DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 08/29/2025.
Claim 3 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The Specification objection has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments, however a new 101 rejections was added.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
Foreign Priority
The Examiner/office acknowledges that the applicant claims foreign priority to the date 6/11/2021.
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, 2, 4-6 are directed towards a device and claim 7 are directed towards a method, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including applying an algorithm to a dataset. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4-7 the independent claims (claims 1 and 7) are directed to managing of customers interactions, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, A store operation support device provided with a processor which executes a process of performing, based on camera images of persons staying in front of exhibition areas in a store, an analysis regarding a merchandise evaluation state of the persons and presenting a result of the analysis to a user,
wherein the processor
detects merchandise items and persons from the camera images and identifies merchandise items and persons to be analyzed,
detects, from the camera images, an item holding behavior of each person and an item gazing behavior associated with the item holding behavior, and acquires a detection result thereof as behavior information,
accumulates the behavior information associated with merchandise items for each person to be analyzed in a storage,
generates, based on the behavior information accumulated in the storage, merchandise evaluation information including at least a duration of the item gazing behavior, and accumulates the merchandise evaluation information for each person in the storage, and
acquires, based on the merchandise evaluation information accumulated in the storage, an analysis result in which the merchandise evaluation state corresponding to each merchandise item is visualized.
these steps fall within the managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Regarding steps of:
A store operation support device provided with a processor which executes a process of performing, based on camera images of persons staying in front of exhibition areas in a store, an analysis regarding a merchandise evaluation state of the persons and presenting a result of the analysis to a user,
wherein the processor
detects merchandise items and persons from the camera images and identifies merchandise items and persons to be analyzed,
detects, from the camera images, an item holding behavior of each person and an item gazing behavior associated with the item holding behavior, and acquires a detection result thereof as behavior information,
accumulates the behavior information associated with merchandise items for each person to be analyzed in a storage,
generates, based on the behavior information accumulated in the storage, merchandise evaluation information including at least a duration of the item gazing behavior, and accumulates the merchandise evaluation information for each person in the storage, and
acquires, based on the merchandise evaluation information accumulated in the storage, an analysis result in which the merchandise evaluation state corresponding to each merchandise item is visualized.
The claim does not impose any limits on how the data is output or require any particular components that are used to output the data. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of device, processor, camera, storage. The claims recite the steps are performed by the m device, processor, camera, storage.
The limitations of
A store operation support device provided with a processor which executes a process of performing, based on camera images of persons staying in front of exhibition areas in a store, an analysis regarding a merchandise evaluation state of the persons and presenting a result of the analysis to a user,
wherein the processor
detects merchandise items and persons from the camera images and identifies merchandise items and persons to be analyzed,
detects, from the camera images, an item holding behavior of each person and an item gazing behavior associated with the item holding behavior, and acquires a detection result thereof as behavior information,
accumulates the behavior information associated with merchandise items for each person to be analyzed in a storage,
generates, based on the behavior information accumulated in the storage, merchandise evaluation information including at least a duration of the item gazing behavior, and accumulates the merchandise evaluation information for each person in the storage, and
acquires, based on the merchandise evaluation information accumulated in the storage, an analysis result in which the merchandise evaluation state corresponding to each merchandise item is visualized.
are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by device, processor, camera, storage. The device, processor, camera, storage are recited at a high level of generality.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the device, processor, camera, storage. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
A store operation support device provided with a processor which executes a process of performing, based on camera images of persons staying in front of exhibition areas in a store, an analysis regarding a merchandise evaluation state of the persons and presenting a result of the analysis to a user,
wherein the processor
detects merchandise items and persons from the camera images and identifies merchandise items and persons to be analyzed,
detects, from the camera images, an item holding behavior of each person and an item gazing behavior associated with the item holding behavior, and acquires a detection result thereof as behavior information,
accumulates the behavior information associated with merchandise items for each person to be analyzed in a storage,
generates, based on the behavior information accumulated in the storage, merchandise evaluation information including at least a duration of the item gazing behavior, and accumulates the merchandise evaluation information for each person in the storage, and
acquires, based on the merchandise evaluation information accumulated in the storage, an analysis result in which the merchandise evaluation state corresponding to each merchandise item is visualized.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2, 4-6 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 2 recites a processor determining to not analyze a person; Claims 4, 5 recite a processor for outputting data; claim 6 recites the processor acquiring data. The dependent claims 2, 4-6 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2, 4-6 recites device, processor, camera, storage which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2, 4-6 recites device, processor, camera, storage, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 4-6 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1 and 7. Therefore claims 2, 4-6 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Publication US 20190104866, Kobayashi, et al.
Referring to Claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a store operation support device provided with a processor which executes a process of performing, based on camera images of persons staying in front of exhibition areas in a store, an analysis regarding a merchandise evaluation state of the persons and presenting a result of the analysis to a user, wherein the processor (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0057, The storage unit 280 is realized using a storage device provided in the image display device 200. The storage device provided in the image display device 200 may be a storage device built into the image display device 200 or a storage device externally attached to the image display device 200.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0058, The controller 290 controls each part of the image display device 200 to perform various processes. The controller 290 is realized, for example, by a central processing unit (CPU) provided in the image display device 200 reading and executing a program from the storage unit 280.)
detects merchandise items and persons from the camera images and identifies merchandise items and persons to be analyzed (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0025, The image display system 1 analyzes a customer's shelf-front behavior and displays the analysis result such that the analysis result is superimposed on an image of shelves
Kobayashi: Sec. 0049, the storage unit 280 stores information that associates item identification information indicating an item 920 to which a customer has extended their hand with the time at which the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 has detected the hand of the customer (“association information” which will be described later). Further, the storage unit 280 stores the information that associates the item identification information indicating the item 920 to which the customer has extended their hand with the time at which the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 has detected the hand of the customer as information of a series of hand extensions of the same customer during a period from when the customer stops in front of the shelves to when leaving the shelves.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0029, comparing images before and after the customer extends their hand to the shelves, the image display device 200 can detect that the customer has picked up an item and that the customer has returned the item picked up by the customer to the shelves.)
Kobayashi describes detecting and identifying persons, items, and locations in a store.
detects from the camera images, an item holding behavior of each person and an item gazing behavior associated with the item holding behavior, and acquires a detection result thereof as behavior information, accumulates the behavior information associated with merchandise items for each person to be analyzed in a storage (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0025, The image display system 1 analyzes a customer's shelf-front behavior and displays the analysis result such that the analysis result is superimposed on an image of shelves. The shelf-front referred to here is the front of an item display shelves (in particular, the vicinity of the front face of the item display shelves), and the shelf-front behavior referred to here is a behavior performed by the customer in front of the item display shelves. Hereinafter, the item display shelf is simply referred to as a shelf.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0049, the storage unit 280 stores information that associates item identification information indicating an item 920 to which a customer has extended their hand with the time at which the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 has detected the hand of the customer (“association information” which will be described later). Further, the storage unit 280 stores the information that associates the item identification information indicating the item 920 to which the customer has extended their hand with the time at which the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 has detected the hand of the customer as information of a series of hand extensions of the same customer during a period from when the customer stops in front of the shelves to when leaving the shelves.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0036, The image display device 200 analyzes a shelf-front behavior on the basis of sensing data from the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor(s) 110.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0095, As a result, the image display system 1 can display information indicating the customer's behavior in more detail. In particular, the image display system 1 can display information indicating the customer's behavior for each item in more detail than that for each display shelf. By referring to this display, the user can perform more sophisticated analysis of customers' behavior.),
Kobayashi describes detecting and identifying persons, items, and locations in a store, in which the information is in storage providing a results of the findings, that also includes the interaction of each person.
generates, based on the behavior information accumulated in the storage, merchandise evaluation information including at least a duration of the item gazing behavior, and accumulates the merchandise evaluation information for each person in the storage (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0049, the storage unit 280 stores information that associates item identification information indicating an item 920 to which a customer has extended their hand with the time at which the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 has detected the hand of the customer (“association information” which will be described later). Further, the storage unit 280 stores the information that associates the item identification information indicating the item 920 to which the customer has extended their hand with the time at which the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 has detected the hand of the customer as information of a series of hand extensions of the same customer during a period from when the customer stops in front of the shelves to when leaving the shelves.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0054, On the basis of an image captured by the shelf situation imaging device 120, the image display device 200 detects a period from when the customer stops in front of the shelves to when leaving the shelves and adds the same group number to information (a combination of the sensing time and the item identification information) which is based on the sensing data that the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 transmitted during this period. This makes it possible to detect that one customer has extended their hand to the shelves 910 a plurality of times as shown in the example of FIG. 5.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0055, the information stored in the storage unit 280 is not limited to that shown in the example of FIG. 6 in which the sensing time and the item identification information are associated with each other. For example, the storage unit 280 may store sensing data from the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 and time information indicating the sensing time in association with each other. Alternatively, the storage unit 280 may store information, which is obtained by converting the sensing data from the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 into positions in the vertical and horizontal directions of the shelves 910, in the form of coordinate values. Alternatively, the storage unit 280 may store information indicating, for each item 920, the number of times that the customer has extended their hand to the item.), and
Kobayashi describes storing the time period for when a customer is evaluating an item, as the Examiner is interpreting these actions as duration of gazing an item for each person, which is equivalent to the Applicants spec. at 0046,
acquires, based on the merchandise evaluation information accumulated in the storage, an analysis result in which the merchandise evaluation state corresponding to each merchandise item is visualized (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0041, FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of display of the customer behavior index value by the display unit 220. In the example shown in FIG. 4, the display unit 220 displays an image of shelves 910 in which items 920 are arranged in an area A11. The display unit 220 displays images of the items in colors according to the number of times that customers have extended their hands to each of the items.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0041, FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of display, by the display unit 220, of a customer behavior index value indicating a correlation between a behavior that a customer has performed for an item designated by the user of the image display system 1 and a behavior that the same customer has performed for an item other than the designated item on the display unit 220. In the example of FIG. 5, the display unit 220 displays an image of the shelves 910 in which items 920 are arranged in an area A11, similar to the example of FIG. 4. The display unit 220 also displays a legend indicating the association between the number of times that customers have extended their hands to each item and the color in an area A12.).
Kobayashi describes based on customer and item evaluation presenting a visual representation, which is equivalent to the Applicants spec. at 0027.
Referring to Claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the store operation support device according to claim 1, wherein when, based on feature information of a person detected from the camera image, the processor determines that the person is a store clerk, the processor excludes the person from an analysis target (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0106, The image display system 1 may display information other than the shelf-front behavior information together with the display of the shelf-front behavior index value described above. For example, the storage unit 280 may previously store information indicating whether each customer is a member or not and the image display system 1 may extract and display information such as information indicating that people who are members are likely to pick up the item as the shelf-front behavior index value.).
Kobayashi describes distinguishing the difference from various types of people in which the Examiner is interpreting this as including clerks.
Referring to Claim 6, Kobayashi teaches the store operation support device according to claim 1, wherein based on the behavior information, the processor acquires, as the merchandise evaluation information, a number of times of item holding, an item gazing time, and a number of held items, and, based on the number of times of item holding, the item gazing time, and the number of held items, acquires a merchandise evaluation degree which quantifies a degree of undecidedness of each person in merchandise evaluation (
Kobayashi: Sec. 0037, The image display device 200 stores the arrangement of the items 920 on the shelves 910 in advance and estimates an item to which the customer has extended the hand on the basis of the position of the hand of the customer. For example, for each item, the image display device 200 counts the number of times that customers have extended their hands to the item and displays the count result (for example, a total count for all customers within a predetermined period) such that the count result is superimposed on the image of the shelves 910).
Kobayashi describes storing a number of times of item holding.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0045, FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of display, by the display unit 220, of a customer behavior index value indicating a correlation between a behavior that a customer has performed for an item designated by the user of the image display system 1 and a behavior that the same customer has performed for an item other than the designated item on the display unit 220. In the example of FIG. 5, the display unit 220 displays an image of the shelves 910 in which items 920 are arranged in an area A11, similar to the example of FIG. 4. The display unit 220 also displays a legend indicating the association between the number of times that customers have extended their hands to each item and the color in an area A12.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0047, FIG. 5, the display unit 220 displays the count result of the number of times that customers who extended their hands to the designated items (one or more times) have extended their hands to each item 920 other than the designated items (for example, a total count for all customers within a predetermined period) in a heat map format. Specifically, the display unit 220 displays an image of each item 920 other than the designated items in a color corresponding to the number of times that customers who extended their hands to the designated items (one or more times) have extended their hands to the item 920 other than the designated items. In the example of FIG. 5, customers who extended their hands to the items (designated items) displayed in the area A21 have extended their hands to an item displayed in an area A22 many times and therefore the display unit 220 displays an image of the item 920 in the area A22 in a color indicating that the number of times that the customers have extended their hands to the item is large.
Kobayashi describes storing a number of times of item holding and a number of held items
Kobayashi: Sec. 0055, the information stored in the storage unit 280 is not limited to that shown in the example of FIG. 6 in which the sensing time and the item identification information are associated with each other. For example, the storage unit 280 may store sensing data from the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 and time information indicating the sensing time in association with each other. Alternatively, the storage unit 280 may store information, which is obtained by converting the sensing data from the shelf-front behavior measurement sensor 110 into positions in the vertical and horizontal directions of the shelves 910, in the form of coordinate values. Alternatively, the storage unit 280 may store information indicating, for each item 920, the number of times that the customer has extended their hand to the item.), and
Kobayashi describes storing the item gazing time, i.e. the time period for when a customer is evaluating an item, which is equivalent to the Applicants spec. at 0046.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0106, The image display system 1 may display information other than the shelf-front behavior information together with the display of the shelf-front behavior index value described above. For example, the storage unit 280 may previously store information indicating whether each customer is a member or not and the image display system 1 may extract and display information such as information indicating that people who are members are likely to pick up the item as the shelf-front behavior index value.
Kobayashi describes based on stored information determining the likelihood of a customer getting an item
Claim 7 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication US 20190104866, Kobayashi, et al. to hereinafter United States Patent Publication US 20190102612, Takemoto, et al.
Referring to Claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the store operation support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor outputs the analysis result including a map image in which an image visualizing the merchandise evaluation information for each exhibition area is depicted on an image representing a layout in the store (See Kobayashi)(
Kobayashi: Sec. 0041, FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of display of the customer behavior index value by the display unit 220. In the example shown in FIG. 4, the display unit 220 displays an image of shelves 910 in which items 920 are arranged in an area A11. The display unit 220 displays images of the items in colors according to the number of times that customers have extended their hands to each of the items.
Kobayashi: Sec. 0041, FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of display, by the display unit 220, of a customer behavior index value indicating a correlation between a behavior that a customer has performed for an item designated by the user of the image display system 1 and a behavior that the same customer has performed for an item other than the designated item on the display unit 220. In the example of FIG. 5, the display unit 220 displays an image of the shelves 910 in which items 920 are arranged in an area A11, similar to the example of FIG. 4. The display unit 220 also displays a legend indicating the association between the number of times that customers have extended their hands to each item and the color in an area A12.).
Kobayashi describes based on customer and item evaluation presenting a visual representation, which is equivalent to the Applicants spec. at 0027.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach image representing a layout in the store.
However, Takemoto teaches image representing a layout in the store (
Takemoto: Sec. 0012, FIG. 2 is a store plan diagram illustrating a layout of a store and an installation state of cameras 1.
Takemoto: Sec. 0013, FIG. 3A is an explanatory diagram illustrating a target area which is set on a store map image and a state in which a digest image of the target area is superimposed on the store map image.
Takemoto: Sec. 0014, FIG. 3B is an explanatory diagram illustrating the target area which is set on the store map image and a state in which the digest image of the target area is superimposed on the store map image.)
Kobayashi and Takemoto are both directed to the analysis of customers in a store environment (See Kobayashi at 0025-0029; Takemoto at 0002, 0057, 0060). Kobayashi discloses that additional elements, such customer behavior can be considered (See Kobayashi at 0026). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi, which teaches detecting and repairing information technology problems in view of Takemoto, to efficiently apply analysis of customers in a store environment to enhancing the capability to determining customer positions with in a store. (See Takemoto at 0091, 0098, 0186).
Referring to Claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the store operation support device according to claim 4, Kobayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the processor outputs the analysis result including the camera image corresponding to the exhibition area selected by an operation of the user to select the exhibition area on a screen displaying the map image.
However, Takemoto teaches wherein the processor outputs the analysis result including the camera image corresponding to the exhibition area selected by an operation of the user to select the exhibition area on a screen displaying the map image (
Takemoto: Sec. 0023, FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram illustrating the relevant information display screen which is displayed in a case where a display item of a camera image is selected.
Takemoto: Sec. 0023, In addition, in a case where an operation of selecting (clicking) the target area is performed on the map display screen, display item selection menu (selector) 125 is displayed. Display item selection menu 125 includes the time-series heat map, the histogram, the graph, the camera image, the merchandise exhibition state, and respective correlated display items. In a case where one of them is selected, transition is performed to the relevant information display screen (refer to FIG. 9 to FIG. 14).
Takemoto: Sec. 0136, In addition, in a case where an operation of selecting (clicking) the target area is performed on the map display screen, display item selection menu (selector) 125 is displayed. Display item selection menu 125 includes the time-series heat map, the histogram, the graph, the camera image, the merchandise exhibition state, and respective correlated display items. In a case where one of them is selected, transition is performed to the relevant information display screen (refer to FIG. 9 to FIG. 14). In addition, display item selection menu 125 includes a densified display item. In a case where the densified display item is selected, transition is performed to the map display screen (refer to FIG. 15) which displays heat map image 161 acquired by densifying digest image 62. ).
Kobayashi and Takemoto are both directed to the analysis of customers in a store environment (See Kobayashi at 0025-0029; Takemoto at 0002, 0057, 0060). Kobayashi discloses that additional elements, such customer behavior can be considered (See Kobayashi at 0026). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi, which teaches detecting and repairing information technology problems in view of Takemoto, to efficiently apply analysis of customers in a store environment to enhancing the capability to determining customer positions with in a store. (See Takemoto at 0091, 0098, 0186).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 08/29/2025.
Regarding the non-consideration of "International Search Report issued in International Pat. Appl. No. PCT/JP2022/021269, dated August 2, 2022, along with an English; the Examiner did not initial it because the Applicant didn’t prove it.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 13-19 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
A store operation support device provided with a processor which executes a process of performing, based on camera images of persons staying in front of exhibition areas in a store, an analysis regarding a merchandise evaluation state of the persons and presenting a result of the analysis to a user,
wherein the processor
detects merchandise items and persons from the camera images and identifies merchandise items and persons to be analyzed,
detects, from the camera images, an item holding behavior of each person and an item gazing behavior associated with the item holding behavior, and acquires a detection result thereof as behavior information,
accumulates the behavior information associated with merchandise items for each person to be analyzed in a storage,
generates, based on the behavior information accumulated in the storage, merchandise evaluation information including at least a duration of the item gazing behavior, and accumulates the merchandise evaluation information for each person in the storage, and
acquires, based on the merchandise evaluation information accumulated in the storage, an analysis result in which the merchandise evaluation state corresponding to each merchandise item is visualized.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing of customers interactions, which constitutes methods related to managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The processor is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 11 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps and arguments at pg. 11:
“Rather, the claimed invention involves a specific technical implementation that uses specific sensor data (camera images) and image analysis techniques to perform defined processing steps. These include detecting merchandise items and persons from images, identifying item holding and associated gazing behaviors, and generating evaluation information based on algorithmic analysis of these behaviors.”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing of customers interactions “
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing of customers interactions will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection, at pg. 13 Applicant argues that, “However, Kobayashi does not disclose, explicitly or inherently, "each and every" feature of detecting item gazing behavior associated with the holding of an item, nor does it disclose measuring the duration of such gazing. Further, Kobayashi does not disclose, explicitly or inherently, generating per-person evaluation information reflecting indecision or product comparison as generally provided in amended claim 1.”; “Kobayashi does not disclose, explicitly or inherently, detecting item gazing behavior associated with holding an item, nor does it disclose measuring the duration of such gazing.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kobayashi describes detecting and identifying persons, items, and locations in a store, in which the information in storage providing results of the findings, that also includes the interaction of each person. Kobayashi describes storing the time period for when a customer is evaluating an item, as the Examiner is interpreting these actions as duration of gazing an item for each person, which is equivalent to the Applicants spec. at 0046.
Then, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., uniquely combines detection of item holding and associated gazing behaviors, and generates per-person merchandise evaluation information (e.g., indecision metrics), which is then used to generate individualized per-item visualizations of customer evaluation states.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Higa et al., W.O. Pub. 2019171574, (discussing the detecting the behavior of customers in a store environment).
Cai et al., U.S. Pub. 20150269642, (discussing the capturing and analyzing imaging of customers shopping.).
Lu et al., A Video-Based Automated Recommender VAR System for Garments, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44012166?seq=1, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Green networking, 2011 (discussing the capturing and analyzing imaging of customers to assist with shopping.).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
UCHE BYRD
Examiner
Art Unit 3624
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights