (Purves ¶316 price comparison)
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the alert comprises a selectable control that is selectable to present additional information about the physical environment in which the object is detected, including a snapshot of the physical environment captured when the object was detected. (Purves e.g. figs 16C, 28 illustrates snapshot of the physical environment)
17. A system comprising: one or more processors; and computer-readable storage media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to: (Purves ¶132-133 computer and software)
detect, via a glasses device, user engagement with an object and capture interaction data that includes an object image of the object within a physical environment and information about the user engagement with the object; and (Purves ¶198 glasses perform object recognition; see also ¶226 in a retail environment; ¶227 engage with products)
generate, based on the user engagement meeting or exceeding an engagement threshold, an object record that includes the object image and engagement data that describes the user engagement with the object, the engagement data based at least in part on the interaction data. (Purves ¶11 gesture at an object for a predetermined time)
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the engagement threshold comprises a threshold duration of time over which the user engagement with the object occurs. (Purves ¶11 predetermined length of time)
19. The system of claim 17, further comprising performing object recognition of the object and including an object identifier for the object in the object record. (Purves ¶198 glasses perform object recognition)
20. The system of claim 17, wherein the engagement data comprises an indication of whether the user engagement comprises passive engagement or active engagement. (Purves ¶11 active engagement pointing at an object.)
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 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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bronicki in view of Purves.
Bronicki does not disclose
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to: capture, via the glasses device, different image data from the adjacent physical environment and perform object recognition using the different image data to recognize a different object present in the physical environment and a cost indicator for the different object; (Purves ¶198 captures scenes in a store)
compare different object data for the different object to the relevancy threshold; and (It is a store shelf; it is understood that there are many different items on store shelves)
ignore the different object data based on the different object data not meeting the relevancy threshold. (Purves ¶198 displays 1 item, thus ignoring the other items on the shelf)
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Bronicki to ignore different items that do not appear, based on analysis, to be the item that shopper is interested in for the purposes of not showing the shopper irrelevant items.
Bronicki does not disclose
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to: detect that the glasses device is in proximity to a client device; and (Purves ¶185 and describe the user with glasses and mobile device)
automatically communicate the object record to the client device. (Purves ¶185 automatically communicates the product to the mobile device)
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Bronicki for connecting glasses to a client device for the purposes of providing additional services as taught by Pruves (¶185).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bronicki in view of US 2017/0132892, Vargas et al. (hereafter Vargas).
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to:
and include at least some of the information in the object record, the information comprising one or more of the identifier for the object, the cost indicator for the object, or the location information for the object. (Bronicki ¶279 location, ¶281 price, )
Bronicki does not disclose
obtain information pertaining to the object from a wireless tag detected in the physical environment
Vargas discloses
obtain information pertaining to the object from a wireless tag detected in the physical environment (Vargas ¶42 discloses using a RFID tag on an item that the user can detect)
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Bronicki to include the use of reading RFID tags on products for the purposes of providing consumer engagement for the reasons specified in ¶45 of Vargas including care and content info, product details, and so forth.
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