DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on March 3, 2026 for application 18490980
Acknowledgements
Claims 2, 4, 11 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach the amended limitations.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Examiner respectfully disagrees as prior art reference ‘Zerfos’ describes in Column 13 line 66- Col. 14 line 30 that when the sensors detect that a user is adding items to the receptacle of the shopping cart at an unusual rate and/or adding unneeded items to the receptacle of the shopping cart then the experience module generates a shopping exception which is being interpreted as the default exception. Now once the ‘shopping route exception’ – (default exception) is received, the navigation module determines one or more updated route options between the one or more destinations, using the one or more routing frameworks and based on the ‘shopping router exception’. Basically, based on the condition that the user selects to end the shopping trip via the user interface, the navigation module begins a checkout/exit process and generates route options directed towards the checkout area and entrance or generates one or more updated route options based on the sensor data.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16 and18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrow et al. (US 2018/0096567 A1) in view of Bucher et al. (US 2021/0110648 A1) in view of Zerfos et al. (US 11,763,373 B2) and in further view of STEVENSON et al. (US 2010/0324941 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 16, Farrow discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by an intervention component from one or more cameras arranged in a physical environment, a user gesture associated with a user of a point of sale device in the physical environment (¶0057 “actions/movements of the customer are interpreted as gestures”, ¶0063, ¶0064, ¶0067, ¶0070, ¶0094, ¶0096)
determining, by the intervention component, a first value of an intervention level that controls a frequency of interventions presented to the user during a transaction (¶0076, ¶0079, ¶0081, ¶0087)
determining, by the intervention component, [that a stored user gesture matches the user gesture associated with the user of the point of sale device in the physical environment] based on a comparison between the stored user gesture and the user gesture (¶0058, ¶0067, ¶0070, ¶0071, ¶0072, ¶0076-¶0077)
determining, by the intervention component, a second value of the intervention level in response to the user gesture matching the stored user gesture, the second value corresponding to a greater frequency of interventions than the first value; and (¶0085-¶0087)
Farrow does not disclose: [that a stored user gesture matches the user gesture associated with the user of the point of sale device in the physical environment].
Bucher however discloses: [that a stored user gesture matches the user gesture associated with the user of the point of sale device in the physical environment] (¶0027, ¶0036, ¶0050, ¶0083, Claim 2, Claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include [that a stored user gesture matches the user gesture associated with the user of the point of sale device in the physical environment], as disclosed in Bucher, in order to provide a system for detecting at least one physical feature associated with the patron and / or motions of one or more players participating in a game (see Bucher abstract).
The combination of Farrow and Bucher does not disclose: determining, by the intervention component, one or more additional interventions to the point of sale during the transaction, wherein the one or more additional interventions comprises a default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device; selectively providing, by the intervention component, the one or more additional interventions to the point of sale device during the transaction in response to the determining the second value of the intervention level, wherein the one or more additional interventions comprises a first intervention that reduces the point of sale device transaction processing rate and withholds the default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device and wherein the one or more additional interventions include a first intervention selected from the following: offering a promotion, suggesting an alternative item, providing additional information to the user, prompting the user to respond to a survey, providing one or more menu options, and providing one or more additional screens or processes.
Zerfos however discloses:
determining, by the intervention component, one or more additional interventions to the point of sale during the transaction, wherein the one or more additional interventions comprises a default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device (Column 13 line 66- Col. 14 line 30 “Now once the ‘shopping route exception’ – (default exception) is received, the navigation module determines one or more updated route options between the one or more destinations, using the one or more routing frameworks and based on the ‘shopping router exception’”)
selectively providing, by the intervention component, the one or more additional interventions to the point of sale device during the transaction in response to the determining the second value of the intervention level, wherein the one or more additional interventions comprises a first intervention that reduces the point of sale device transaction processing rate and [withholds the default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device] (Fig. 10; Col. 13 lines 56- Col. 14 lines 30 “a shopping route exception is received at the assistive shopping cart”)
wherein the one or more additional interventions include a second intervention selected from the following: offering a promotion, suggesting an alternative item, providing additional information to the user, prompting the user to respond to a survey, providing one or more menu options, and providing one or more additional screens or processes (Fig. 10; Col. 11 line 59- Col. 12 line 46 “the shopping notifications are displayed to the user 101 via the user interface 400” & “visually guiding a user through a shopping environment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include [one or more additional interventions], as disclosed in Zerfos, in order to provide an assistive shopping cart system for guiding a user and monitoring the user's physical and cognitive conditions in a shopping environment (see Zerfos abstract).
The combination of Farrow, Bucher and Zerfos does not specifically disclose: [withholds the default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device].
STEVENSON however discloses: [withholds the default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device] (¶0125-¶0127 “Stevenson discloses the concept in the area of complex transactions such as selling of insurance products/services where customers can be apprehensive when faced with the prospect of insuring against potentially disastrous events such as car accidents that can result in the loss of life and limb, hence branded cartoon characters are used to lessen that anxiety. In order to go upon that, customers primarily avoid or withhold lifelike 3D avatars to go ahead and use a branded character such as a virtual agent”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include [withholds the default intervention during the transaction at the point of sale device], as disclosed in STEVENSON, in order to provide a system that employs branded virtual characters across multiple network platforms throughout various stages of complex transactions to educate consumers until they are ready to purchase particular products and services offered by various providers (see STEVENSON abstract).
Regarding Claims 3, 12 and 18, Farrow discloses wherein the one or more additional interventions further include a second intervention comprising dispatching an employee to intervene (¶0058, ¶0081).
Regarding Claims 5, 13 and 19, Farrow, Bucher, Zerfos and STEVENSON disclose invention as above.
Bucher further discloses wherein the receiving and the determining by the intervention component occur prior to the user beginning a checkout process to complete the transaction (¶0031)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include wherein the receiving and the determining by the intervention component occur prior to the user beginning a checkout process to complete the transaction, as disclosed in Bucher, in order to provide a system for detecting at least one physical feature associated with the patron and / or motions of one or more players participating in a game (see Bucher abstract).
Regarding Claims 6, 14 and 20, Farrow, Bucher, Zerfos and STEVENSON disclose invention as above.
Bucher further discloses wherein the intervention component has one or more computer processors and a memory, and wherein the stored user gesture is stored on the memory as one of a plurality of historical patterns (¶0026, ¶0029, ¶0038)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include wherein the intervention component has one or more computer processors and a memory, and wherein the stored user gesture is stored on the memory as one of a plurality of historical patterns, as disclosed in Bucher, in order to provide a system for detecting at least one physical feature associated with the patron and / or motions of one or more players participating in a game (see Bucher abstract).
Regarding Claim 8, Farrow, Bucher, Zerfos and STEVENSON disclose invention as above.
Bucher further discloses wherein the intervention component iteratively receives and evaluates user gestures associated with the user of the point of sale device in the physical environment to determine if any of the user gestures match one of a plurality of stored user gestures (¶0026, ¶0029, ¶0038)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include wherein the intervention component iteratively receives and evaluates user gestures associated with the user of the point of sale device in the physical environment to determine if any of the user gestures match one of a plurality of stored user gestures, as disclosed in Bucher, in order to provide a system for detecting at least one physical feature associated with the patron and / or motions of one or more players participating in a game (see Bucher abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Farrow discloses receiving, by the intervention component from one or more microphones arranged in the physical environment, audio data associated with the user; and evaluating the audio data, and wherein the intervention directed to the point of sale device is based on the audio data (¶0079).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrow, Bucher, Zerfos and STEVENSON and in further view of Baughman et al. (US 2021/0097461 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Farrow, Bucher, Zerfos and STEVENSON does not disclose wherein the first intervention directed to the point of sale device is different than a default intervention that was to be directed to the point of sale device had the user gesture not matched the stored user gesture.
Baughman however discloses: wherein the first intervention directed to the point of sale device is different than a default intervention that was to be directed to the point of sale device had the user gesture not matched the stored user gesture (Fig. 7 #726; ¶0046, ¶0145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Farrow to include wherein the first intervention directed to the point of sale device is different than a default intervention that was to be directed to the point of sale device had the user gesture not matched the stored user gesture, as disclosed in Baughman, in order to provide a system to resolve a recognized POS checkout system efficiency problem and a resulting inefficient shopper wait-time problem (see Baughman ¶0014).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights