DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to amendments filed March 10th, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-17 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/26 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 08/30/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2021/031738 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding priority filed 03/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the provided remarks, Applicant requests, citing MPEP 213.06 “the USPTO retrieve the priority application in accordance with the priority document exchange program.” Examiner cites MPEP 213.06 in response to Applicant’s request and states the following, “With respect to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 as they pertain to applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, if the applicant submitted a certified copy of the foreign priority document in compliance with PCT Rule 17 during the international phase, the International Bureau will forward a copy of the certified priority document to each Designated Office that has requested a copy of the foreign priority document and the copy received from the International Bureau is acceptable to establish that applicant has filed a certified copy of the priority document. See MPEP § 1893.03(c). If, however, the International Bureau is unable to forward a copy of the certified priority document because the applicant failed to submit a certified copy of the foreign priority document during the international phase, the applicant will need to provide a certified copy of the priority document or have the Office retrieve the priority application in accordance with the priority document exchange program during the national stage to fulfill the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55.” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 03/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Specifically, on page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims follow Examiner’s suggestions provided within the interview conducted 01/14/26. However, Examiner notes that the suggestions provided within said interview were not given to grant immediate subject matter eligibility. Examiner asserts that the amended claims are directed to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity commercial interactions as the amended granting of points to customers based on store/product interaction is directed to sales activity and marketing. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 03/10/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4- under 35 USC 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lieberman (U.S 2021/0042673 A1) in view of Ramalingam (U.S 9,767,474 B1).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation beginning "determine, by collating" recites "a camera" which is a typographical error that should recite "the digital camera". 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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (apparatus), 9 (method), and 10 (non-transitory storage medium) and dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11, and 13-17, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine), claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite store customer information including customer attribute information and face information of a first customer who has registered the customer attribute information and the face information and the face information of a second customer who has registered the face information without registering the customer attribute information, the face information comprising a feature value of a face or a face image; collate an image captured in a store by a digital camera with the face information, and detect the first customer and the second customer in the image, determine in-store behavior of the first customer and the second customer detected in the image, and register the determined in-store behavior in the customer information; generate, when an unregistered person whose face information is not registered is detected in the image, the face information, based on a face image of the unregistered person included in the image captured by the digital camera, and register the generated face information, as the face information of the second customer, in the customer information, manage a point given to the first customer and the second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information, the point being configured to be at least one of: exchanged for a product, converted to electronic money, or used for payment at the store; permit the first customer to use the point, and not permit the second customer to use the point; and give a point to both the first customer and the second customer based on a number of visits to a store, time spent in the store, a number of times a customer tries a product, a number of times the customer makes a purchase, a paid amount, a number of times the customer stops in front of a campaign product, a number of times the customer passes by the campaign product, a number of times the customer purchases the campaign product, or a number of times the customer brings a bag to take a purchased product home (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are determining in-store behaviors of customers within a store; managing a point associated with a customer exchanged for a product, converted to electronic money, or used for payment at the store; and giving points to the customer based on a number of visits to a store, time spent in the store, a number of times a customer tries a product, a number of times the customer makes a purchase, a paid amount, a number of times the customer stops in front of a campaign product, a number of times the customer passes by the campaign product, a number of times the customer purchases the campaign product, or a number of times the customer brings a bag to take a purchased product home, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity as well as managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are determining in-store behaviors of customers within a store and managing points of the customer associated with the tracked in-store behavior, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are collating an image captured in a store; detecting customers in the image; determining in-store behavior of customers; registering the determined in-store behavior; generating from the detected image an unregistered person to register as a customer; manage a point given to the first & second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information; permitting the first customer to use the point and not permit the second customer to use the point; and giving points to the customer based on a number of visits to a store, time spent in the store, a number of times a customer tries a product, a number of times the customer makes a purchase, a paid amount, a number of times the customer stops in front of a campaign product, a number of times the customer passes by the campaign product, a number of times the customer purchases the campaign product, or a number of times the customer brings a bag to take a purchased product home, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11, and 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the collation of images; detection of customers within the image; registering in-store behavior; and processing registration applications for customers. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activity; managing personal behavior; and mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “store customer information including customer attribute information and face information of a first customer who has registered the customer attribute information and the face information and the face information of a second customer who has registered the face information without registering the customer attribute information, the face information comprising a feature value of a face or a face image” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to; digital camera; a display; camera; a computer; A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11, and 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 6-7 and 15-16 additionally recite “display the guidance information related to a point given to the determined second customer” and “acquire registration application information including the customer attribute information and a face image” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “display” and “processor” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to; digital camera; a display; a camera; a computer; A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 9, 11, and 13-17; non-transitory storage medium claim 10; and apparatus claims 1-2 & 4-8 recite “A processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to; digital camera; a display; a camera; a computer; A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0018 and Figures 1-2, 6, 8, and 10. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “store customer information including customer attribute information and face information of a first customer who has registered the customer attribute information and the face information and the face information of a second customer who has registered the face information without registering the customer attribute information, the face information comprising a feature value of a face or a face image” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 4-8, 11, and 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 6-7 and 15-16 additionally recite “display the guidance information related to a point given to the determined second customer” and “acquire registration application information including the customer attribute information and a face image” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “display” and “processor” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman (U.S 2021/0042673 A1) in view of Ramalingam (U.S 9,767,474 B1).
Claims 1, 9, and 10
Regarding Claim 1, Lieberman discloses the following:
A processing apparatus comprising [see at least Paragraph 001 for reference to the system that authenticates customers; Paragraph 0026 for reference to the system containing a network communicatively coupled with one or more data devices]
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions [see at least Paragraph 0067 for reference to the number of servers and user communication devices including at least one programmed processor and at least one memory or storage devices]
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to [see at least Paragraph 0067 for reference to a number of servers and user communication devices each of which may include at least one programmed processor]
store customer information including customer attribute information and face information of a first customer who has registered the customer attribute information and the face information and the face information of a second customer who has registered the face information without registering the customer attribute information, the face information comprising a feature value of a face or face image [see at least Paragraph 0014 for reference to the customer profile including data concerning the customer’s account, prior interactions (e.g., past branch visits, etc.); Paragraph 0034 for reference to the database containing account data for customers as well as customer profile data; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the visual interface including facial recognition feature being coupled to one or more cameras to perform facial recognition and identification through a gesture, facial expression, eye scan and/or visual biometric; Paragraph 0050 for reference to customer profile including various forms of customer information, such as customer identification data (e.g. , bio metrics , demographic , etc.), customer preference data, prior history data (e.g., prior history data at this specific location, prior history for entire company, etc.); existing products/services; account data; transaction data (e.g., merchant data, etc.); web interaction data (e.g., search, web pages visited, etc.); app interaction data; phone interaction data (e.g., IVR, CSR, phone complaint, etc.); type of customer (e.g. , premium , high wealth , etc.); past fraud data (e.g., customer's account was compromised last month ; customer has been a victim of identity theft , etc.) and/or other relevant data; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 152 ‘Database’]
collate an image captured in a store captured by the digital camera with the face information [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to images being captured by cameras and conveyed to the processing unit; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 210 ‘cameras’]
detect the first customer and the second customer in the image [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the authentication interface containing a camera for facial recognition; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the visual interface including a facial recognition feature to perform on visitors when they approach; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 200 ‘Authentication Interface’ and item 242 ‘Visual Interface’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 312 ‘Authentication Interface Identifies Visitor’]
determine in-store behavior of the first customer and the second customer detected in the image [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to cameras being placed around the branch to capture images, videos, and data and conveyed to the processing unit; Paragraph 0045 for reference to Authentication Interface receiving real-time data including current servicing times, available tellers and representatives, an indication that a high volume of customers with reservations are approaching the branch location, check - ins, social media updates; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 250 ‘Real-time data feed’]
register the determined in-store behavior in the customer information [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the database containing account data for customers as well as customer profile data; Paragraph 0045 for reference to the system processing customer data; Paragraph 0050 for reference to customer profile including various forms of customer information, such as customer identification data (e.g., biometrics, demographic, etc.), customer preference data, prior history data (e.g., prior history data at this specific location, prior history for entire company, etc.); existing products/services; account data; transaction data (e.g. , merchant data, etc.); web interaction data (e.g., search, web pages visited, etc.); app interaction data; phone interaction data (e.g., IVR, CSR, phone complaint, etc.); type of customer (e.g. , premium , high wealth , etc.); past fraud data (e.g. , customer's account was compromised last month ; customer has been a victim of identity theft , etc.) and/or other relevant data; Paragraph 0058 for reference to the system capturing customer data and updating the customer profile; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 152 ‘Database’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 334 ‘Update Customer Profile’]
generate, when an unregistered person whose face information is not registered is detected in the image, the face information, based on a face image of the unregistered person included in the image, and register the generated face information, as the face information of the second customer, in the customer information [see at least Paragraph 0046 for reference to the interface may determine whether the visitor is an existing customer or potential customer and for a potential new customer, the system may create a potential or new customer profile; Paragraph 0049 for reference to if the visitor's identity does not match profiles in a database, the system may determine that the visitor is not a current customer or a potential customer and create a new customer profile; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 314 ‘Existing Customer?’ and item 316 ‘Create New Profile’]
manage a point given to the first customer and the second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information [see at least Paragraph 0014 for reference to for an existing customer, the system may identify the customer by name, identifier, nickname, icon, image, etc. and access the customer's profile for a customized experience; Examiner notes the ‘identifier’ as analogous to the ‘point’]
permit the first customer to use the point, and not permit the second customer to use the point [see at least Paragraph 0014 for reference to the system only generating an identifier for existing customers; Paragraph 0014 for reference to upon identification and authentication, the system may generate customer interaction event and place the customer in an appropriate queue for service where the customer is prioritized accordingly]
While Lieberman discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose manage a point given to the first customer and the second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information, the point being configured to be at least one of: exchanged for a product, converted to electronic money, or used for payment at the store; and give a point to both the first customer and the second customer based on a number of visits to a store, time spent in the store, a number of times a customer tries a product, a number of times the customer makes a purchase, a paid amount, a number of times the customer stops in front of a campaign product, a number of times the customer passes by the campaign product, a number of times the customer purchases the campaign product, or a number of times the customer brings a bag to take a purchased product home.
However, Ramalingam discloses the following:
manage a point given to the first customer and the second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information, the point being configured to be at least one of: exchanged for a product, converted to electronic money, or used for payment at the store [see at least Col 32 lines 48-61 for reference to the system using points provided by merchants to customers as form of reward or incentive for customer loyalty wherein loyalty points are stored on a virtual or digital punch card; Col 35 lines 9-34 for reference to the loyalty point account being established on the mobile device to track loyalty points on the mobile device; Col 35 lines 35-39 for reference to the number of punches are added to the punch card stored in the mobile device following the completion of transactions; Col 36 lines 62-64 for reference to electronic currency, punch cards, or loyalty points being utilized as payment; Col 37 lines 40-42 for reference to loyalty points being accepted by the merchant as payment when the number of loyalty points equals or exceeds a predetermined number; Figure 22 and related text regarding using a virtual punch card with a mobile device; Figure 23 and related text regarding using loyalty points associated with a mobile device including item 2306 ‘ESTABLISH A LOYALTY POINT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOBILE DEVICE’]
permit the first customer to use the point, and not permit the second customer to use the point [see at least Col 33 lines 19-24 for reference to the merchant benefiting from the use of punch cards because of encryption or other techniques that make forging an electronic punch more difficult; Col 34 lines 12-18 for reference to the merchant allowing limited trading and selling of punches; Figure 22 and related text regarding using a virtual punch card with a mobile device; Figure 23 and related text regarding using loyalty points associated with a mobile device including item 2306 ‘ESTABLISH A LOYALTY POINT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOBILE DEVICE’]
give a point to both the first customer and the second customer based on a number of visits to a store, time spent in the store, a number of times a customer tries a product, a number of times the customer makes a purchase, a paid amount, a number of times the customer stops in front of a campaign product, a number of times the customer passes by the campaign product, a number of times the customer purchases the campaign product, or a number of times the customer brings a bag to take a purchased product home [see at least Col 35 lines 43-58 for reference to the number of points provided to the user for a given transaction being base on the number of items purchased, an amount of money spent, or another metric associated with the transaction; Col 37 lines 16-20 for reference to the loyalty point accounts corresponding to a respective merchant and tracking a number of purchases made by the mobile device; Figure 22 and related text regarding using a virtual punch card with a mobile device; Figure 23 and related text regarding using loyalty points associated with a mobile device including item 2312 ‘SEND LOYALTY POINTS’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the customer in-store behavior tracking method of Lieberman to include the loyalty point tracking ability of Ramalingam. Doing so would provide ways for a user of a mobile device to complete transactions with merchants with lower friction than conventional customer-merchants transactions, as stated by Ramalingam (Col 32 lines 26-30).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Lieberman teaches a processing method comprising a computer [Paragraph 0046, 0059, and Figure 3 & 4]. Regarding claim 10, Lieberman teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to [Paragraph 0026 and 0069]. Therefore, claims 9 and 10 are rejected as being unpatentable in view of Lieberman and Ramalingam.
Claims 2 and 11
While the combination of Lieberman and Ramalingam discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Lieberman discloses the following:
collate the image with the face information of the second customer [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to images being captured by cameras and conveyed to the processing unit]
detect, in the image, the second customer who visits a store for a second or subsequent time [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the authentication interface containing a camera for facial recognition; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the visual interface including a facial recognition feature to perform on visitors when they approach; Paragraph 0050 for reference to the customer profile data including prior history data (e.g., prior history data at this specific location, prior history for entire company, etc.); Figure 2 and related text regarding item 200 ‘Authentication Interface’ and item 242 ‘Visual Interface’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 312 ‘Authentication Interface Identifies Visitor’]
register in-store behavior of the second customer determined at each of a plurality of times of visit to the store in the customer information, in association with each other [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the database containing account data for customers as well as customer profile data; Paragraph 0045 for reference to the system processing customer data; Paragraph 0050 for reference to customer profile including various forms of customer information, such as customer identification data (e.g., biometrics, demographic, etc.), customer preference data, prior history data (e.g., prior history data at this specific location, prior history for entire company, etc.); existing products/services; account data; transaction data (e.g. , merchant data, etc.); web interaction data (e.g., search, web pages visited, etc.); app interaction data; phone interaction data (e.g., IVR, CSR, phone complaint, etc.); type of customer (e.g. , premium , high wealth , etc.); past fraud data (e.g. , customer's account was compromised last month ; customer has been a victim of identity theft , etc.) and/or other relevant data; Paragraph 0058 for reference to the system capturing customer data and updating the customer profile; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 152 ‘Database’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 334 ‘Update Customer Profile’]
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4 and 13
While the combination of Lieberman and Ramalingam discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Lieberman discloses the following:
notify the second customer of guidance information indicating a point given to the second customer and also indicating that the point becomes usable by performing a predetermined procedure [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to the customer may be directed to an appropriate location within the branch (e.g., through a push notification to their mobile device, or through a screen in the branch); Paragraph 0039 for reference to the display issuing welcome messages including a name, identifier, nickname, image, logo, image, animation, video, hologram, 3D graphic, etc.; Paragraph 0062 for reference to the customer's mobile device may receive alerts, notifications, reminders, etc.]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 14
While the combination of Lieberman and Ramalingam discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Lieberman discloses the following:
the predetermined procedure includes at least one of registration of the customer attribute information, registration of the face information satisfying a predetermined condition, or indication of intention to consent that the store uses the registered in-store behavior [see at least Paragraph 0014 for reference to the profile including data concerning the customer’s account including reason for branch visit; Paragraph 0014 for reference to the system authenticating the customer; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the Authentication Interface containing various ways for the visitor to interact with the interface to authenticate themselves; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 320 ‘Retrieve/Access Customer Data’; Figure 4 and related text regarding the method for authentication and queuing including item 420 ‘Access Reason and Appointment Data’]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15
While the combination of Lieberman and Ramalingam discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Lieberman discloses the following:
determine, by collating a customer image generated by a camera installed in a store with the face information included in the customer information, the second customer included in the customer image [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the authentication interface containing a camera for facial recognition; Paragraph 0038 for reference to images being captured by cameras and conveyed to the processing unit; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the visual interface including a facial recognition feature to perform on visitors when they approach; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 312 ‘Authentication Interface Identifies Visitor’]
cause a display to display the guidance information related to a point given to the determined second customer [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the display issuing welcome messages including a name, identifier, nickname, image, logo, image, animation, video, hologram, 3D graphic, etc.; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the display providing instructions on where the customer can be serviced as well as wait times and other notifications; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 230 ‘Display’]
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 8 and 17
While the combination of Lieberman and Ramalingam discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 8, Lieberman discloses the following:
analyze in-store behavior of the first customer and the second customer registered in the customer information [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to cameras being placed around the branch to capture images, videos, and data and conveyed to the processing unit; Paragraph 0045 for reference to the system processing customer data; Paragraph 0045 for reference to Authentication Interface receiving real-time data including current servicing times, available tellers and representatives, an indication that a high volume of customers with reservations are approaching the branch location, check - ins, social media updates; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 250 ‘Real-time data feed’]
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman (U.S 2021/0042673 A1) in view of Ramalingam (U.S 9,767,474 B1), as applied in claims 1 and 9, in view of Battle (U.S 2018/0232739 A1).
Claims 7 and 16
While the combination of Lieberman and Ramalingam discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose acquire registration application information including the customer attribute information and a face image; register, in the customer information, the customer attribute information of an applicant included in the registration application information and the face information generated based on a face image included in the registration application information, as the customer attribute information and the face information of the first customer; collate the face image included in the registration application information with the face information of the second customer included in the customer information, and decide whether the applicant who has transmitted the registration application information is registered as the second customer in the customer information; and register, when the applicant is registered as the second customer in the customer information, the in-store behavior registered in association with the applicant while the applicant is registered as the second customer, in association with customer identification information of the applicant who is registered as the first customer in the customer information.
Regarding Claim 7, Battle discloses the following:
acquire registration application information including the customer attribute information and a face image [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to the service including biometric authentication and registration; Paragraph 0047 for reference to the user device gathering biometric information about a user, such as facial and periocular recognition features and, in some embodiments, voice and/or fingerprint feature; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 402 ‘Capture sensor data’]
register, in the customer information, the customer attribute information of an applicant included in the registration application information and the face information generated based on a face image included in the registration application information, as the customer attribute information and the face information of the first customer [see at least Paragraph 0048 for reference to user device 120 may create a template based on a biometric identity of the user and useable to verify the user ' s identity for cryptocurrency transactions and / or other purposes; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the user device capturing sensor data including videos and images of the users face; Figure 4 and related text regarding the template creation process including item 404 ‘Analyze sensor data’]
collate the face image included in the registration application information with the face information of the second customer included in the customer information, and decide whether the applicant who has transmitted the registration application information is registered as the second customer in the customer information [see at least Paragraph 0050 for reference to the user device analyzing the sensor data including processing the captured 2D imagery to locate a best-matching object from the database; Paragraph 0051 for reference to the user extracting biometric data from the processed sensor data to identify a face from the 3D object with 2D image overlaid thereon; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 404 ‘Analyze sensor data’ and item 406 ‘Extract biometric data’]
register, when the applicant is registered as the second customer in the customer information, the in-store behavior registered in association with the applicant while the applicant is registered as the second customer, in association with customer identification information of the applicant who is registered as the first customer in the customer information [see at least Paragraph 0052 for reference to user device derive a template for the user from the biometric data; Paragraph 0054 for reference to devices with multiple sensors (e. g., video and audio sensors), process may be repeated for each sensor, and data captured at the same time (e. g., of the same subject) by each sensor may be associated with each other to form a plurality of associated templates for the user or a combined audio/video template for the user; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 408 ‘Derive template for user’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the account data of Lieberman to include the specific registration data of Battle. Advanced authentication systems and methods may improve the security of the accounts and trustworthiness of the transactions, as stated by Battle (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kröckel, Johannes, and Freimut Bodendorf. "Visual customer behavior analysis at the point of sale." International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements 5.3-4 (2012): 178-187.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2021/0327234 A1
Chandramowle et al.
BUILDING SYSTEM WITH SENSOR-BASED AUTOMATED CHECKOUT SYSTEM
US 2019/0236377 A1
Otake, Ritsuko
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
CN110991309A
Deng, Guo-qiang
A Face Recognition-based Store Consumer Behavior Analysis Guide Marketing Method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights