Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on June 10, 2024. The applicant’s claim for benefit of application 17511673, filed October 27, 2021, and application 16540689, filed August 14, 2019, and application 15808983, filed November 10, 2017, and application 13785082, filed March 5, 2013, has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-2 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, namely a method of organizing a human activity because it recites a sales activity. However, the Examiner further notes that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. For example, claim 1 recites “determining an identity of an individual from a mobile device within a sensing area of a sensor,” “identifying a shelf label corresponding with a product on the determined list of products for purchase,” and “triggering an alert at the identified shelf label.” The combination of at least these additional elements uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are patent eligible.
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on August 27, 2024 (3), have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites determining, accessing, identifying, and triggering steps but does not indicate what entity or entities perform these actions. For example, are these steps performed by a human, by a server, by multiple parties, etc.? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting that each of these steps are performed by one or more processors.
Claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2006/0163349 A1 to Neugebauer (hereinafter “Neugebauer”), in view of US 5,880,449 to Teicher et al. (hereinafter “Teicher”).
Claim 1: Neugebauer discloses systems and methods “for retail automation and promotions” using wireless tracking devices and wireless access points. (See Neugebauer, at least Abstract). Neugebauer further discloses:
determining an identity of an individual from a mobile device within a sensing area of a sensor and in communication with a network of a store (See Neugebauer, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0083], wireless access points are connected to one or more servers via wired/wireless data network; wireless tags communicate with the access points via a wireless communication channel; wireless tags may be the loyalty tokens and electronic shelf labels; para. [0023], customer is given a “loyalty token” for a particular store and that transmits a unique identification code; when customer enters the store carrying the loyalty token, the access point of the store receives signals transmitted from the loyalty token and automatically recognizes that the customer has entered the store; store server includes a customer database that associates the particular customer with the unique identification code; para. [0118], loyalty token may be embedded in mobile phone or PDA);
accessing a database to determine, based upon the determined identity of the individual, a list of products for purchase by the individual at the store (See Neugebauer, at least para. [0028], server accesses a customer database that includes previous customer purchases and/or shopping patterns; para. [0095], customer database may also include shopping lists);
Neugebauer further discloses that the system selects particular promotional offers, coupons, advertising, etc. that is appropriate for the particular customer and then transmits them to the electronic shelf labels when the system detects that the customer is in the vicinity of a particular electronic shelf label (See Neugebauer, at least paras. [0028] and [0032]). However, Neugebauer does not expressly disclose identifying a shelf label corresponding with a product on the determined list of products for purchase; and triggering an alert at the identified shelf label.
However, Teicher discloses a system and method for providing “a customer visiting a store with personally associated prices for selected items. The customer receives a portable customer unit which communicates with a check-in unit for establishing personal prices for selected items.” (See Teicher, at least Abstract). Teicher further discloses identifying a shelf label corresponding with a product on the determined list of products for purchase (See Teicher, at least col. 6, lines 48-63, customer-specific price reduction list is downloaded to the customer unit when the customer enters the store; col. 8, lines 27-40, customer unit continuously transmits the entire personal price reduction list in the form of messages for all items in the list; each message includes each item’s code; each electronic shelf label has an address that matches an item’s code; col. 7, lines 1-43, customer unit transmits a signal that includes an item’s record details as well as the customer unit’s ID; the signal is addressed to a specific shelf label; only a shelf label whose address matches the address included in the transmitted signal will react to the information contained within the specific signal); and triggering an alert at the identified shelf label (See Teicher, at least col. 6, lines 48-63, the blinker on the specific shelf label transmits an eye-catching signal to indicate a customer-specific sale item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in the shopping system and method of Neugebauer the ability identifying a shelf label corresponding with a product on the determined list of products for purchase; and triggering an alert at the identified shelf label as disclosed by Teicher since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to attract customers, encourage purchases at certain hours, accelerate the sale of manufacturer-promoted products, and reduce inventory of rapidly-aging or slow0selling products. (See Teicher, at least col. 1, lines 14-23).
Claim 2: The combination of Neugebauer and Teicher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neugebauer does not expressly disclose wherein the shelf label is a first shelf label and the product is a first product, the method further comprising: identifying a second shelf label corresponding with a second product on the determined list of products for purchase; and triggering an alert at the second shelf label.
However, Teicher, discloses wherein the shelf label is a first shelf label and the product is a first product, the method further comprising: identifying a second shelf label corresponding with a second product on the determined list of products for purchase (See Teicher, at least col. 8, lines 27-50, customer unit continuously transmits the entire personal price reduction list in the form of messages for all items in the list; each message includes each item’s code; each electronic shelf label has an address that matches an item’s code; customer selects items including items listed in his price-reduction list; the Examiner notes that there are multiple products and multiple shelves referenced); and triggering an alert at the second shelf label (See Teicher, at least col. 6, lines 48-63, the blinker on the specific shelf label transmits an eye-catching signal to indicate a customer-specific sale item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in the shopping system and method of Neugebauer the ability wherein the shelf label is a first shelf label and the product is a first product, the method further comprising: identifying a second shelf label corresponding with a second product on the determined list of products for purchase; and triggering an alert at the second shelf label .as disclosed by Teicher since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to attract customers, encourage purchase at certain hours, accelerate the sale of manufacturer-promoted products, and reduce inventory of rapidly-aging or slow0selling products. (See Teicher, at least col. 1, lines 14-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights