DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s response on 02/10/2026. Claims 1, 14-30 are pending; claims 1, 18-20 are withdrawn; claims 14-17 21-30 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 11/28/2022.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “a highest probability” in line 4. This “a highest probability was recited in claim 14, of which claim 15 is dependent upon. This renders the claim indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-17 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 14-17 and 21-30 relate to process claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 14 recites the following abstract idea: A method for predicting a path of a subject in an area of real space, the method including:
using a plurality of sensors to produce respective sequences of frames of corresponding fields of view in the real space (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)()I)(A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
identifying, for a particular subject, a determined path in the area of real space over a period of time using the respective sequences of frames produced by sensors in the plurality of sensors, wherein the determined path includes a subject identifier, one or more locations in the area of real space and one or more timestamps (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential));
accumulating multiple determined paths corresponding to multiple subjects over period of time (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
generating a transition matrix based, as least in part, on the accumulated multiple determined paths, wherein an element in the transition matrix identifies a probability of a new subject moving from a first location in the area of real space to at least one of other locations in the area of real space ((see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)); and
predicting a new path of the new subject in the area of real space based, at least in part, on an interaction between the new subject and an item associated with the first location in the area of real space, wherein the predicting of the new path comprises identifying a second location in the area of real space, from the other locations in the area of real space identified included in the transition matrix, having a highest probability associated therewith with respect to movement of the new subject from the first location to the second location (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds claim 14 to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 14 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional element(s) recited in claim 14 is “using a plurality of sensors to produce respective sequences of frames. . . .” This falls under the “apply it” rationale, is recited broadly to act as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and does not provide an improvement to the underlying art.
When viewed alone and in combination with the rest of the claim, claim 14 is found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Claim 14 is not found to include significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
A part of claim 14 relating to transition matrix generation on the multiple determined paths is similar to a federal circuit WURC finding, where the court has found performing repetitive calculations as WURC in Flook.
Further, using a sensor to gather data is similar to where the court found WURC in Content Extraction, Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and insignificant data gathering.
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, the limitations of claim 14 are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claim 15 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(III). Claim 16 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (I). Claim 17 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (I). Claims 21-30 recites more abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (I), and (II)(A-B). For the machine learning limitations, this is also found to be ineligible abstract idea, as found in Recentive v. Fox, Fed Cir 2025.
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(s) 14, 21, 22, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,930,204 to Sharma et al. (“Sharma”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0019391 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”).
With regard to claim 14, Sharma discloses the claimed method for predicting a path of a subject in an area of real space, the method including:
using a plurality of sensors to produce respective sequences of frames of corresponding fields of view in the real space (Sharma abstract discloses “using arrays of sensing devices, a plurality of means for capturing images”, col. 9, ln. 5-10, “The present invention is called behavior based narrowcasting (BBN). In an exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the BBN system first captures a plurality of input images of the customer 400 in a store through a plurality of means for capturing images 100.”; Sharma does not disclose “sequences of frames”; However, Kumar teaches at [0015] camera may capture a series of images . . . otherwise known as a series/sequence of frames);
identifying, for a particular subject, a determined path in the area of real space over a period of time using the respective sequences of frames produced by sensors in the plurality of sensors, wherein the determined path includes a subject identifier, one or more locations in the area of real space and one or more timestamps (see Sharma, Fig. 2, col. 9, ln. 61 – col. 10, ln. 20; col. 11, ln. 10-20, individual track outputs; Sharma, col. 7, ln. 15 automatically measures the path a customer takes during a visit to a store; Sharma col. 12, ln. 55-60, tracks can be transformed onto the store floorplan; Sharma at Col. 10, ln. 4-10, subject identifiers; Sharma further discloses col. 7, ln. 35-40, the system tracks and monitors the amount of time a user spends in any given area, known as “dwell time” where the system inherently has timestamps integrated into the system and system data; Sharma col. 14, ln. 60-67, For example, a customer 400 that recently spent large amounts of time in the cosmetic section may be shown a cosmetic advertisement containing references to items on specific shelves where they had shopped; Sharma further discloses col. 15, ln 15, “In the present invention, another exemplary attribute of extracting the interest of the customer 400 or the group of customers 401 can be processed by measuring the time spent in a certain area within the store”; Sharma at col. 15, ln. 25-40, time spent in each section is monitored and known, stored);
accumulating multiple determined paths corresponding to multiple subjects over period of time (see Sharma, Fig. 2, col 9-10);
generating a transition matrix using based, as least in part, on the accumulated multiple determined paths, wherein an element in the transition matrix identifies a probability of a new subject moving from a first location in the area of real space to at least one of other locations in the area of real space (see e.g. Fig. 9 and col. 13, ln. 32-53, transition matrix likelihood of person moving from one camera location to another camera location (field of view)); and
predicting a new path of the new subject in the area of real space based, at least in part, on an interaction between the new subject and an item associated with the first location in the area of real space, wherein the predicting of the new path comprises identifying a second location in the area of real space, from the other locations in the area of real space identified included in the transition matrix, having a highest probability associated therewith with respect to movement of the new subject from the first location to the second location (Sharma col. 7, ln. 19-23, the data can be used to predict and present the in-store messaging based on the areas they are most likely to shop next or some relevant combination of previously shopped areas.; Sharma, see col. 9 ln. 55-60 dwell time, the measured amount of time the suer spends in any given area is another attribute used in the prediction equation; Sharma col. 15, ln. 13-16, exemplary attribute of extracting the interest of the customer 400 or the group of customers 401 can be processed by measuring the time spent in a certain area within the store. The “highest probability” selection is strongly implied as Sharma uses a transition probability matrix and predicts the most likely next area, it naturally supports identifying a next location corresponding to the maximum transition probability from a current zone/location. Sharma does not disclose conditioning the next location prediction on an interaction with a particular item (“based, at least in part, on an interaction … between the new subject and an item associated with the first location”); Kumar teaches at e.g. abstract that it would have been obvious to track using sequence of images that a user has removed an item (i.e. interacted therewith) and a list of the user interactions is stored in a user specific list, tied to the location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail vision art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma’s imaging system to make a list of all user interactions using the sequence of images, as shown in Kumar, so that this information can be placed into the transition matrix and used to predict where the user will go next, as shown in Sharma. Furthermore, the advantage of really gathering and storing the list of interactions in Kumar [0002] so it “can be used to replenish inventory located in the shopping areas”).
With regard to claim 21-22, Sharma discloses changing a preferred placement of a particular item to increase interaction between future subjects and the particular item, wherein the preferred placement of the particular item is changed based, at least in part, on the predicted new path of the new subject in the area of real space (e.g. col. 7, ln 25-35).
With regard to claim 26, Sharma further discloses generating the predicted new path of the new subject in the area of real space starting from a location of a first shelf with which the new subject interacted and ending at an exit location in the area of real space (see e.g. Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 27-28, Sharma further discloses displaying a graphical representation of a connectedness of two or more shelves in the area of real space, the graphical representation comprising (i) nodes representing respective shelves in the area of real space and (ii) edges connecting the nodes representing distances between the respective shelves weighted by respective elements of the transition matrix (see Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Kumar, in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9460350 to Cook et al. (“Cook”).
With regard to claim 15, Sharma further discloses the predicting of the new path of the new subject in the area of real space further includes identifying a third location in the area of real space (see Sharma, col. 7, 15-25, indicating the most likely areas the customer will show next, where this can be a single area, or multiple areas, including a third location), from the other locations in the area of real space identified included in updated transition matrix, having a highest probability associated therewith with respect to items located at the first location and the second location (Sharma does not disclose the updated transition matrix, as claimed. Cook teaches at e.g. patented claim 13, “updating the transition matrix based at least on part on data observed within the physical environment.” See also throughout the Specification of Cook. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail customer recognition art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combo of Sharma/Kumar to include such update to the transition matrix based on data observed by the various sensors in the physical environment, where the advantage is that this is continually updated so the probability of the entity moving from one sensor to another, or the another to a 2nd another, and so forth, can be continually updated based on the observances within the physical environment by the sensors. See Cook, col. 8 line 50-70)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Kumar, in view of U.S. Pat. 8219438 to Moon et al. (“Moon”).
With regard to claim 16, Sharma does not disclose the limitations of claim 16. However, Moon teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail behavior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma to include determining the interaction between the new subject and the item associated with the first location in the area of real space based, at least in part, on (i) an angle between a plane connecting shoulder joints of the new subject that is greater than or equal to 40 degrees and less than or equal to 50 degrees corresponding to a plane representing a front side of a shelf at the first location (see Moon at Fig. 16 representing the plane of shoulders to shelf) ii) and when a speed of the new subject that is greater than or equal to 0.15 meters per second and less than or equal to 0.25 meters per second (see Sharma, speed detection at col. 15, ln. 35-55), and iii a distance of the subject that is less than or equal to 1 meter from the shelf at the first location (Sharma, col. 16 ln 33-45, proximity to shelf/products can be measured/estimated). The examiner has shown in Moon where these attributes are taken into account and measured/estimated. The specific numbering in the claims such as the specific velocity of the shopper is considered to be design choice as an engineer designing said system would be able to adjust those numbers as they see fit and as desired by the system. The advantages of added Moon to Sharma/Kumar is shown in Moon at e.g. col. 2, ln. 20-30.
Claim(s) 17, 23-25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Kumar, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0226621 to Garel et al. (“Garel”).
With regard to claim 17, 23, 24, 25, Sharma does not disclose claim 17, 23, 24, 25. See Garel at e.g. [0107], counting number of times customers walk by a specific spot in retail store throughout the day/special day/any day open to public, and then provide heat map which is a form of popularity mapping over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma to include such counting and heat mapping, as this is beneficial as it allows a user to view how many times customers were walking past a specific point in the store, and then can compare that spot to other spots in the store to determine the most popular, and least popular, spots in the store.
Claim(s) 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Kumar, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0161665 to Grimes et al. (“Grimes”).
With regard to claim 29, Sharma does not disclose claims 29-30. Grimes teaches training a machine learning model (see Grimes [0045] refining models based on the known and gathered data) for predicting the path of the subject in the area of real space, the training including: providing, to the machine learning model, labeled training examples, wherein an example in the labeled training examples comprises at least one determined path from the accumulated multiple determined paths for multiple subjects (Grimes [0045]), providing, to the machine learning model, a map of the area of real space comprising locations of shelves in the area of real space (see Grimes [0099] may be provided to models), and providing, to the machine learning model, labels corresponding to products associated with respective shelves in the area of real space (see Grimes [0099] mapping of the item to a location at an individual retail establishment may be established); new path from claim 30, see Grimes [0045].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627