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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/19/ 2026
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, directed to claims 11-17 in the reply filed on 08/19/ 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Claim 17 recites a " An information processing program for causing a processor to execute…” The information processing program is claimed as a product without a physical or tangible form or other structural limitation and therefore constitutes a computer program/software per se. See MPEP § 2106.03. The claimed limitations are capable of being performed as software alone since no hardware component is being claimed. Software alone, are not physical components and thus are not statutory since software do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the information processing program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the information processing program functionality to be realized. Hence, the stated functions comprise software and is thus not directed to a hardware embodiment. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed information processing program encompasses transitory forms of single transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetics signal or carrier wave. A transitory signal per se does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. See Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between data and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure' s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure' s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit that detects at least a current position, a communication unit that performs communication via a network, a display control unit that displays a screen on a display unit” executed in claim 11, “the display unit to display the notification position and a route to the notification position” executed in claim 12,
“detection unit further detects a posture of the information processing device” executed in claim 13, “the display control unit causes the display unit to display the content” executed in claim 14, a management unit that retains information indicating a service selected from presented services according to user operation, wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the map information on which information indicating a route to a notification position corresponding to the selected service retained in the management unit executed in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure identified in the specification is the distance sensor (fig. 5, paragraph 85) for “the detection unit”, the display device (fig. 5, paragraph 82) for the “display unit”, the storage device, a data I/F (fig. 6, paragraph 87) for the “management unit” to manage store-side/ product information and the communication I/F (figs. 4 and 6, paragraph 76) for the “communication unit” which are communicably connected to one another via a bus.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurewitz et al. (US PGPUB 20160227359 A1) in view of Shirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 20120088523 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hurewitz teaches an information processing device comprising (see paragraph [0047], FIG. 3, “mobile computing device 302, (the content system 350 (like an administrator 350) or provide the information in the form of profile information 348 that allows a representation of the customer (such as interest or activity relative to certain brands, products, activities) with or without raw activity or tracking data”),
a detection unit that detects at least a current position in a service providing region for providing a service corresponding to a degree of interest of a user (see paragraph [0048], FIG. 3, FIG. 6 (606-612) “the customer tracking system 330 operates to perform device location tracking functionality 332 as a result of processing the device identifier 316 or 322 location identifiers 318 or 324. The customer tracking system 330 operates to correlate the device location with store mapping functionality 334, and Example -23 the location identification module to calculate a position of the mobile computing device in the tracked physical environment, Example -24 to determine the location of the mobile computing device within the tracked physical environment based on Wi-Fi positioning triangulation or trilateration of the mobile computing device, and FIG. 7 (Location identification module 730 is used to calculate the position of the mobile computing device in the tracked physical environment, FIG. 9 sensor 926 (GPS sensor/location sensor)”),
(e.g. device location tracking functionality 332 determines/correlates the mobile device location),
a communication unit that performs communication via a network (see paragraph [0047] , FIG. 3 “the device identifier 322 and location identifier 324 may be communicated to the customer tracking system 330 from the mobile computing device 302 via a mobile communication network 320 (e.g., a Wi-Fi or 3G/4G data network)” (e.g. device/location identifiers are transmitted through mobile communication network 320, Wi-Fi or 3G/4G)),
a display control unit that displays a screen on a display unit (see paragraph [0058] The set of content 448 delivered for the mobile computing device is retrieved for display or output within the second software application 420, for example, as an advertising placement 424 within a user interface 422 of the second software application 420”. (e.g. selected content can be displayed as an advertisement in a software application).
Hurewitz fails to explicitly suggest wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display information based on notification at a notification position corresponding to the current position in map information indicating the service providing region, the information being acquired via the network according to the position detected by the detection unit.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Shirakawa teaches the display control unit causes the display unit to display information based on notification at a notification position corresponding to the current position in map information indicating the service providing region (see paragraphs [0090], [0094]-[0097] FIGS. 2,3,5 and 7 “information identifying a position P of a store, establishing a notification area A based on position P, and determining whether the current position of mobile phone 1 is within notification area A, determining that the current position enters the notification area, the mobile phone provides the corresponding notification and display the coupon associated with the store”),
the information being acquired via the network according to the position detected by the detection unit (see paragraph [0090], FIG. 2 “a round area whose center is the position P of the store at which the coupon can be used. As described above, when the mobile phone 1 enters within this circle, namely when a distance between the mobile phone 1 and the position P becomes shorter than the radius of the circle, the coupon of the store at the position P is displayed on the mobile phone 1”, and “FIG. 20 “processes for notification of a store at which a coupon can be used and guiding of a route to the store, which processes are carried out when entering a notification area of a store of a same genre as the store at which the coupon can be used, see paragraphs [0124], [0125] , FIG. 11 “the telephone network communication section 3 connects with the Internet through the mobile phone network (3G)”)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hurewitz with Shirakawa to including the display control unit causes the display unit to display information based on notification at a notification position corresponding to the current position in map information indicating the service providing region, the information being acquired via the network according to the position detected by the detection unit thereby, in advance a spot that the user wishes to go to, to allow knowing that they are close to that spot whenever the user is close to that spot. This makes it easier to drop in at the spot as taught by Shirakawa (see paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Hurewitz teaches an information processing program for causing a processor to execute (see paragraph [0077], FIG. 9 “computer system 900 includes at least one processor 902 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both, processor cores, compute nodes, etc.)”),
a detection step of detecting at least a current position in a service providing region for providing a service corresponding to a degree of interest of a user (see paragraph [0048], FIG. 3, FIG. 6 (606-612) “the customer tracking system 330 operates to perform device location tracking functionality 332 as a result of processing the device identifier 316 or 322 location identifiers 318 or 324. The customer tracking system 330 operates to correlate the device location with store mapping functionality 334, and Example -23 the location identification module to calculate a position of the mobile computing device in the tracked physical environment, Example -24 to determine the location of the mobile computing device within the tracked physical environment based on Wi-Fi positioning triangulation or trilateration of the mobile computing device. and FIG. 7 (Location identification module 730 is used to calculate the position of the mobile computing device in the tracked physical environment, FIG. 9 sensor 926 (GPS sensor/location sensor)”),
(e.g. device location tracking functionality 332 determines/correlates the mobile device location),
a communication step of performing communication via a network (see paragraph [0047] , FIG. 3 “the device identifier 322 and location identifier 324 may be communicated to the customer tracking system 330 from the mobile computing device 302 via a mobile communication network 320 (e.g., a Wi-Fi or 3G/4G data network)” (e.g. device/location identifiers are transmitted through mobile communication network 320, Wi-Fi or 3G/4G)),
a display control step of displaying a screen on a display unit (see paragraph [0058] “the set of content 448 delivered for the mobile computing device is retrieved for display or output within the second software application 420, for example, as an advertising placement 424 within a user interface 422 of the second software application 420”. (e.g. selected content can be displayed as an advertisement in a software application),
Hurewitz fails to explicitly suggest wherein the display control step causes the display unit to display information based on notification at a notification position corresponding to the current position in map information indicating the service providing region, the information being acquired via the network according to the position detected by the detection step.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Shirakawa teaches wherein the display control step causes the display unit to display information based on notification at a notification position corresponding to the current position in map information indicating the service providing region (see paragraphs [0090], [0094]-[0096] FIGS. 2,5 and 7 “information identifying a position P of a store, establishing a notification area A based on position P, and determining whether the current position of mobile phone 1 is within notification area A, determining that the current position enters the notification area, the mobile phone provides the corresponding notification and display the coupon associated with the store”),
the information being acquired via the network according to the position detected by the detection step (see paragraph [0090], FIG. 2 “a round area whose center is the position P of the store at which the coupon can be used. As described above, when the mobile phone 1 enters within this circle, namely when a distance between the mobile phone 1 and the position P becomes shorter than the radius of the circle, the coupon of the store at the position P is displayed on the mobile phone 1”, and “FIG. 20 “processes for notification of a store at which a coupon can be used and guiding of a route to the store, which processes are carried out when entering a notification area of a store of a same genre as the store at which the coupon can be used, see paragraphs [0124], [0125] , FIG. 11 “the telephone network communication section 3 connects with the Internet through the mobile phone network (3G)”).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hurewitz with Shirakawa to including the display control step causes the display unit to display information based on notification at a notification position corresponding to the current position in map information indicating the service providing region thereby, in advance a spot that the user wishes to go to, to allow knowing that they are close to that spot whenever the user is close to that spot. This makes it easier to drop in at the spot as taught by Shirakawa (see paragraph [0005]).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurewitz et al. (US PGPUB 20160227359 A1) in view of Shirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 20120088523 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of ZHANG (CN 112749350 A).
Regarding claim 12, a combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa teaches all the limitations of claim 11, the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa fails to explicitly suggest wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the notification position and a route to the notification position in the map information to be superimposed on the map information.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the notification position and a route to the notification position in the map information to be superimposed on the map information (see pages 18 lines 29-38 & 15 1-5 lines 2-7 “ in FIG. 10, 1010 is the navigation path information of the recommended object, the user can follow the navigation path information to find the corresponding recommended object, when approaching the object, as shown in FIG. 11, the scene picture of the store can be displayed, and "X marketplace-A store" is displayed, and detailed recommendation information of the object 1110”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa with ZHANG to include by the display control unit causes the display unit to display the notification position and a route to the notification position in the map information to be superimposed on the map information thereby, to accurately and effectively provide the guide information of the recommended object for the user based on the positioning information and the user information as taught by ZHANG (see abstract [page 1, lines 20-21]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa teaches all the limitations of claim 11, the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa fails to explicitly suggest a management unit that retains information indicating a service selected from presented services according to user operation, wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the map information on which information indicating a route to a notification position corresponding to the selected service retained in the management unit in the notification positions is superimposed.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches a management unit that retains information indicating a service selected from presented services according to user operation (see page-17 lines 1-18 “step S910, based on the positioning information and the user information, determining the recommended object in the object of the target scene, step S920, generating the guide information of the recommended object according to the location information and the position information of the recommended object. read as the system determines the recommended object and then generates guidance based on the current terminal location and recommended object’s location. The guidance can be a planned navigation route represented by guidance arrow. Multiple routes may be provided, and user can select one”),
wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the map information on which information indicating a route to a notification position corresponding to the selected service retained in the management unit in the notification positions is superimposed (see page-17 lines 1-18 “step S910, based on the positioning information and the user information, determining the recommended object in the object of the target scene, step S920, generating the guide information of the recommended object according to the location information and the position information of the recommended object”. read as the system determines the recommended object and then generates guidance based on the current terminal location and recommended object’s location. The guidance can be a planned navigation route represented by guidance arrow. Multiple routes may be provided, and user can select one, navigation path is generated from the current terminal position to the recommended object’s position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa with ZHANG to include by a management unit that retains information indicating a service selected from presented services according to user operation, wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the map information on which information indicating a route to a notification position corresponding to the selected service retained in the management unit in the notification positions is superimposed thereby, to accurately and effectively provide the guide information of the recommended object for the user based on the positioning information and the user information as taught by ZHANG (see abstract [page 1, lines 20-21]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurewitz et al. (US PGPUB 20160227359 A1) in view of Shirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 20120088523 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bonner et al. (US PGPUB 20090240571 A1, hereinafter Bonner (571)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa teaches all the limitations of claim 11, the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa fails to explicitly suggest the detection unit further detects a posture of the information processing device, and the display control unit transmits a degree of interest calculated based on a stay time at the position detected by the detection unit and the detected posture to the network and causes, according to the transmitted degree of interest, the display unit to display the notification acquired via the network.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bonner (571) teaches the detection unit further detects a posture of the information processing device (see paragraph [0036], and FIGS. 1A-1D and 2A-2D “shown to possess (posture) a First Moment of Truth device 50, the system transmits one or more influencing messages to the First Moment of Truth device in order to influence a shopper's decision making before, during or after the shopper's moment of decision of one or more purchasable items”),
the display control unit transmits a degree of interest calculated based on a stay time at the position detected by the detection unit and the detected posture to the network (see paragraph [0050], FIGS. 1A-1D and 2A-2D “shown to possess a First Moment of Truth device 50, herein wireless end device 50, [0058] the system herein tracks the amount of time that shopper 7 spends during a moments of decision for product selection (i.e., the First Moment of Truth) to create product selection timing data. Shopper 7's time of product consideration is tracked, preferably, electronically through either FMOT device 50, data collections device 23 or both. This timing is initiated when the system detects shopper 7 is engaged in a First Moment of Truth”),
and causes, according to the transmitted degree of interest, the display unit to display the notification acquired via the network (see paragraphs [0050], [0053] “FIGS. 1A-1D is a location tracking subsystem operating between a data collections device and FMOT device 50 through an in-store communication network described more fully hereinbelow. In practice, FMOT device 50 transmits and receives data through one or more information routers 12, [0053] the moment in time of the shopper's product selection is also recorded and stored by data collections device 23” (e.g. real-time shopper behavior data comprising the amount of time taken by the shopper to choose or not choose product and the shopper’s presumed location in store).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Hurewitz and Shirakawa with Bonner (571) to include by the detection unit further detects a posture of the information processing device, and the display control unit transmits a degree of interest calculated based on a stay time at the position detected by the detection unit and the detected posture to the network and causes, according to the transmitted degree of interest, the display unit to display the notification acquired via the network thereby, to enhance accuracy of computer simulations that predict shopper behavior as taught by Bonner (see section [0010]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurewitz et al. (US PGPUB 20160227359 A1) and Shirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 20120088523 A1) in view of Bonner et al. (US PGPUB 20090240571 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bonner et al. (US PGPUB 20110106624 A1, hereinafter Bonner (624)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hurewitz, Shirakawa and Bonner (571) teaches all the limitations of claim 13, the combination of Hurewitz, Shirakawa and Bonner (571) fails to explicitly suggest wherein the notification includes content corresponding to the degree of interest, the content relating to notification of the service corresponding to the notification position where the notification is obtained, and the display control unit causes the display unit to display the content.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bonner (624) teaches wherein the notification includes content corresponding to the degree of interest, the content relating to notification of the service corresponding to the notification position where the notification is obtained (see paragraphs [0042]- [0044], [0081] and FIGS. 5-6 “read as product selection data as information collected when the shopper scans a product selected for purchase, track the shopper’s location inside the store, when the shopper slows down near a product location, it starts measuring time, It continue measuring until the shopper scans/selects a product, it determines how long the shopper stays/interacts at a particular product location”).
and the display control unit causes the display unit to display the content (see paragraph [0066] “ the retail establishment, specifically the logic engine, detects the first moment of truth of each shopper before an influential message (displaying information) is delivered to the wireless end device of the shopper”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Hurewitz, Shirakawa and Bonner (571) with Bonner (624) to include by the notification includes content corresponding to the degree of interest, the content relating to notification of the service corresponding to the notification position where the notification is obtained, and the display control unit causes the display unit to display the content thereby, to provide vendors of wholesale products with a more effective and influential way of selling their products to the store's shoppers as taught by Bonner (624) (see section [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hurewitz, Shirakawa, Bonner (571) and Bonner (624) teaches all the limitations of claim 14, In addition, Bonner (624) teaches when the degree of interest is equal to or higher than a predetermined degree of interest, the display control unit causes the display unit to display the notification including a conversation environment as the content (see paragraphs [0047],[0066-0067] “read as detecting shopper engagement, determines that the shopper is interested/engaged with product when shopper slow down (interest higher) compare with their speed while positioned in front of a product display For example, the shopper pauses for a predetermined time (e.g., 3 seconds) near a product or slows to a predetermined pace near product. [0122] read as the system tracks the shopper’s locations, duration of stopping/slowing, speed (interest/involve), and product selections. Then system send an influential/targeted message to shopper’s wireless devices”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Hurewitz, Shirakawa and Bonner (571) with Bonner (624) to include by when the degree of interest is equal to or higher than a predetermined degree of interest, the display control unit causes the display unit to display the notification including a conversation environment as the content thereby, to provide vendors of wholesale products with a more effective and influential way of selling their products to the store's shoppers as taught by Bonner (624) (see section [0004]).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTIBEN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 to 5:00 alternate Friday off.
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, Addy Anthony can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/ARTIBEN JAIMIN PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
