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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“spatial computing device” in claims 11-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-21 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim/s 11 and 21. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method that uses generic spatial computing data to gather conventional telemetry data in a retail setting, combines that data through a generic iterative graph technique, assigns conventional anchors, and outputs a prompt for a transaction.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1’s limitation of “retrieving, using the spatial computing device, a 360° view of a transaction area; performing environmental analysis of the transaction area; invoking customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area; reviewing user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction trend in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area; identifying a geo-location of the transaction area; based on the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area, forming a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area; and based on the pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command” is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity by retrieving a 360° view and various analyses, forming a pre-transaction integration of those analyses, and generating an enabling prompt amount. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim/s is/are adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) / 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). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim/s is/state:
“retrieving, using the spatial computing device, a 360° view of a transaction area; performing environmental analysis of the transaction area; invoking customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area; reviewing user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction trend in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area; identifying a geo-location of the transaction area; based on the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area, forming a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area; and based on the pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command”. The examiner interprets the claim, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, to be drawn to Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the central server recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim.
The Examiner finds that Claim 2 involves assigning one or more anchor points to sub-regions, products, or groups of products within a transaction area. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a certain methods of organizing human activity and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim describes routine augmented reality anchoring techniques commonly used in spatial computing systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 3 involves assigning one or more anchor points to sub-regions, products, or groups of products within a transaction area. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a certain methods of organizing human activity and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim describes routine augmented reality anchoring techniques commonly used in spatial computing systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 4 involves assigning one or more anchor points to sub-regions, products, or groups of products within a transaction area. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a certain methods of organizing human activity and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim describes routine augmented reality anchoring techniques commonly used in spatial computing systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 5 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 6 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 7 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 8 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 9 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 10 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains and information deltas, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, Claims 12-20 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morrison et al (US 20170132842 A1, hereafter referred to as Morrison) in view of Glaser et al (US 20190378205 A1, hereafter referred to as Glaser).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Morrison teaches A method for utilizing a spatial computing device with telemetry-based user-behavior analysis for leveraging suggestive action mechanisms, said method comprising:
retrieving, using the spatial computing device, a 360° view of a transaction area (Morrison in ¶51 discloses “Input devices 204 may include environmental cameras”; ¶97 discloses “a 3D scan and/or 360° panoramic series of photos may be taken without the mounting being visible, and without multiple mountings being performed”);
performing environmental analysis of the transaction area (Morrison in ¶51 discloses “Input devices 204 may include environmental cameras to detect lighting within the user's physical environment”);
invoking customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area (Morrison in ¶49 discloses “cameras to detect the user's gestures, reactions and facial expressions.”);
reviewing user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area (Morrison in ¶50 discloses “in the case of cameras used to detect the user's reactions and facial expressions, the input devices 204 may thereby be used to collect input for a cognitive modeling based analysis to determine the user's positive or negative attitude”);
identifying a geo-location of the transaction area (Morrison in ¶154 discloses “receives the geospatial data related to the first reference marker”);
based on the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area (Morrison in FIG. 8, ¶49-51, 97 discloses 360° panoramic views, environmental cameras, gesture/facial behavior analysis, cognitive modeling for legacy sentiment/attitude, reference-marker geo-location).
Morrison does not explicitly teach all of monitoring a user transaction trend in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area; forming a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area; and based on the pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command
However, Glaser teaches monitoring a user transaction trend in the transaction area (Glaser in ¶88-90 discloses environmental object graph (EOG) propagation of shopper path and transaction data over time);
monitoring a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area (Glaser in ¶61-66, 139 discloses compound object modeling and product association patterns in the EOG);
forming a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area (Glaser in FIG. 11-13, ¶79-94, 120 discloses EOG that fuses environmental/object data, intersection history (trends), product associations (patterns), personal/legacy patterns, and location state into one unified pre-checkout graph in S200 before executing an associated action S300); and
based on the pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command (Glaser in FIG. 11-13, ¶79-94, 120 discloses EOG that fuses environmental/object data, intersection history (trends), product associations (patterns), personal/legacy patterns, and location state into one unified pre-checkout graph in S200 before executing an associated action S300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Morrison by incorporating the environmental object graph (EOG) transaction monitoring and integration capabilities that is taught by Glaser, since both reference are analogous art in the field of in-store retail analytics and augmented reality systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Morrison’s AR spatial computing platform with 360° environmental and user behavior analysis with Glaser’s EOG-based transaction trend and product pattern tracking yields the predictable result of a unified pre-transaction integration capable of generating enabling prompts, thereby providing more accurate and context-aware suggestive action mechanisms.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving, using the spatial computing device, of the 360° view of the transaction area comprises assigning one or more anchors to sub-regions within the transaction area (Morrison in ¶152-154 discloses scanning reference markers and assigning positional data to blueprint reference points that lock virtual content to physical sub-regions/shelves).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving, using the spatial computing device, of the 360° view of the transaction area comprises assigning one or more anchors to each of a plurality of individual products within the transaction area (Morrison in ¶152-156 discloses populating the synchronized virtual shelf with individual 3D products objects world-locked via the reference-marker positions).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving, using the spatial computing device, of the 360° view of the transaction area comprises assigning one or more spatial anchors to each of a plurality of groups of products within the transaction area (Morrison in ¶149-156 discloses virtual shelf layouts grouping multiple 3D objects on physical shelf surfaces synchronized by reference markers).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Morrison teaches A system for telemetry-based user-behavior analysis, said system for leveraging suggestive action mechanisms, said system comprising:
a spatial computing device for retrieving and monitoring a 360° view of a transaction area(Morrison in ¶51 discloses “Input devices 204 may include environmental cameras”; ¶97 discloses “a 3D scan and/or 360° panoramic series of photos may be taken without the mounting being visible, and without multiple mountings being performed”), the spatial computing device further operable to:
perform environmental analysis of the transaction area (Morrison in ¶51 discloses “Input devices 204 may include environmental cameras to detect lighting within the user's physical environment”);
invoke customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area (Morrison in ¶49 discloses “cameras to detect the user's gestures, reactions and facial expressions.”);
review user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area (Morrison in ¶50 discloses “in the case of cameras used to detect the user's reactions and facial expressions, the input devices 204 may thereby be used to collect input for a cognitive modeling based analysis to determine the user's positive or negative attitude”);
identify a geo-location of the transaction area (Morrison in ¶154 discloses “receives the geospatial data related to the first reference marker”);
form a pre-transaction integration of the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area (Morrison in FIG. 8, ¶49-51, 97 discloses 360° panoramic views, environmental cameras, gesture/facial behavior analysis, cognitive modeling for legacy sentiment/attitude, reference-marker geo-location).
Morrison does not explicitly teach all of monitor a user transaction trend in the transaction area; monitor a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area; form a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area; and based on the pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command
However, Glaser teaches monitor a user transaction trend in the transaction area (Glaser in ¶88-90 discloses environmental object graph (EOG) propagation of shopper path and transaction data over time);
monitor a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area (Glaser in ¶61-66, 139 discloses compound object modeling and product association patterns in the EOG);
form a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area (Glaser in FIG. 11-13, ¶79-94, 120 discloses EOG that fuses environmental/object data, intersection history (trends), product associations (patterns), personal/legacy patterns, and location state into one unified pre-checkout graph in S200 before executing an associated action S300); and
based on the pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command (Glaser in FIG. 11-13, ¶79-94, 120 discloses EOG that fuses environmental/object data, intersection history (trends), product associations (patterns), personal/legacy patterns, and location state into one unified pre-checkout graph in S200 before executing an associated action S300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Morrison by incorporating the environmental object graph (EOG) transaction monitoring and integration capabilities that is taught by Glaser, since both reference are analogous art in the field of in-store retail analytics and augmented reality systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Morrison’s AR spatial computing platform with 360° environmental and user behavior analysis with Glaser’s EOG-based transaction trend and product pattern tracking yields the predictable result of a unified pre-transaction integration capable of generating enabling prompts, thereby providing more accurate and context-aware suggestive action mechanisms.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The system of claim 11, wherein the spatial computing device, is further operable to assign one or more anchors to sub-regions within the transaction area (Morrison in ¶152-154 discloses scanning reference markers and assigning positional data to blueprint reference points that lock virtual content to physical sub-regions/shelves).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The system of claim 11, wherein the spatial computing device is further operable to assign one or more anchors to each of a plurality of individual products within the transaction area (Morrison in ¶152-156 discloses populating the synchronized virtual shelf with individual 3D products objects world-locked via the reference-marker positions).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The system of claim 11, wherein the spatial computing device is further operable to assign one or more spatial anchors to each of a plurality of groups of products within the transaction area (Morrison in ¶149-156 discloses virtual shelf layouts grouping multiple 3D objects on physical shelf surfaces synchronized by reference markers).
Claim 21
Regarding Claim 21, Morrison teaches A method for utilizing a spatial computing device with telemetry-based user-behavior analysis for leveraging suggestive action mechanisms, said method comprising:
retrieving, using the spatial computing device, a 360° view of a transaction area (Morrison in ¶51 discloses “Input devices 204 may include environmental cameras”; ¶97 discloses “a 3D scan and/or 360° panoramic series of photos may be taken without the mounting being visible, and without multiple mountings being performed”).
Morrison does not explicitly teach all of based on the 360 view of the transaction area, forming a pre-transaction suggestion with respect to the transaction area; and based on the pre-transaction integration, transmitting an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command.
However, Glaser teaches based on the 360 view of the transaction area, forming a pre-transaction suggestion with respect to the transaction area (Glaser in FIG. 11-13, ¶79-94, 120 discloses EOG that fuses environmental/object data, intersection history (trends), product associations (patterns), personal/legacy patterns, and location state into one unified pre-checkout graph in S200 before executing an associated action S300); and
based on the pre-transaction integration, transmitting an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command (Glaser in FIG. 11-13, ¶79-94, 120 discloses EOG that fuses environmental/object data, intersection history (trends), product associations (patterns), personal/legacy patterns, and location state into one unified pre-checkout graph in S200 before executing an associated action S300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Morrison by incorporating the environmental object graph (EOG) transaction monitoring and integration capabilities that is taught by Glaser, since both reference are analogous art in the field of in-store retail analytics and augmented reality systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Morrison’s AR spatial computing platform with 360° environmental and user behavior analysis with Glaser’s EOG-based transaction trend and product pattern tracking yields the predictable result of a unified pre-transaction integration capable of generating enabling prompts, thereby providing more accurate and context-aware suggestive action mechanisms.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morrison et al (US 20170132842 A1, hereafter referred to as Morrison) in view of Glaser et al (US 20190378205 A1, hereafter referred to as Glaser), further in view of Angell et al (US 20080249870 A1, hereafter referred to as Angell).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The method of claim 1.
Morrison in view of Glaser does not explicitly teach all of further comprising implementing the telemetry-based user-behavior analysis using an iterative adjunction technique.
However, Angell teaches further comprising implementing the telemetry-based user-behavior analysis using an iterative adjunction technique (Angell in ¶130-138, 197 discloses generating and iteratively updating a marketing decision tree using real-time customer behavior telemetry, transaction data, and movement patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Morrison in view of Glaser by incorporating the iterative decision tree generation and dynamic branching technique that is taught by Angell, since both reference are analogous art in the field of in-store retail analytics and augmented reality customer behavior monitoring systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Morrison in view of Glaser’s AR spatial computing platform and environmental object graph integration with Angell’s iterative decision tree analysis for real-time user behavior telemetry yields the predictable result of more accurate and context-aware pre-transaction integration capable of generating enabling prompts, thereby providing enhanced suggestive action mechanisms in a spatial computing retail environment.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The method of claim 5, wherein the iterative adjunction technique analyzes each of the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area in order to provide a root node in a graph (Angell in ¶47-50 discloses tree starting from current location/geo and profile data as root node, analyzing camera views, physical paths/speed (behavior), past purchases (trends/patterns/sentiment proxies), and store layout (environmental)).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the iterative adjunction technique further comprises iterating through one or more information gains (Angell in ¶197 discloses iterative dynamic branching and post-transaction updates as new movement/history data provides incremental predictive value).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The method of claim 7, wherein each one or more of the information gains are used to generate an additional node on the graph (Angell in FIG. 10, ¶197 discloses dynamic branching to add additional path nodes for next probable locations based on updated data).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The method of claim 8 wherein each of the root node and the additional node(s) on the graph is leveraged to provide the pre-transaction integration for a formation of an enabling prompt (Angell in ¶47-48 discloses leveraging the full tree (root and branches) to predict next location and a generate a customized marketing message configured to receive/encourage a transaction execution command).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Morrison in view of Glaser teaches The system of claim 11.
Morrison in view of Glaser does not explicitly teach all wherein the spatial computing device is further configured to implement the telemetry-based user-behavior analysis using an iterative adjunction technique.
However, Angell teaches further comprising wherein the spatial computing device is further configured to implement the telemetry-based user-behavior analysis using an iterative adjunction technique. (Angell in ¶130-138, 197 discloses generating and iteratively updating a marketing decision tree using real-time customer behavior telemetry, transaction data, and movement patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Morrison in view of Glaser by incorporating the iterative decision tree generation and dynamic branching technique that is taught by Angell, since both reference are analogous art in the field of in-store retail analytics and augmented reality customer behavior monitoring systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Morrison in view of Glaser’s AR spatial computing platform and environmental object graph integration with Angell’s iterative decision tree analysis for real-time user behavior telemetry yields the predictable result of more accurate and context-aware pre-transaction integration capable of generating enabling prompts, thereby providing enhanced suggestive action mechanisms in a spatial computing retail environment.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The system of claim 15, wherein the iterative adjunction technique analyzes each of the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area in order to provide a root node in a graph (Angell in ¶47-50 discloses tree starting from current location/geo and profile data as root node, analyzing camera views, physical paths/speed (behavior), past purchases (trends/patterns/sentiment proxies), and store layout (environmental)).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The system of claim 16, wherein the iterative adjunction technique further comprises iterating through one or more information gains (Angell in ¶197 discloses iterative dynamic branching and post-transaction updates as new movement/history data provides incremental predictive value).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The system of claim 17, wherein each one or more of the information gains are used to generate an additional node on the graph (Angell in FIG. 10, ¶197 discloses dynamic branching to add additional path nodes for next probable locations based on updated data).
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19, Morrison in view of Glaser, further in view of Angell teaches The system of claim 18 wherein each of the root node and the additional node(s) on the graph is leveraged to provide the pre-transaction integration for a formation of an enabling prompt (Angell in ¶47-48 discloses leveraging the full tree (root and branches) to predict next location and a generate a customized marketing message configured to receive/encourage a transaction execution command)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 contain subject matter that is allowable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103; Claims 1-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 3/23/2026