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 .
This communication is in response to the remarks and amendments dated 9/10/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19, and 21 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-15, 19, and 21 are amended. Claims 5, 18, and 20 are cancelled or previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-17, 19, and 21 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.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been vacated
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ericson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0206130).
As per claims 1 and 14, Ericson discloses a computing system comprising:
a physical sensor configured to sense one or more parameters of a session at a physical location
(Communication device 110 includes input devices 112; the user captures visual/audio/audiovisual data at a merchant location using a camera, microphone, or other input device ([0014], [0030], [0054]-[0057]).);
a processor operatively coupled to the physical sensor
(Augmented reality application 120 and other applications 114 execute on communication device 110; software programs are executable by a processor ([0030], [0036]).); and
a memory operatively coupled to the processor, the memory storing a plurality of processor-executable instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to
(Communication device 110 includes database 116, applications 114/120, and executable software modules ([0030], [0036]).):
detect, based on a sensor output from the physical sensor at the physical location, an engagement with a physical item during the session
(The user views items and captures visual data of the items at merchant location 1000; communication device 110 captures images/video of eggs 1002a-c, milk 1004a-c, chips 1006a-c during the shopping session ([0011], [0014], [0055]-[0057]).);
identify the physical item based on item identification data and independent from a merchant system
(Item identification may be performed by communication device 110 and/or service provider server 140 using image processing/object recognition; item identification may also use pre-processed data from other devices, crowdsourced data, RFID tags, or BLE beacons ([0015]-[0017], [0027], [0030], [0057], [0067]).);
obtain a value parameter for the physical item based on the item identification data
(Using item identifications 2006, the system retrieves item data 2008 and sale data 2014, including price, brand, type, and related item data ([0020], [0041], [0057], [0063]).);
retrieve a threshold from threshold definition data associated with an identity of an entity
(The user’s account includes budget preferences, spending limits, budget 2110, amount 2112, and other constraints 2114; the budget is associated with the user/account ([0011], [0013], [0048], [0064]).);
evaluate the value parameter using the threshold
(Item data/sale data are compared to the user budget or purchase restrictions to determine whether the item is within or outside budget ([0011], [0020], [0027], [0057], [0069]).); and
based on a result of the evaluation, selectively trigger a notification at a physical device associated with the threshold definition data, the notification being generated in response to the sensor output and the evaluation
(Communication device 110 outputs an augmented reality view that highlights items within budget and blurs/hides/de-emphasizes items outside budget ([0011], [0025], [0027], [0057]-[0059], [0069]).).
As per claims 2 and 15, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions further configure the processor to:
receive, via an interface, the threshold definition data that defines category thresholds for each of a plurality of categories (Budgeting application 142 provides interfaces, fields, forms, or menus to allow user input establishing a budget; the budget may include limits for particular items, brands, item costs, item costs/types, and transaction types ([0013], [0048]).); and
determine a category of the physical item (The system identifies item type, brand, subgroup, flavor, color, or other item details from image data/metadata/item data ([0013], [0018], [0041], [0064]).),
and wherein retrieving the threshold from the threshold definition data includes retrieving the category threshold based on the category of the physical item (Item data is compared to budget constraints particular to certain items, brands, or types ([0013], [0020], [0048], [0064]).).
As per claims 3 and 16, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the threshold represents a balance associated with an account (Account 2100 includes funds 2108, which may be used to determine budget 2110; the budget is associated with the user account ([0013], [0064]).
As per claims 4 and 17, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the physical sensor is provided on smart glasses associated with the threshold definition data (Ericson discloses communication device 110 and, more generally, personal/mobile/wearable computing devices ([0039]).
As per claims 6 and 19, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein evaluating the value parameter using the threshold includes determining that the physical item should not be purchased based on the threshold definition data and wherein (The device determines which items exceed a budget or are detrimental to the budget; such items may be deterred from purchase ([0011], [0020], [0057], [0069])
the notification is triggered in response to determining that the physical item should not be purchased (Items outside budget may be blurred, hidden, obscured, or have an overlay to deter purchase ([0011], [0020], [0059], [0069]).)
based on the threshold definition data and wherein the notification indicates that the physical item should not be purchased (Ericson expressly teaches overlays or visual modifications that deter purchase and warning outputs for items outside budget ([0011], [0059]).).
As per claim 7, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the notification includes one or more of:
a suggestion of an alternate item; a selectable option to select at least one of: access to a borrowed resource, split a transfer into multiple parts, and access an accumulated resource (Ericson discloses comparable items, different brands/types/prices of similar items, and visually highlighting a preferred budget-compliant item while de-emphasizing others ([0030], [0055]-[0059]).).
As per claim 8, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the engagement comprises at least one of: detecting a dwell at a region associated with the physical item, or detecting gaze directed at the physical item
(Ericson discloses that the user views items and captures visual data of items ([0055]-[0056])).
As per claim 10, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the physical sensor is a camera and wherein obtaining the value parameter includes obtaining the value parameter from camera data
(Communication device 110 uses a camera or other optical/visual data capturing device of input devices 112 ([0014], [0030]).
Ericson discloses camera data being used to identify the item, and discloses text/visual information in images being used to determine item details ([0018], [0041], [0067]). Ericson also discloses sale data retrieval after item identification ([0057], [0063]).).
As per claim 11, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 10, wherein obtaining the value parameter from the camera data includes performing optical character recognition on an image defined by the camera data (Ericson mentions text within the image and object/text recognition ([0018], [0041]).).
As per claim 12, Ericson discloses The computing system of claim 10, wherein the processor-executable instructions further configure the processor to:
identify an alternate physical item depicted in the camera data (The camera data includes multiple similar items in the same scene, e.g., eggs 1002a-c, milk 1004a-c, chips 1006a-c ([0055]-[0059]).);
determine that the alternate physical item and the physical item for which the engagement was detected are substitutable (Ericson discloses different brands/types/prices within the same general item category, e.g., eggs, milk, chips ([0013], [0018], [0055]).); and
determine, from the camera data, that the alternate physical item has a preferred value parameter (Ericson discloses that one item may satisfy the budget while others do not, and the preferred item is highlighted ([0020], [0059]).),
wherein the notification indicates that the physical item for which the engagement was detected should be substituted with the alternate physical item (Ericson highlights the budget-compliant alternative item and de-emphasizes the non-compliant items ([0059]).).
As per claim 21, Ericson discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the computing system further includes an identity sensor, and the instructions further configure the processor to:
verify, based on an output of the identity sensor, an entity of the device using image recognition (Ericson states that identification of a person in an image may be used in identifying the item/environment ([0067]), but that is not the same as verifying an entity of the device using an identity sensor.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericson in view of Dunjic (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0274247).
As per claim 9, Ericson discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose a computing system of claim 1, wherein the engagement comprises determining that the physical item has been added to a shopping receptacle.
Dunjic teaches an enabling feature based on a sensed condition at ambient commerce premises with the feature of a computing system of claim 1, wherein the engagement comprises determining that the physical item has been added to a shopping receptacle (see fig. 1).
From this teaching of Dunjic, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Ericson to include the adding of a physical item to a shopping receptacle, in order to enable a “just walk out” or “grab and go” system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericson in view of Botella (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0126151).
As per claim 13, Ericson discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations in claim 13.
Botella teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions further configure the processor to:
initialize a pre-authorization of a first amount to initiate the session, and wherein the threshold is based on the first amount ([0006] “The system may receive, from a merchant device, a purchase authorization request associated with an attempted purchase comprising a budget indicator. Responsive to that receipt, the system may determine, based on the budget indicator, a budget category associated with the attempted purchase”),
and wherein evaluating the value parameter using the threshold includes determining that the first amount is insufficient based on the value parameter ([0006] Responsive to determining the remaining budget amount, the system may compare the remaining budget amount to a transaction amount of the attempted purchase. Responsive to determining that the transaction amount exceeds the remaining budget amount, the system may transmit, to the user device, a user authorization request comprising data representing a request for the user to authorize or cancel the attempted purchase.), and
in response to determining that the first amount is insufficient based on the value parameter, initialize the pre-authorization of a second amount ([0006] Responsive to receiving, from the user device, a user authorization message comprising data representing an authorization of the attempted purchase, authorize the merchant device to complete the attempted purchase).
From this teaching of Botella, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Dunijc, to include the above features, taught by Botella, in order to provide budget tracking and monitoring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited form attached.
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 SEYE IWARERE whose telephone number is (571)270-5112. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 16:00.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights