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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 4/15/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to the Title and Abstract. The newly-amended title is acceptable. However, the amendments to the abstract still contain phrases which can be implied (“The subject technologies relate to”). As indicated previously, the language of the abstract should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-13, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Shlomot (US 20230384871 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Liu discloses a device, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, (Liu: see at least ¶63) comprising:
receiving, via an interface, at least one instance of item description data that relates to an item that is determined to be considered for a purchase associated with a shopper entity; (Liu: see at least ¶29: user interfaces with shopping cart, which received a shopping list of keywords)
interfacing with a server device associated with a vendor entity that offers products for sale at a physical store location, wherein the server device comprises a digital twin, indicative of a virtual representation of the physical store location, the digital twin comprising store location data for the products offered for sale; (Liu: see at least ¶32, 84: shopping list feature generates a map with items in store; shopping list feature implemented by a server that stores store information including information for generating a layout on routing information)
generating shopping list data in response to a matching procedure that iteratively matches respective instances of the at least one instance of item description data to a product identifier retained by the digital twin, wherein the product identifier identifies a product of the products for sale at the physical store location; (Liu: see at least ¶51, fig. 6B: locations of items in shopping list mapped to specific locations in store in response to user selecting feature to map keywords of the shopping list to the store)
performing a navigation procedure that communicates, via the interface, directions within the physical store location to the product based on a store location retained by the digital twin (Liu: see at least ¶57: user interface generates route to obtain items that correspond to keywords; user may be guided as they shop in store to next item)
Liu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the shopper entity is a person with a vision impairment
wherein the performing of the navigation procedure comprises communicating the directions to the shopper entity in a tactile manner based on causing a device wearable by the shopper entity to vibrate in a defined manner.
Shlomot teaches that it is known to include assisting a person with vision impairment by providing a navigation procedure communicating directions in a tactile manner based on causing a device to vibrate (Shlomot: see at least ¶29) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu, with the teachings of Shlomot, since such a modification would have provided a cheap and simple device that can provide comfortable and intuitive pointing and interacting capabilities with objects of interest in the user's surroundings. (Shlomot: see at least ¶5)
Regarding Claim 12 and 16
Claims 12 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1 and rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 2
Liu does not exiplictly disclose, but Shlomot teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the interface is configured to enhance a non-visual aspect of communication to mitigate the vision impairment (Shlomot: see at least ¶29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu, with the teachings of Shlomot, since such a modification would have provided a cheap and simple device that can provide comfortable and intuitive pointing and interacting capabilities with objects of interest in the user's surroundings. (Shlomot: see at least ¶5)
Regarding Claims 5-8, 10, 13, 18, 19
Liu further discloses:
wherein the matching procedure selects from among multiple matching products, of the products, that match the item description data based on at least one of a preference associated with the shopper entity or selection input received from the shopper entity (Liu: see at least ¶32: keywords on shopping list matched to particular products locations in response to user input)
wherein the matching procedure further comprises, in response to identifying an alternative product that differs from the product matched to the item description data, presenting, via the interface, first information about the alternative product and second information about the product (Liu: see at least ¶33-36, 48: system recommend alternative keywords and/or items that are not on user’s shopping list)
wherein the navigation procedure further comprises determining the directions according to at least one of: accessibility accommodations available at the physical store location, department associated with the product of the shopping list data, type of the product of the shopping list data, a packing preference for the shopping list data, or a weight or a fragility of the product of the shopping list data. (Liu: see at least ¶41: department associated with product)
wherein the navigation procedure further comprises, prior to communicating the direction, presenting, via the interface, at least one of: a first description of the product; a second description as to why the product was selected in response to the item description data; a third description of access to the product; or a verification request that requests a verification that the directions to the product are to be provided or whether the product is to be changed or removed from the shopping list data. (Liu: see at least fig. 2B: description of product)
wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a point of sale procedure that processes presented products for purchase, determining whether the product is among the presented products (Liu: see at least ¶37, 50: items from shopping list determined to correspond to completed or uncompleted tasks, and moved to respective sections of interface in response to items added to and detected by cart)
Regarding Claim 9
Liu does not exiplictly disclose, but Shlomot teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the directions are further communicated to the shopper entity in an audible manner (Shlomot: see at least ¶29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu, with the teachings of Shlomot, since such a modification would have provided a cheap and simple device that can provide comfortable and intuitive pointing and interacting capabilities with objects of interest in the user's surroundings. (Shlomot: see at least ¶5)
2. Claims 3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Shlomot, as applied above, and further in view of Hopkins (US 20090032590 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 17
Liu in view of Shlomot does not explicitly disclose:
wherein at least a second instance of item description data is communicated to the interface as a Braille communication
Beck teaches that it is known to provide assistance to a visually impaired person by communicating information to an interface as a Braille communication (see at least ¶30) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Shlomot, with the teachings of Beck, since such a modification would have provided a device that is configured to convert audible distress signals into useful information that can trigger the device to perform an action to ameliorate the distress, without necessarily requiring user input. (Beck: see at least ¶8)
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Shlomot, as applied above, and further in view of Knight et al. (US 20250124238 A1, hereinafter Knight)
Regarding Claim 4
Liu in view of Shlomot does not explicitly disclose, but Knight teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the matching procedure uses an output from a large language model to match the item description data, as input to the large language model, to the product identifier, as the output (Knight: see at least ¶49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Shlomot, with the matching procedure using an LLM, as taught by Knight, since such a modification would have improved on the technical fields of machine-learning models and data analysis by reducing the need to account for different data structures or formats that may change over time (Knight: ¶12).
4. Claims 11, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Shlomot, as applied above, and further in view of Kocienda et al. (US 20240310900 A1, hereinafter Kocienda).
Regarding Claims 11, 14, 20
Liu in view of Shlomot does not explicitly disclose, but Kocienda teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the operations further comprise, in response to the product being determined not to be among the presented products, generating a notification to at least one of the server device or the shopper entity that the product was not presented at point of sale or an incorrect product was presented at the point of sale (Kocienda see at least ¶226-227: user alerted that item is missing from shopping cart)
based on point of sale data, determining, by the device, that the product is a missing product that was not processed during a point of sale transaction and, in response, transmitting, by the device, a first indication of the missing product to at least one of a shopper entity that is part of the point of sale transaction or the vendor entity. (Kocienda see at least ¶226-227: user alerted that item is missing from shopping cart))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Shlomot, with the teachings of Kocienda, since such a modification would have provided insights to help a shopper improve their health and happiness. (Kocienda: see at least ¶448)
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Shlomot, as applied above, and further in view of Acker, JR. et al. (US 20140214577 A1, hereinafter Acker)
Regarding Claim 15
Liu in view of Shlomot does not explicitly disclose, but Acker teaches in a similar environment:
based on the point of sale data, the store location data, or other data of the digital twin, determining, by the device that an errant product was collected by the shopper entity instead of the missing product and, in response, transmitting, by the device, a second indication of the errant product to at least one of the shopper entity or the vendor entity (Acker: see at least ¶22: incorrect product may be identified, and error indicated to user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Shlomot, with the determination of an errant item, as taught by Acker, since such a modification would have ensured that a customer receives desired items in a checkout process (Acker: ¶22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the present amendments. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections 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.
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 MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights