DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/583,408 was filed 2/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 2/21/2024 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 2/21/2024, have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “... an employee a the retail facility…” in lines 8-9 and should recite “... an employee at the retail facility…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “…provide input indicative of at least one of: at least one characteristic of the item; the identifier of the item; and a request for assistance;…” in lines 6-9 and should recite “…provide input indicative of at least one of: at least one characteristic of an item; an identifier of the item; and a request for assistance;…” Claims 11-16 inherit the objections of claim 10.
Claim 16 recites “... an employee a the retail facility…” in line 8 and should recite “... an employee at the retail facility…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “the set of WAPs” in lines 4-5 and should recite “a set of wireless access points (WAPs)”. Claims 18-20 inherit the objections of claim 17.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-9 and 17-20, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 10-15, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
capture an image of an indicia that encodes an identifier of an item of interest to a shopper;
enables the shopper to provide input indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of the item;
the identifier of the item; and
a request for assistance; and
triangulate a current location within the retail facility, and to transmit an indication of the input; and
receive an indication of the current location, and the indication of the input provided; and
in response to the input comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input, determine whether the request for assistance comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic;
a second request for assistance associated with the item; or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 10 (as interpreted) recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving an indication of input that enables a shopper to provide input indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of an item;
an identifier of the item; and
a request for assistance;
receiving an indication of a current location within the retail facility; and
in response to the input comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input, determining whether the request for assistance comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic;
a second request for assistance associated with the item; or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 17 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
capture an image of an indicia that encodes an identifier of an item of interest to a shopper;
triangulate a current location within the retail facility, and to transmit an indication of the input; and
enables the shopper to provide input indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of the item;
the identifier of the item; and
a request for assistance;
triangulate a current location within the retail facility;
transmit an indication of the input;
receive a transmission in response to the indication of the input, wherein, based on other contents of the input, determine whether the request for assistance comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic;
a second request for assistance associated with the item; or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 10, and 17 are certain methods of organizing human activity because locating and determining a request for assistance for items within a retail facility is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 17 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
a set of wireless access points (WAPs) installed at a retail facility;
a shopping device comprising:
a scanning engine to capture an image of an indicia that encodes an identifier of an item of interest to a shopper;
a display to provide a user interface (UI) that enables the shopper to provide input indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of the item;
the identifier of the item; and
a request for assistance; and
a wireless network interface to cooperate with the set of WAPs to triangulate a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility, and to transmit, to at least one WAP of the set of WAPs, an indication of the input to the shopping device; and
a server coupled to the set of WAPs, the server comprising at least one processor configured to:
receive, from the at least one WAP, an indication of the current location of the shopping device, and the indication of the input provided to the shopping device; and
in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device, determine whether the request for assistance comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic;
a second request for assistance associated with the item; or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility.
In this case, claim 10 (as interpreted) includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, by at least one processor at a server of a shopping support system, and from a shopping device through at least one wireless access point (WAP) of a set of WAPs installed at a retail facility, an indication of input to the shopping device through a user interface (UI) that enables a shopper to provide input indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of an item;
an identifier of the item; and
a request for assistance;
receiving, by the at least one processor, and from the at least one WAP, an indication of a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility; and
in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device, determining, by the at least one processor, whether the request for assistance comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic;
a second request for assistance associated with the item; or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility.
In this case, claim 17 (as interpreted) includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A shopping device of a shopping support system, the shopping device comprising:
a scanning engine configured to capture an image of an indicia that encodes an identifier of an item of interest to a shopper;
a wireless network interface configured to cooperate with a set of wireless access points (WAPs) to triangulate a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility, and to transmit, to at least one WAP of the set of WAPs, an indication of the input to the shopping device; and
at least one processor coupled to the scanning engine and the wireless network interface, the at least one processor configured to:
provide a user interface (UI) that enables the shopper to provide input indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of the item;
the identifier of the item; and
a request for assistance;
operate the wireless network interface to cooperate with the set of WAPs to triangulate a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility;
operate the wireless network interface to transmit, to a support server via at least one WAP of the set of WAPs, an indication of the input to the shopping device;
receive a transmission from the support server in response to the indication of the input to the shopping device, wherein, based on other contents of the input to the shopping device, the support server is configured to determine whether the request for assistance comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic;
a second request for assistance associated with the item; or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a set of wireless access points (WAPs) installed at a retail facility”, “a shopping device comprising a scanning engine and a display to provide a user interface (UI)”, “a wireless network interface to cooperate with the set of WAPs”, “a server coupled to the set of WAPs, the server comprising at least one processor”, “at least one processor coupled to the scanning engine and the wireless network interface”, “a support server”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, transmitting information, displaying information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1, 2B-3B, 4B; paragraphs [0020]-[0028], [0033]-[0039], [0041]-[0063]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks). Further, the “wireless access points (WAPs)”, “shopping device”, “scanning engine”, “display”, “user interface (UI)”, “wireless network interface”, “server”, “support server”, and “processor” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, transmitting/requesting, displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21 and 27 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1, 10, and 17, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 17 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 17 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 10, and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 10, and 17.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18 set forth:
wherein determining, based on the other contents of the input to the shopping device, whether the request for assistance comprises the first request, the second request or the third request comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
determine whether the other contents comprise the at least one characteristic; and
in response to the other contents comprising the at least one characteristic, determine that the request comprises the first request, and perform operations comprising:
identify an item type of the item based on the at least one characteristic; and
attempt to identify an employee at the retail facility to assist the shopper with the item based on at least one of availability of the employee and degree of familiarity of the employee with the item type.
wherein determining, based on the other contents of the input to the shopping device, whether the request for assistance comprises the first request, the second request or the third request comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
determine whether the other contents comprise the identifier of the item;
in response to the other contents comprising the identifier of the item, compare the current location of the shopping device to a shopper- accessible location of the item to determine whether the shopper is currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item; and in response to a determination that the shopper is currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item, determine that the request comprises the second request, and
attempt to identify an employee at the retail facility to assist the shopper with the item based on at least one of availability of the employee and degree of familiarity of the employee with the item.
wherein, attempting to identify an employee at the retail facility to assist the shopper based on at least availability of the employee and degree of familiarity of the employee with the item comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
identifying a set of available employees at the retail facility;
comparing relative degrees of familiarity of each employee in the set with at least one of the item or a type of the item; and
selecting the employee from among the set based at least on a relative degree of familiarity being greater than another relative degree of familiarity of another employee of the set by at least a predetermined threshold.
wherein determining, based on the other contents of the input to the shopping device, whether the request for assistance comprises the first request, the second request or the third request comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
determine whether the other contents comprise the identifier of the item;
in response to the other contents comprising the identifier of the item, compare the current location of the shopping device to a shopper-accessible location of the item to determine whether the shopper is currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item;
in response to a determination that the shopper is not currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item, determine that the request comprises the third request, and determine whether the item is available within the retail facility; and
in response to a determination that the item is available within the retail facility, transmit an indication to the shopping device to cooperate with the set of WAPs to guide the shopper to the shopper-accessible location of the item.
wherein, in response to a determination that the item is not available within the retail facility, the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, to the shopping device, and for presentation to the shopper via the UI, an indication that the item is not available within the retail facility, and a request for an indication of whether the shopper is willing to consider a similar item as a substitute;
in response to receiving an indication from the shopping device that the shopper is willing to consider a similar item, identify another item that is available within the retail facility and that is similar to the item based on at least a function performed by the item; and
transmit an indication to the shopping device to cooperate with the set of WAPs to guide the shopper to a shopper-accessible location of the other item.
wherein in response to the received transmission comprising an indication that assistance from an employee will be provided in response to a determination by the support server that the request transmitted to the support server comprises either the first request or the second request, present the indication that the assistance from an employee will be provided to the shopper via the UI; and
wherein in response to the received transmission comprising an indication of guidance to a shopper-accessible location associated with the item transmitted to the shopping device in response to a determination by the support server that the request transmitted to the support server comprises the third request, present the guidance to the shopper via the UI, and cooperate with the set of WAPs to recurringly determine a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of locating and determining a request for assistance for items within a retail facility. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 10, and 17, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 10, and 17.
Thus, dependent 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 19, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 19, and 20 set forth:
wherein, in response to success in identifying an employee at the retail facility, the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on a distance between the employee and the current location of the shopping device within the retail facility, determine whether to direct the employee to go to the shopper within the retail facility, or to use a service device associated with the employee to communicate with the shopper through the service device and the shopping device about the item; and
in response to a determination to direct the employee to go to the shopper, transmit an indication to the service device to cooperate with the set of WAPs to guide the employee to the current location of shopping device.
wherein, in response to being unable to identify an available employee at the retail facility with a degree of familiarity greater than another relative degree of familiarity of another employee of the set by at least the predetermined threshold, the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit an additional request to assist the shopper to a set of service devices associated with the set of available employees;
await receipt of an indication of one employee of the set of available employees responding to the additional request; and
in response to receiving the indication of the response, transmit, to other service devices of the set of service devices, an indication of rescinding the additional request.
wherein, in response to the determination that the item is available within the retail facility, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine whether the item is available at the shopper-accessible location of the item; and
in response to determining that the item is not available at the shopper-accessible location of the item, perform operations comprising:
identify, based on availability, an employee at the retail facility to retrieve the item from a location within the retail facility that is not accessible to the shopper;
transmit an indication to a service device associated with the employee to retrieve the item; and
transmit an indication to the shopping device to present to the shopper, via the UI, that the item is being retrieved for the shopper.
a touch-sensitive display configured to provide a portion of the UI that includes a visual presentation of a virtual manual control, wherein a touch of the display at a location coincident with the virtual manual control provides the input to cause the at least one processor to generate and transmit the request for assistance to the support server.
further comprising a manual control, wherein operation of the manual control provides the input to cause the at least one processor to generate and transmit the request for assistance to the support server.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of locating and determining a request for assistance for items within a retail facility. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a service device associated with the employee”, “a set of service devices”, “a touch-sensitive display”, “a virtual manual control”, and “a manual control” these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1, 10, and 17, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0020]-[0028], [0033]-[0039], [0041]-[0063] and Figs. 1, 2B-3B, and 4B indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “service device”, “touch-sensitive display”, “virtual manual control”, and “manual control” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are also ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longino (US 2014/0244437 A1) in view of Prevec (US 12,293,388 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Longino discloses a shopping support system comprising:
a set of wireless access points (WAPs) installed at a retail facility (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶¶0032-0033);
a shopping device (Figs. 1-2A; ¶¶0025-0029) comprising:
a scanning engine to capture an image of an indicia that encodes an identifier of an item of interest to a shopper (Fig. 2A, element 250; ¶0046 in view of ¶¶0025-0026, ¶0029, ¶0035);
a display to provide a user interface (UI) that enables the shopper to provide input (Fig. 2A, elements 225, 230 and Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0025-0026, ¶0034) indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶0043 in view of ¶0004, ¶0034, ¶¶0045-0046);
the identifier of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0045-0046 in view of ¶0034, ¶0043); and
a request for assistance (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶0043, ¶¶0045-0046); and
a wireless network interface to cooperate with the set of WAPs to triangulate a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility, and to transmit, to at least one WAP of the set of WAPs, an indication of the input to the shopping device (Figs. 1, 2A elements 235, 240, 245, and 3-5; ¶0035); and
a server coupled to the set of WAPs, the server comprising at least one processor (Fig. 1, elements 15 and 20, Fig. 5; ¶¶0022-0024) configured to:
receive, from the at least one WAP, an indication of the current location of the shopping device, and the indication of the input provided to the shopping device (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; ¶¶0027-0028, ¶¶0033-0035, ¶0039, ¶¶0043-0045); and
in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance, and based on contents of the input to the shopping device, determine whether the request for assistance (¶0057) comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0004, ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057);
a second request for assistance associated with the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057); or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057).
While Longino discloses displaying a number of options representing the types of assistance the customer may select, receiving an indication of input of the customer selection option, and in response to the input determining what the request comprises (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048 and ¶0052), Longino does not explicitly discloses in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device, determining what the request comprises. However, in the field of mobile shopper assistance systems within a physical store (abstract), Prevec teaches providing shopper assistance via a chatbot within the user interface of a mobile device. The chatbot may query the shopper as to whether they would like any help such as prompting the shopper to select whether the shopper cannot locate products for purchase, if the shopper would like nutritional information associated with one or more products, if the shopper would like a recipe associated with a product, provide out of stock notifications, etc. The chatbot may request input as to what product for purchase that shopper cannot find by displaying an image of the products for purchase with a visual indication adjacent to the requested product for purchase. For an item a shopper would like more information, the shopper may acquire and provide an image from a camera of the mobile device within the chatbot of the product for purchase for which the additional information is desired. Further, if the predetermined shopper responses do not sufficiently address the shopper’s query the shopper may provide input, for example, by speaking or typing, to the chatbot conversation. A shopping assistance server may obtain the provided input, and though operation of the chatbot determine and provide an appropriate response (see Figs. 1, 6-11; col. 7, line 62 to col. 9, line 51). The system of Prevec is applicable to the system of Longino as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing assistance to customers in store via a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the user input and assistance determination as taught by Longino with the determining what the request comprises based on the chatbot input comprising the request for assistance and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device as taught by Prevec. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Longino in order to provide shopper assistance and operate a two-way dialog with the shopper so that the shopper conversation mimics a conversation with another human being (col. 1, lines 7-8 and col. 9, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 2, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping support system of claim 1. Longino further discloses wherein determining, based on the contents of the input to the shopping device, whether the request for assistance comprises the first request, the second request or the third request comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
determine whether the contents comprise the at least one characteristic (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048 and ¶0052); and
in response to the contents comprising the at least one characteristic, determine that the request comprises the first request (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048 and ¶0052), and perform operations comprising:
identify an item type of the item based on the at least one characteristic (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048 and ¶0052); and
attempt to identify an employee at the retail facility to assist the shopper with the item based on at least one of availability of the employee and degree of familiarity of the employee with the item type (Fig. 6; ¶0036, ¶0043, ¶¶0055-0057).
Prevec further teaches determining what a request for assistance comprise based on other contents of the input to the shopping device (see Figs. 1, 6-11; col. 7, line 62 to col. 9, line 51). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Longino are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping support system of claim 2. Longino further discloses wherein, in response to success in identifying an employee at the retail facility, the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on a distance between the employee and the current location of the shopping device within the retail facility, determine whether to direct the employee to go to the shopper within the retail facility, or to use a service device associated with the employee to communicate with the shopper through the service device and the shopping device about the item (Fig. 6; ¶0038, ¶0043, ¶¶0057-0058 in view of ¶¶0035-0036); and
in response to a determination to direct the employee to go to the shopper, transmit an indication to the service device to cooperate with the set of WAPs to guide the employee to the current location of shopping device (Fig. 2B-3; ¶¶0035-0038, ¶¶0040-0042 in view of ¶¶0030-0033).
Regarding claim 4, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping support system of claim 1. Longino further discloses wherein determining, based on the contents of the input to the shopping device, whether the request for assistance comprises the first request, the second request or the third request comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
determine whether the contents comprise the identifier of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶0046, ¶¶0043, ¶0045 in view of ¶0026, ¶¶0034-0035, ¶0043); and
in response to the contents comprising the identifier of the item, compare the current location of the shopping device to a shopper-accessible location of the item (¶0043; Examiner notes providing directions is comparable to comparing locations; ¶0056); and
determine that the request comprises the second request, and attempt to identify an employee at the retail facility to assist the shopper with the item based on at least one of availability of the employee and degree of familiarity of the employee with the item (¶0036, ¶¶0042-0043, ¶0046, ¶0055).
As noted above, Prevec teaches determining what a request for assistance comprise based on other contents of the input to the shopping device (see Figs. 1, 6-11; col. 7, line 62 to col. 9, line 51). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Longino are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Prevec further teaches comparing, by the at least one processor, the current location of the shopping device to a shopper-accessible location of items to determine, by the at least one processor whether the shopper is currently at a shopper-accessible location of the item (Figs. 1-11; col. 6, lines 30-36) and in response to a determination that the shopper is currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item make determinations about the item such as the user requiring assistance (Figs. 1-11; col. 6, line 30 to col. 7, lines 62-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the customer assistance application as taught by Longino with requiring assistance for products adjacent the shopper based on the given shopper position as taught by Prevec. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Longino in order to provide shopper assistance and permit price checking or obtain other product information, such as stock status, and alerting a shopper if a scanned product meets certain dietary constraints set by the shopper (col. 4, line 60 to col. 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 5, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping support system of claim 4. Longino further discloses wherein, attempting to identify an employee at the retail facility to assist the shopper based on at least availability of the employee and degree of familiarity of the employee with the item comprises the at least one processor performing operations comprising:
identifying a set of available employees at the retail facility (Fig. 6; ¶0036, ¶¶0042-0043, ¶0046, ¶0055);
comparing relative degrees of familiarity of each employee in the set with at least one of the item or a type of the item (¶0036, ¶0042); and
selecting the employee from among the set based at least on a relative degree of familiarity being greater than another relative degree of familiarity of another employee of the set by at least a predetermined threshold (¶0004, ¶0036, ¶0042, and ¶0055; Examiner notes “training or knowledge of the item being sought” and “not trained” are relative degrees of familiarity with an “available store employee” being only an employee with “training or experience in the products in the area” is comparable to a predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 10, Longino discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor at a server of a shopping support system, and from a shopping device through at least one wireless access point (WAP) of a set of WAPs installed at a retail facility (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶0022-0026, ¶0034), an indication of input to the shopping device through a user interface (UI) that enables a shopper to provide input (Figs. 2A, 3, 4-6; ¶0034, ¶¶0047-0048) indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of an item (Figs. 4-5; ¶0043 in view of ¶0004, ¶0034, ¶¶0045-0046);
an identifier of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0045-0046 in view of ¶0034, ¶0043); and
a request for assistance (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶0043, ¶¶0045-0046);
receiving, by the at least one processor, and from the at least one WAP, an indication of a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility (Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6; ¶¶0049-0050 in view of ¶¶0026-0028, ¶0033, ¶0035, ¶0039, ¶¶0043-0045); and
in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance determining, by the at least one processor, whether the request for assistance (¶0057) comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0004, ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057);
a second request for assistance associated with the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057); or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057).
While Longino discloses displaying a number of options representing the types of assistance the customer may select, receiving an indication of input of the customer selection option, and in response to the input determining what the request comprises (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048 and ¶0052), Longino does not explicitly discloses in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device, determining what the request comprises. However, in the field of mobile shopper assistance systems within a physical store (abstract), Prevec teaches providing shopper assistance via a chatbot within the user interface of a mobile device. The chatbot may query the shopper as to whether they would like any help such as prompting the shopper to select whether the shopper cannot locate products for purchase, if the shopper would like nutritional information associated with one or more products, if the shopper would like a recipe associated with a product, provide out of stock notifications, etc. The chatbot may request input as to what product for purchase that shopper cannot find by displaying an image of the products for purchase with a visual indication adjacent to the requested product for purchase. For an item a shopper would like more information, the shopper may acquire and provide an image from a camera of the mobile device within the chatbot of the product for purchase for which the additional information is desired. Further, if the predetermined shopper responses do not sufficiently address the shopper’s query the shopper may provide input, for example, by speaking or typing, to the chatbot conversation. A shopping assistance server may obtain the provided input, and though operation of the chatbot determine and provide an appropriate response (see Figs. 1, 6-11; col. 7, line 62 to col. 9, line 51). The steps of Prevec is applicable to the steps of Longino as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing assistance to customers in store via a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the user input and assistance determination as taught by Longino with the determining what the request comprises based on the chatbot input comprising the request for assistance and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device as taught by Prevec. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Longino in order to provide shopper assistance and operate a two-way dialog with the shopper so that the shopper conversation mimics a conversation with another human being (col. 1, lines 7-8 and col. 9, lines 32-36).
Regarding claims 11-13, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 2, 4, and 5, except claims 2,4, and 5 are directed to machines while claims 11-13 are directed to processes. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 2, 4, and 5, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 11-13 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 2, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 17, Longino discloses a shopping device of a shopping support system (Figs. 1-2A; ¶¶0025-0029), the shopping device comprising:
a scanning engine configured to capture an image of an indicia that encodes an identifier of an item of interest to a shopper (Fig. 2A, element 250; ¶0046 in view of ¶¶0025-0026, ¶0029, ¶0035);
a wireless network interface configured to cooperate with the set of WAPs to triangulate a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility, and to transmit, to at least one WAP of the set of WAPs, an indication of the input to the shopping device (Figs. 1, 2A elements 235, 240, 245, and 3-5; ¶0035); and
at least one processor coupled to the scanning engine and the wireless network interface (Figs. 1, 2A element 205; ¶¶0025-0027), the at least one processor configured to:
provide a user interface (UI) that enables the shopper to provide input (Fig. 2A, elements 225, 230 and Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0025-0026, ¶0034) indicative of at least one of:
at least one characteristic of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶0043 in view of ¶0004, ¶0034, ¶¶0045-0046);
the identifier of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0045-0046 in view of ¶0034, ¶0043); and
a request for assistance (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶0043, ¶¶0045-0046);
operate the wireless network interface to cooperate with the set of WAPs to triangulate a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility (Figs. 1, 2A elements 235, 240, 245, and 3-5; ¶0035);
operate the wireless network interface to transmit, to a support server via at least one WAP of the set of WAPs, an indication of the input to the shopping device (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; ¶¶0027-0028, ¶¶0033-0035, ¶0039, ¶¶0043-0045);
receive a transmission from the support server in response to the indication of the input to the shopping device (Figs. 1, 2A, 5, ¶0053), wherein, based on contents of the input to the shopping device, the support server is configured to determine whether the request for assistance (¶0057) comprises:
a first request for assistance in identifying the item based on the at least one characteristic (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0004, ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057);
a second request for assistance associated with the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057); or
a third request for assistance in locating the item within the retail facility (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057).
While Longino discloses displaying a number of options representing the types of assistance the customer may select, receiving an indication of input of the customer selection option, and in response to the input determining what the request comprises (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048 and ¶0052), Longino does not explicitly discloses in response to the input to the shopping device comprising the request for assistance, and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device, determining what the request comprises. However, in the field of mobile shopper assistance systems within a physical store (abstract), Prevec teaches providing shopper assistance via a chatbot within the user interface of a mobile device. The chatbot may query the shopper as to whether they would like any help such as prompting the shopper to select whether the shopper cannot locate products for purchase, if the shopper would like nutritional information associated with one or more products, if the shopper would like a recipe associated with a product, provide out of stock notifications, etc. The chatbot may request input as to what product for purchase that shopper cannot find by displaying an image of the products for purchase with a visual indication adjacent to the requested product for purchase. For an item a shopper would like more information, the shopper may acquire and provide an image from a camera of the mobile device within the chatbot of the product for purchase for which the additional information is desired. Further, if the predetermined shopper responses do not sufficiently address the shopper’s query the shopper may provide input, for example, by speaking or typing, to the chatbot conversation. A shopping assistance server may obtain the provided input, and though operation of the chatbot determine and provide an appropriate response (see Figs. 1, 6-11; col. 7, line 62 to col. 9, line 51). The system of Prevec is applicable to the system of Longino as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing assistance to customers in store via a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the user input and assistance determination as taught by Longino with the determining what the request comprises based on the chatbot input comprising the request for assistance and based on other contents of the input to the shopping device as taught by Prevec. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Longino in order to provide shopper assistance and operate a two-way dialog with the shopper so that the shopper conversation mimics a conversation with another human being (col. 1, lines 7-8 and col. 9, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 18, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping device of claim 17. Longino further discloses
wherein in response to the received transmission comprising an indication that assistance from an employee will be provided in response to a determination by the support server that the request transmitted to the support server comprises either the first request or the second request, present the indication that the assistance from an employee will be provided to the shopper via the UI (Figs. 1, 2A, 5; ¶0033, ¶¶0052-0054); and
wherein in response to the received transmission comprising an indication of guidance to a shopper-accessible location associated with the item transmitted to the shopping device in response to a determination by the support server that the request transmitted to the support server comprises the third request, present the guidance to the shopper via the UI, and cooperate with the set of WAPs to recurringly determine a current location of the shopping device within the retail facility (Figs. 1, 2A, 5; ¶0033, ¶0043, ¶¶0052-0054).
Regarding claim 19, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping device of claim 17. Longino further discloses further comprising a touch-sensitive display configured to provide a portion of the UI that includes a visual presentation of a virtual manual control, wherein a touch of the display at a location coincident with the virtual manual control provides the input to cause the at least one processor to generate and transmit the request for assistance to the support server (Figs. 1, 2A, 4, 5; ¶0026, ¶0034).
Regarding claim 20, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping device of claim 17. Longino further discloses further comprising a manual control, wherein operation of the manual control provides the input to cause the at least one processor to generate and transmit the request for assistance to the support server (Figs. 1, 2A, 4, 5; ¶0026, ¶0034).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longino in view of Prevec and White et al. (US 2017/0236175 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping support system of claim 4. Longino further discloses identify an available employee at the retail facility with a degree of familiarity greater than another relative degree of familiarity of another employee of the set by at least the predetermined threshold (Fig. 6; ¶0036, ¶¶0042-0043, ¶0046, ¶0055), the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit an additional request to assist the shopper to a set of service devices associated with the set of available employees (Figs. 1, 2B, 6; ¶¶0056-0058 and ¶0039);
await receipt of an indication of one employee of the set of available employees responding to the additional request (Figs. 1, 2B, 6; ¶¶0056-0059); and
in response to receiving the indication of the response, transmit, to other service devices of the set of service devices, an indication of rescinding the additional request (Figs. 1, 2B, 6; ¶¶0056-60 and ¶¶0036-0037).
Longino in view of Prevec does not explicitly teach performing these steps in response to being unable to identify an available employee at the retail facility with a degree of familiarity greater than another relative degree of familiarity of another employee of the set by at least the predetermined threshold. However, in the field of providing customer assistance for a product in a retail store, White et al., hereinafter White, teaches determining all customer assistance associates with knowledge about the department where the product id located are unavailable and sending a notification to a remote customer assistance associate (¶0023). The system of White is applicable to the system of Longino in view of Prevec as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing assistance to customers in store via a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the identification of available employees as taught by Longino in view of Prevec with the identifying no available employees as taught by White. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Longino in view of Prevec in order to improve a customer’s shopping experience by giving customers quick access to customer assistance when a customer assistance associate is not readily available (White ¶¶0006-0008).
Regarding claim 14, the claim disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 6, except claim 6 is directed to a machine while claim 14 is directed to processes. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 6, and does not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7-9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longino in view of Prevec and Kim (US 8,401,915 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Longino in view of Prevec teaches the shopping support system of claim 1. Longino further discloses wherein determining, based on the contents of the input to the shopping device, whether the request for assistance comprises the first request, the second request or the third request comprises the at least one processor performing operations (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057) comprising:
determine whether the contents comprise the identifier of the item (Figs. 4-5; ¶0046, ¶¶0043, ¶0045 in view of ¶0026, ¶¶0034-0035, ¶0043);
in response to the other contents comprising the identifier of the item, compare the current location of the shopping device to a shopper-accessible location of the item (¶0043; Examiner notes providing directions is comparable to comparing locations; ¶0056);
in response to a determination that the shopper is not currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item, determine that the request comprises the third request (Figs. 4-5; ¶¶0034-¶0035, ¶¶0043-0046 in view of ¶0048, ¶¶0052-0053, ¶0057); and
transmit an indication to the shopping device to cooperate with the set of WAPs to guide the shopper to the shopper-accessible location of the item (¶0043, ¶0053).
Prevec further teaches determining what a request for assistance comprise based on other contents of the input to the shopping device (see Figs. 1, 6-11; col. 7, line 62 to col. 9, line 51). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Longino are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Prevec further teaches comparing, by the at least one processor, the current location of the shopping device to a shopper-accessible location of items to determine, by the at least one processor whether the shopper is currently at a shopper-accessible location of the item (Figs. 1-11; col. 6, lines 30-36). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Longino are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Longino in view of Prevec does not explicitly teach in response to a determination that the shopper is not currently at the shopper-accessible location of the item determine whether the item is available within the retail facility and in response to a determination that the item is available within the retail facility, transmit an indication to the shopping device to guide the shopper to the shopper-accessible location of the item. However, in the field of providing customers the ability to easily browse through all of the store’s offerings (abstract), Kim teaches determining a customer is not currently at the shopper-accessible location of an item, determining whether the item is available within the retail facility, and in response to a determination that the item is available within the retail facility, transmitting an indication to the customer device to guide the shopper to the shopper-accessible location of the item (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7; col. 13, lines 4-49, col. 16, lines 15-33, col. 17, lines 18-30, col. 20, lines 19-40). The system of Kim is applicable to the system of Longino in view of Prevec as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing assistance to customers in store via a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the customer assistance application as taught by Longino in view of Prevec with the item availability determination and available item location guidance as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Longino in view of Prevec in order to enable the location and purchase of non-displayed items in retail stores (col. 1, lines 28-30) and operate a traditional retail store using mobile devices and product identification codes to maximize store offerings while providing customers with easy browsing methods and the option to physically observe products before purchasing including items in a non-customer storage space that in inaccessible to customers for shopping (col. 2, lines 8-21).
Regarding claim 8, Longino in view of Prevec and Kim teaches the shopping support system of claim 7. Kim further teaches wherein, in response to the determination that the item is available within the retail facility (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8; col. 10, line 56 to col. 11, line 3, col. 13, lines 4-61, col. 17, lines 18-30), the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine whether the item is available at the shopper-accessible location of the item (Fig. 1; col. 10, line 56 to col. 11, line 3, col. 13, lines 4-61); and
in response to determining that the item is not available at the shopper-accessible location of the item (Figs. 1, 8; col. 10, line 56 to col. 11, line 3, col. 13, lines 4-61), perform operations comprising:
identify, based on availability, an employee at the retail facility to retrieve the item from a location within the retail facility that is not accessible to the shopper (Figs. 1, 8; col. 13, lines 22-61, col. 14, lines 46-61, col. 21, line 29 to col. 22, line 47);
transmit an indication to a service device associated with the employee to retrieve the item (Figs. 1, 8; col. 14, lines 46-61, col. 21, line 29 to col. 22, line 47); and
transmit an indication to the shopping device to present to the shopper, via the UI, that the item is being retrieved for the shopper (Figs. 1, 8; col. 22, lines 37-53).
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Longino in view of Prevec are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Longino in view of Prevec and Kim teaches the shopping support system of claim 7. Kim further teaches wherein, in response to a determination that the item is not available within the retail facility (Figs. 1, 2, 6-9; col. 17, lines 18-30, col. 23, lines 55-67), the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, to the shopping device, and for presentation to the shopper via the UI, an indication that the item is not available within the retail facility (Figs. 1, 6; col. 19, line 15 to col. 20, line 17), and a request for an indication of whether the shopper is willing to consider a similar item as a substitute (Fig. 6; col. 11, lines 43-52 [“related product”], col. 13, lines 4-21 [search results include related products], col. 19, line 15 to col. 20, line 17 [In some embodiments, the mobile application will display only those product variations or related products that are available for sale at the retail store the customer is currently at]);
in response to receiving an indication from the shopping device that the shopper is willing to consider a similar item, identify another item that is available within the retail facility and that is similar to the item based on at least a function performed by the item (Fig. 6; col. 11, lines 43-52 [“related product”], col. 13, lines 4-21 [search results include related products], col. 19, line 15 to col. 20, line 17 [The pick-up button 603…location button 605 is designed to display the location of the product 604 on the mobile application such that the customer can locate the product within the customer shopping area]); and
transmit an indication to the shopping device to cooperate with the set of WAPs to guide the shopper to a shopper-accessible location of the other item (Figs. 1-3, 6, 7; col. 13, lines 4-49, col. 16, lines 15-33, col. 17, lines 18-30, col. 20, lines 19-40 and col. 15, lines 5-27).
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Longino in view of Prevec are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 7, except claim 7 is directed to a machine while claim 15 is directed to processes. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 7, and does not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, the claim disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 8, except claim 8 is directed to a machine while claim 16 is directed to processes. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 8, and does not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited Non Patent Literature “Macy's signs up IBM's Watson for AI app to guide shoppers around its stores (and it will even know when you get frustrated)” discloses an application on a customer’s phone that allows the customer to get answers customized to the store they’re in such as locating a particular item within the store and what is in stock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688