DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed September 30th, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13-16 have been amended. Claims 3 and 12 have been cancelled. 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 .
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 09/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the provided remarks, Applicant requests “the USPTO retrieve a certified copy of the priority document according to standard USPTO practice.” Examiner cites MPEP 213.06 ‘Claiming Priority and Filing a Certified Copy in a National Stage Application’ as well as 37 CFR 1.55 for guidance regarding “standard USPTO practice”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 09/30/25, with respect to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 06/30/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 09/30/25, with respect to claims 6, 9, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of 06/30/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 09/30/25, with respect to claims 6 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 06/30/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 09/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Continuing on page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are ‘Solving a Technical Problem and Improving Computer Functionality’. Specifically, Applicant argues that the technical problem is that prior art “could only collect information on customers who had undergone a membership registration in advance, which limited the data available for analysis”. Examiner asserts that a limited collection of data is not a technical problem as the collection of data could be performed as an act of the human mind. Further, Applicant argues that the claimed “(a) detects an "unregistered person" who has not registered in advance from an image captured within a store; (b) automatically generates facial information from the face image of that unregistered person and newly registers them in a database as a "second type of customer" without customer attribute information; and (c) subsequently tracks and records the in-store behavior of this "second type of customer” present a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the cited limitations do not present a technical improvement. The claimed “collate an image captured in a store with the face information, and detect the first customer and the second customer in the image” is recited with a high-level of generality such that the detection under broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed as an observation and judgement of the human mind. Further, the claimed “generates facial information from the face image of that unregistered person” does not recite the argued registration within a database. The argued limitation does not recite any technical elements beyond the generic “processor” which is analogous to apply it using a generic computer component. Finally, the argued tracking of subsequent in-store behavior is recited with a high-level of generality such that the tracking could be performed as an observation of the human mind. Therefore, the claim does not address a specific technical problem and fails to provide a specific technical solution. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 13-14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues ‘The Process Cannot Be Performed as a Mental Process’. Specifically, Applicant argues, “a process in which a single human being instantly identifies a first-time visitor from among numerous daily customers, generates and memorizes unique identification information (facial information) from that person's face in their mind, tracks and records all of their subsequent detailed behavior within the store, and further, upon that person's revisit at a later date, immediately recognizes them as the same individual to link to their past behavioral history, far exceeds human capabilities in terms of its scale, speed, and accuracy.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the present claims do not recite the argued process in totality. For example, the claims do not recite “generates and memorizes unique identification information” or “upon that person's revisit at a later date, immediately recognizes them as the same individual to link to their past behavioral history”. The claim merely recites, “collate an image captured in a store with the face information, and detect the first customer and the second customer in the image” which as stated above is recited with a high-level of generality such that the detection under broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed as an observation and judgement of the human mind. Further, Applicant’s argued “immediate recognition” of past behavior is similarly claimed in dependent claim 2 as merely “collate the image with the face information of the second customer, and detect, in the image, the second customer who visits a store for a second or subsequent time”. Examiner asserts that these functions could be performed as observations and judgements of the human mind. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 14 to argue “the processes realized by the claims are deeply rooted in computer technology with a specific configuration and are fundamentally different from a mental process.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that 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; camera; a display; 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). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, on page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues ‘The Claimed Invention Recite Elements that Amounts to “Significantly More” Than an Abstract Idea’. Specifically, Applicant argues” the core of the pending claims lies not in whether the individual elements are generic, but in how they work in combination to execute a specific, unconventional process and improve the functionality of the computer”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) “v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as a consideration for evaluating whether additional elements amount to an inventive concept. While Applicant argues that the individual elements “execute a specific, unconventional process and improve the functionality of the computer” Examiner asserts that the additional elements of the present claims 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. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 15 of the provided remarks to argue that the inventive concept “resides in the following unique unconventional logic: The system autonomously generates and registers a new, persistent customer profile (a "second type of customer") from an image of a previously unknown "unregistered person." By utilizing this automatically generated profile, the system enables the continuous tracking and accumulation of behavioral history across multiple store visits, even without the customer performing an explicit act of registration.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that while Applicant argues that the claims register “a new persistent customer profile” the present claims merely recite “register the generated face information, as the face information of the second customer, in the customer information”. This “customer information” is recited with a high-level of generality such that this registration of information is analogous to the observation and evaluation of the human mind. Therefore, the unconventional logic argued by Applicant is merely directed to the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, on page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “This process does not simply give an abstract instruction to a computer. It defines a new type of customer tracking system that fundamentally changes the method of data collection and management. This specific data processing logic directly improves the function of the computer itself as a data analysis tool and is not a "well-known, routine, conventional" activity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued “customer tracking system” is analogous to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the form of Commercial Interaction Sales Activity. As Applicant has not pointed to specific limitations that “fundamentally change the method of data collection” or “improve the function of the computer itself”, the following argument is moot. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “This configuration, which "automatically creates a database of unregistered persons as trackable 'second types of customers'," transforms any alleged abstract idea into a specific technical application and amounts to "significantly more" than the idea itself.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues, as stated above, the present claims do not recite the argued “creation of a database” but merely recites “register the generated face information, as the face information of the second customer, in the customer information”. This “customer information” is recited with a high-level of generality such that this registration of information is analogous to the observation and evaluation of the human mind. Therefore, the unconventional logic argued by Applicant is merely directed to the abstract idea. 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 regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) filed 09/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 15-17 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Beginning on page 16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues the previously cited Lieberman reference “is an unreasonably broad interpretation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claim merely recites “manage a point given to the first customer and the second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information”. The argued point is recited with no bounds or further description of what the point is other than a value registered within the customer information. Therefore, the cited “identifier” of Lieberman is analogous. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 17 of the provided remarks to argue “Lieberman's "identifier" is merely information for customer identification and is fundamentally different from a "point," which is a value that is accumulated according to behavior and can be consumed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the present claims do not recite the “consumption” of the argued “point”. Additionally, as stated above, the claim merely recites “manage a point given to the first customer and the second customer according to in-store behavior registered in the customer information”. The argued point is recited with no bounds or further description of what the point is other than a value registered within the customer information. Therefore, the cited “identifier” of Lieberman is analogous. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues “Lieberman's "prioritization... in an appropriate queue" is merely a temporary change in the order of service, which is entirely different from the "use [of] the point," wherein a customer actively uses an accumulated value, as recited in claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Applicant’s assertion of the point representing “customer actively uses an accumulated value” is not present in the amended claim. The argued point is recited with no bounds or further description of what the point is other than a value registered within the customer information. Therefore, the cited “identifier” of Lieberman is analogous. The 35 USC 102 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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; collate an image captured in a store 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; 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; and permit the first customer to use the point, and not permit the second customer to use the point (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, 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, 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; and permitting the first customer to use the point and not permit the second customer to use the point, 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” 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; camera; a display; 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; camera; a display; 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; camera; a display; 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” 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lieberman (U.S 2021/0042673 A1).
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 [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 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 with the face information [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to images being captured by cameras and conveyed to the processing unit]
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]
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.
Claims 2 and 11
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
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
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, and 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
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
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 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) 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 Battle (U.S 2018/0232739 A1).
Claims 7 and 16
While Lieberman discloses the limitations above, it does 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:
Liu, Jingwen, Yanlei Gu, and Shunsuke Kamijo. "Customer behavior recognition in retail store from surveillance camera." 2015 IEEE international symposium on multimedia (ISM). IEEE, 2015.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 9767474 B1
Ramalingam et al.
Transaction Tracking And Incentives
US 2017/0032404 A1
Sembrat et al.
Customer Purchase Data Network System, Method, And Apparatus
US 2011/0257985 A1
Goldstein, Boris
Method And System For Facial Recognition Applications Including Avatar Support
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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 b