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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 2/6/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0198161) in view of Sugimoto (WO 2018/230355) further in view of Walker (2001/0056376).
With respect to claims 1-2, 8, 9 and 10, Lee teaches a wearable device worn on a head of a user (virtual reality device 170 can be wearable see Figures 1-7).
a product management server that is communicably connected to the wearable device and manages a product in a shop (i.e. The server 110 communicates with at least one mobile computing device 120, including but not limited to, an encoded information reading (EIR) terminal, including but not limited to an AR/VR device 170)(see Figures 1-7);
a camera; a control part, a communication part; and a display part, wherein the camera captures a field of view of the user, wherein the control part acquires an image captured by the camera, a trans-reflective display, wherein the trans-reflective display is arranged to display information in the visual filed of the user in an augmented reality manner (.i.e. a digital camera component 350, which enables the EIR terminal 100 to capture digital images, which may be processed by the one or more processing units of the EIR terminal 100)(see Figures 1-7);
and recognizes a first product in a line-of-sight direction of the user from the acquired image with image recognition processing (see paragraph 0028 for the AR/VR device 170 has the dual function of capturing a signal of decodable indicia from an item); wherein the first communication part transmits first information about the recognized first product to the product management server (AR/VR device 170 communicates the item information to server 110)(see figures 1-7);
wherein the second communication part receives the first information transmitted by the first communication part, wherein the memory stores a product combination list indicating combination patterns for using a plurality of products and an inventory product list related to a plurality of products in the shop, wherein the second control part determines a second product related to the first product based on the product combination list (i.e. counting inventory for an item represented in the AR/VR simulation/visualization… triggering a search in the one or more designated databases for additional data to supplement the descriptive text related to an item represented in the AR/VR)(see paragraph 0071).
Lee doesn’t teach, but Sugimoto teaches generating a discount information for discounting a price of the second product used for a dish using the first ingredient (recommended product can be selected from products on the sales floor in the moving direction from the start of holding the sashimi pack, for example, meat or seasoning). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in Lee, the teachings of Sugimoto for discounting the second product being a dish using the first ingredient because such a modification would motivate” increase in store sales”.
With respect to: wherein the communication part receives the second information including the discount information upon a determination being made that an inventory quantity of the second product in the shop is greater than or equal to a predetermined quantity, or upon a determination being made that a period from a present to an expiration date of the second product is within a predetermined period, the expiration date indicating a final date indicating a final date until which the second product is consumable . The combination of Lee and Sugimoto teach recommending a second product when a period of holding a first product expiration date of the second product is within a predetermined period. The combination of Lee and Sugimoto do not teach and Walker teaches expiration date of the second product is within a predetermined period, the expiration date indicating a final date indicating a final date until which the second product is consumable, Walker teaches “Method and Apparatus for selling an aging food product”(Abstract). Walker teaches on paragraph 0072 “the food product or food component to offer to a customer may be selected based on the specific ages or times until expiration of the food products…. For example, if both french fries or a hamburger is available to offer as an upsell in a transaction, and the time until expiration of the french fries is two minutes while the time until expiration of the hamburger is three minutes, the french fries may be selected since they are closer to expiration. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the combination of lee and Sugimoto, the teachings of Walker of expiration date of the second product is within a predetermined period, the expiration date indicating a final date indicating a final date until which the second product is consumable because such a modification would reduce the second/recommended product to be wasted by discounting products that are closer to expiration.
Claim 3 further recite the first product is a first garment displayed in a shop, and the second product is a second garment used for coordinates using the first garment. The combination of Lee and Sugimoto teach that a first ingredient is a sashimi pack and the second ingredient being a seasoning for the sashimi. The combination of Lee and Sugimoto do not teach the first product being a first garment and the second product being a second garment used for coordinating the first garment. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to recommend garments, items of clothing that supplement a first purchase. For example, when a customer buys a skirt, the system will recommend a top to go with the skirt. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the combination of Lee and Sugimoto for the first and second product to be garments in order to supplement garments wear.
With respect to claim 4, Lee doesn’t teach but Sugimoto teaches the control part outputs the discount information to the display part and accepts selection by the user as to whether to accept discount of the price of the second product (customers can freely select products to be purchased from among the displayed products), and outputs, in a case where the user accepts the discount of the price of the second product, guidance information for guiding from a current position of the user to a position of the second product to the display part based on position information about the second product included in the second information, and wherein the display part displays the guidance information as augmented reality in a field of view of the user (the selected products can be placed and held in a basket, cart, tray, etc.). It would have been obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included the teachings of Sugimoto because such a modification would allow for easy viewing and purchase of the discounted product.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Sugimoto and view of Walker (2001/0056376) further in view of Nair (8,788,325).
With respect to claims 5-6, the combination of Lee and Sugimoto teaches guidance information for the second product such as placing the product in a basket, cart or tray. The combination of Lee, Sugimoto and Walker do not teach a route, arrow and a map positioning the product. Nair teaches, according to an embodiment, at 131, the product path mapping service identifies a collection of advertisements with the map data that exists for other goods or services available along the path. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included the teachings of Nair of route, map, path of the product because such a modification would guide the customer to find the discounted product.
References of record but not applied in the current rejection:
Article titled “ Marketing Spot Optimization” teaches The measurement engine 210 may be used to evaluate actual spot impressions relative to predicted impressions. The measurement engine 210 also may receive inputs from analytics services such as those that record and analyze viewing information based on panels of viewers, or other selected audience segments. The audience valuation and optimizer engine 220 may estimate the value of upcoming spot inventory, such as for a day, or a week. The valuation may be based on historical data. The audience forecasting engine 230 estimates the potential audience composition (e.g., demographics) for one spot or a group of spots (e.g., by day part). The yield optimization engine 240 provides an estimate of return on investment for spots allocated to self-marketing or to ad sales.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejections have been withdrawn because the claims pertain to: a smart glasses structure to be attached to a head of a user and do not fall within the abstract ideas groupings under 2A, prong one.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8 have been considered but are moot, see new grounds of rejection.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621