Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 14 & 16 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 10/01/2025. Claims 1 – 3, 5, 12, & 14 were amended and claims 11 & 13 were cancelled in a reply filed 01/02/2026. Claims 1 – 10, 12, 14, & 16 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Examiner notes, regarding the “notice of additional fee due” mailed on 01/21/2026, that the appropriate fees have been paid in association with the reply filed 01/02/2026. Therefore, no additional fee pertaining to this notice is required.
Response to Arguments
The claims filed 01/02/2026 have overcome the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101. In particular, the implementation of the orientation sensor of the user’s device in order to display a real-time augmented reality image with overlaid routing information provides an improvement to indoor navigation technology, and thus integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 4, 8, 12, 14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1), in view of Ikavalko et al. (US 20160069689 A1), in view of Ellis et al. (US 8639621 B1).
As per claim 1, Dupont discloses an information provision apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (C 3, L 28 – 36 & 40 – 49); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (C 3, L 26 – 38 & 53 – 55) to:
• acquire, from a terminal held by a user, second position information indicating a position of the user at a time of entry into a facility, the second position information being acquired by using a position detection function which uses a GPS function of the terminal (C 9, L 21 – 32, using GPS to detect a last location when the user moves inside a facility entrance. Also see Fig. 3 & C 6, L 10 – 16 and Fig. 5 & C 7, L 10 – 22, noting tracking a user’s movement upon moving through “entrance 311” of a facility. Also see Fig. 4, L 61 – C 5, L 1, noting the monitoring of a user’s device’s current location via GPS.);
• acquire an image from the terminal when the user is located in the facility, the image being an image of a peripheral area in the facility at a current position of the user which is captured by an image capturing unit of the terminal (C 6, L 46 – 54, “the participant may… capture an image of some other feature of the indoor space associated with a known location (for example, a picture of a door, sign, monument, or some other feature associated with a location in the indoor space).”);
Regarding the following limitations, Dupont discloses:
• generate, by processing the image, first position information indicating a position of the user (C 6, L 46 – 59, identifying a current user location based on the captured image of the indoor space.);
To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system routes the user to a selected destination from the user’s determined current position, Ikavalko teaches this functionality:
• acquire a destination being set by the user from the terminal; {…} generate, by using the first position information and the destination, first route information indicating a first route that the user is to move to the destination ([0038] – [0039], [0042], & [0052], a user interacting with a “user device” to generate a route the “user 105's selected” “final destination.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ikavalko in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to advantageously “allow the user to take a shopping detour and spend less total time shopping {…} than if the user stayed on the original route and did the shopping on a separate trip,” as evidenced by Ikavalko, in [0010].
Dupont further discloses:
• select, by using the first position information, advertisement information to be provided to the user (C 3, L 1 – 4; C 7, L 34 – 57; C 7, L 61 – 64; C 8, L 47 – 59; selecting and sending advertisements to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space.);
• and transmit, to the terminal, the first route information and the advertisement information being selected, wherein the advertisement information relates to a shop in the facility (C 7, L 34 – 57 & 61 – 64 as well as C 8, L 14 – 31 & 47 – 59; sending advertisements with navigation information to the advertised item to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space. As per C 6, L 10 – 22; C 8, L 32 – 45; & C 10, L46 – 54, the advertisement information relates to a shop in the facility. Also see at least C 5, L 42 – 46; C 6, L 28 – 30; C 9, L 50 – 51; & C 11, L 52 – 56, noting that a user device receives routes from the system server. Also see C 2, L 66 – C 3, L 8, ads selected for shops within a mall at the user’s current location.);
Regarding the following limitations,
• and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: when information indicating that the advertisement information selected is acquired from the terminal, update the first route information to generate updated route information by adding the shop corresponding to the advertisement information as a transit point while maintaining the destination,
Dupont discloses, in C 7, L 61 – C 8, L 31, that the user device is made to display an “advertisement 650. By activating the location mechanism 652, the participant may be provided with a location of the advertised item. …Upon activating the location mechanism 652, a display mapping a path to the item may be presented to the participant, for example, as shown in FIG. 7,” comprising a route to the location of the advertised item. As per at least C 5, L 42 – 46; C 6, L 28 – 30; C 9, L 50 – 51; & C 11, L 52 – 56, the routing is provided to the user device from the server. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein an original route is updated to add the selected merchant location for the item while maintaining the destination, Ikavalko, in [0038], [0046], [0049], [0052], & esp. [0053], teaches wherein the system updates a first route “to the final destination” to include merchant locations that were selected by the user as a shopping detour to the original destination. Rationale to combine Ikavalko persists.
Regarding the following limitations,
• and control the terminal to display, on a screen, a real-time image being captured by the image capturing unit of the terminal, and also display a mark on the screen by being superimposed on the real-time image, the mark indicating a direction in which the user is to move along a route indicating the updated route information, the direction of the mark being specified by using a detection result of a sensor for detecting an orientation of the terminal, the first position information, and the updated route information,
Dupont, in Fig. 5 & C 7, L 10 – 22, discloses displaying a real-time location of the user device as the user moves through the indoor space with a superimposed path (i.e., mark) indicating a direction in which the user is to move along the route to the selected item, the direction of the mark being specified by using a detection result of a sensor for detecting an orientation of the terminal, the first position information, and the updated route information in at least C 5, L 6 – 18; C 7, L 11 – 22; C 8, L 14 – 31; & C 9, L 63 – C 10, L 2, which describes using an orientation sensor of the user device to determine an orientation and current position of the user device based on the “orientation data” to generate routes. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the displayed image is a real-time image being captured by the image capturing unit of the terminal, and displaying the mark on the real-time camera image, Ellis teaches this functionality in C 20, L 30 – 65, noting overlaying the direction of sale product in a merchant location using an “augmented reality” image that is captured by a user device in real-time and is based on the orientation of the user’s device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ellis in the invention of Dupont / Ikavalko with the motivation of “helping the account holder find the product within the store,” as evidenced by Ellis, in C 20, L 66 – 67.
As per claim 2, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the image is captured in the facility (C 6, L 46 – 54, “the participant may scan a bar code or capture an image of some other feature of the indoor space associated with a known location (for example, a picture of a door, sign, monument, or some other feature associated with a location in the indoor space).” As per C 2, L 66 – C 3, L 8 and C 10, L 44 – 54, the indoor space can be a mall facility.);
• and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine the facility by using the second position information (Fig. 3 & C 6, L 10 – 16 and Fig. 5 & C 7, L 10 – 22, noting determining that the user has moved through “entrance 311” of a particular facility.);
• and generate the first position information by using reference information being associated with the facility being determined (C 4, L 36 – 45; C 6, L 10 – 20 & 43 – 66; C 7, L 1 – 22, generating a current user position by referencing a “floor plan” of the particular determined facility.).
As per claim 3, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further select the advertisement information by using a time or a date (C 8, L 32 – 45, using a time to select specific discounts for particular groups of users in order to evenly distribute crowds.).
As per claim 4, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further select the advertisement information by using an object captured in the image (C 6, L 46 – 59, identifying a location based on a captured image of the indoor space, which, as per C 3, L 1 – 4; C 7, L 34 – 57; C 7, L 61 – 64; C 8, L 47 – 59 is used to selecting advertisements to the user device based on the user’s identified location within the indoor space.).
As per claim 8, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the advertisement information by using at least one of attribution information and preference information that relate to the user (C 9, L 7 – 15; C 10, L 7 – 54, selecting ads based on preference and attribute information of the user gleaned from determining the user’s intent.).
As per claim 12, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses wherein, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
• when the updated route information is generated, select the advertisement information being new; and transmit the new advertisement information being selected to the terminal together with the updated route information (C 7, 61 – 64 & C 8, L 4 – 31, new ads are selected as the user progresses along the provided floor plan, along with a path to the item associated with the new ads.).
As per claim 14, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Dupont additionally discloses an information provision method (C 1, L 28 – 39 & Claim 1 of Dupont) comprising, by a computer executing the steps as outlined above as per claim 1.
As per claim 16, see the above relevant rejection of claim 14 (and claim 1). Dupont additionally discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute the information provision method according to claim 14 (Claim 9 of Dupont & C 3, L 26 – 39 & 53 – 64).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis, in further view of Kraft (US 20160314512 A1).
As per claim 5, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 4. To the extent to which Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Kraft teaches wherein:
• the image includes a plurality of frame images ([0015] & [0025]), a plurality of captured image frames), and at least one of the plurality of frame images being used by determining the position is not used by selecting the advertisement information ([0025], “determine the location of the customer 101 based at least in part on a background image of the specific product 102 and/or other images captured by the computing device 103. A background image containing in-store features can be analyzed and matched against the 3D layout/dimensions and in-store visual features of the store 101 to determine the location correlated to the captured background image or images.”; [0043], “image… data from a computing device of the customer can be analyzed and matched against predetermined patterns of the store to determine location of the customer. In some embodiments, background store features in the image data taken by the customer can be extracted and used to match a specific location in the store.”; [0047] “the device can use the images (e.g., still or video) captured from the imaging elements 504 and 510 to generate a three-dimensional simulation of the surrounding environment (e.g., a virtual reality of the surrounding environment for display on the display element of the device). Further, the device can utilize outputs from at least one of the image capture elements 504 and 510 to assist in determining the location and/or orientation of a user and in recognizing nearby persons, objects, or locations. For example, if the user is holding the device, the captured image information can be analyzed (e.g., using mapping information about a particular area) to determine the approximate location and/or orientation of the user. The captured image information may also be analyzed to recognize nearby persons, objects, or locations (e.g., by matching parameters or elements from the mapping information).” In other words, within an image, background frames distinct from a product are used to determine a location but not to select an ad.),
• or at least one of the plurality of frame images being used by selecting the advertisement information is not used by determining the position ([0021] – [0022], “customer 101 can use the computing device 103 to search for the specific product by inputting information related to the specific product 102, or taking a snapshot of the specific product 102.” In other words, when a user provides a manually-captured product image, it is used to generate an ad and not to provide location information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kraft in the invention of Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis with the motivation to improve the accuracy and processing time needed to provide relevant product information, as evidenced by Kraft, in [0022].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis, in further view of Ward et al. (US 20160094880 A1).
As per claim 6, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Ward teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further select the advertisement information by using a moving direction of the user (abstract, [0002], [0006], [0020], [0097], [0100], “advertisements or recommended content may be selected based on the potential destinations of the user, how quickly the user is traveling, the direction the user is traveling.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ward in the invention of Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis with the motivation to provide “advertisements or recommend content to a user that is contextually relevant to the destination of the user,” as evidenced by Ward, in [0002].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis, in further view of Short et al. (US 20170068872 A1).
As per claim 7, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Short teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the advertisement information by using at least one of clothing of a person captured in the image and air temperature ([0040], [0043] – [0044], [0051] – [0052], & [0054] – [0057], after receiving an image of “a hat that user 102 spotted another guest wearing,” the system selects “a five dollar coupon, e.g., for a restaurant, and provide instructions for presentation of a recommendation to go to the third closest location that offers the product to receive the coupon.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Short in the invention of Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis with the motivation to facilitate “delivery of the product to the guest at the selected location and time,” as evidenced by Short, in [0064].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis, in further view of Kahn et al. (US 20150168150 A1).
As per claim 9, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 8. To the extent to which Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Kahn teaches wherein:
• the facility is a stop of public transportation ([0004], “a local airport, an airport in Rome”);
• and the attribution information includes a purpose of movement using the public transportation by the user (Abstract, [0017], [0021] – [0022], [0026] – [0028], selecting ads based on a travel intent (attribute) of the user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kahn in the invention of Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis with the motivation to provide “a recommendation based upon a predicted travel intent,” as evidenced by Kahn, in [0003].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis, in further view of Jenkins et al. (US 20090156182 A1).
As per claim 10, Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis discloses the limitations of claim 8. To the extent to which Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Jenkins teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the advertisement information by using a number of visits to the facility by the user ([0054], “the recommendation may be based on a number of visits to the location”; [0039], [0041] & [0051], a recommendation is a suggestion to purchase “physical or digital merchandise”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Jenkins in the invention of Dupont / Ikavalko / Ellis with the motivation to “determine current interests of the user and generate the recommendation accordingly,” as evidenced by Jenkins, in [0035].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights