DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 02/09/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 are canceled.
Claims 2, 10, 12 are amended.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-20 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 15/342,055 filed on Nov. 2, 2016, (“Parent Application”), which claims benefit of US Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/249,760, filed on Nov. 2, 2015. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Howard et al. (U.S. 2016/0034988 A1; hereinafter, "Howard") in view of Maynard (US 9,489,874 B1; hereinafter, "Maynard") and/or Ueno (US 2022/0027968 A1; hereinafter, "Ueno") and Abboud (US 2014/0258050 A1; hereinafter, "Abboud").
Claims 2, 12: (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claims 2, 12 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 2, Howard as shown teaches the following:
A display system, comprising:
a display screen (Howard, see at least Fig. 19 and [0007], teaching: “…provided herein is a display system… including one or more display unit [display screen]…”; see also [0056], teaching: “FIG.19 illustrates a cross-sectional view of an exemplary shelving system comprising a display unit [display screen] provided herein.”);
a computing device (Howard, see again at least Fig. 9 and [0007], in view of [0071], teaching: “FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary controller 900 configured to provide power and display information to one or more display unit 901 provided herein. In some instances, a controller provided herein comprises one or more processor (e.g., a CPU) 902 and one or more power supply 911 therefor. In some embodiments, a computer 903, such as a personal computer (PC), comprises the one or more processors and power supply therefor…”);
a shelf coupled to the display, the shelf comprising a shelf tray configured to support products (Howard, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0066]: “FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary retail shelving system comprising [coupled to] multiple display units [the display(s)] provided herein…. The display units are optionally affixed to and/or integrated with retail shelving 402. As is illustrated, …the display units 401 provided herein provide specific display content for each product 403 on the shelves, even when the shelves are in complex configurations. …the system comprises one or more display unit comprising a sensor 404 (e.g., camera) configured to detect a sensor state,…”
PNG
media_image1.png
506
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
wherein the computing device is configured to:
operate the display screen in a first display mode to display information about the products (Howard, see citations noted surpa, including again at least Figs. 9-10 and [0071]-[0079], e.g.: “…identifying predetermined display information associated with the identified sensor state [display mode] from a display information store (e.g., database) …a controller (e.g., comprising one or more controller units), such as described herein, receives the sensor output signal, determines the sensor state [display mode], and identifies the display information…” and “…FIG.10 illustrates a schematic of modules described herein configured to receive sensor output signal (e.g., from one or more sensor), identify the status of one or more sensor state [display mode] associated with one or more display units, identify display information corresponding to the identified sensor state(s), and stitch together display information corresponding with the sensor states… provided herein is a method for displaying (e.g., interactively displaying) product information [display information about the products] in a physical location, such as a retail store (i.e., at a brick-and-mortar merchant). In specific embodiments, the product information is displayed at the front edge of one or more shelf of the location…”; Howard’s system/method operates his display units [display screen] according to sensor states [display modes] based on a display units association with a sensor and predetermined display information [display information about the products] is selected and displayed based on the sensor status, e.g. “display info 1” is displayed when in “State 1” [a first display mode]);
determine that a store in which the display system is disposed [is in a first status] (Howard, see at least [0086] in view of [0010], e.g.: “…the controller comprises a module configured to record the status of the environmental state [i.e. a state of the store] in proximity to the sensor (e.g., periodically, such as weekly, daily, nightly, or the like) to a data store, such as the hard drive of a personal computer, a cloud, or the like (e.g., so as to allow tracking of an environmental state, such as temperature and/or humidity)…” Howard’s sensors determine various status regarding the state of his store, e.g. status of the state of the store’s temperature and/or humidity, e.g. "temperature acceptable," "temperature high," "temperature low," "humidity acceptable," "humidity high," and/or "humidity low." as discussed per at least [0068]); and
in response to determining that the store [is in a first status], to switch the display screen from the first display mode to a second display mode, the second display mode displaying an image or video that assists an employee in configuring the products on the shelf (Howard, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0086], teaching: “In various embodiments, display units and systems described herein are configured to alter display content (e.g., alter display information provided to the display units) based on a sensor state of the display unit or system… such sensor states include identifying "motion" or "no motion"… [and] exemplary sensor states (e.g., based on information received from environmental sensors, such as temperature and/or humidity sensors) include, by way of non-limiting example, "temperature acceptable," "temperature high," "temperature low," "humidity acceptable," "humidity high," and/or "humidity low." [environmental states of the system are a type of state of the store], etc… Generally, based on such determinations, systems provided herein comprise program modules configured to identify and provide specific display information (content) to the display unit(s) thereof. For example, in some instances, when a sensor state is identified as "no motion" [e.g. a status] for one or more [e.g. all the store] display unit, the system is configured to provide specific (and predetermined) display information, such as logos or decals of the products [e.g. images which may assist employee in restocking or configuring products on the shelves] located at (e.g., on a shelf at, above, or below) the display units identified as having a sensor state of "no motion," but when the sensor state is identified as "motion" for the one or more display unit, the system is configured to provide different, specific (and predetermined) display information,…”)
The difference between the teachings of the prior art of Howard and the claim features is only that Howard may not explicitly contemplate that his sensors which detect environmental state and record a status of such state of his store, also may detect that the state of his store is in a closed status [i.e. is closed]. However, regarding this nuance, Howard in view of Maynard and/or Ueno teaches the below nuance, as follows:
determine that a store in which the display system is disposed is closed, wherein the computing device is configured to determine that the store is closed based upon the store's schedule
Maynard, see at least Fig. 4B, and [9:20-10:50], e.g.: “…The status 414 [e.g. store schedule] may represent the status of the store, such as "open" or "closed"… or any other Boolean or variable… A computer 504 [may] be used to query the server 502 for the status [store’s schedule] of the store 500. This may be useful to determine whether the store 500 is open for business at the immediate moment…”; note also [11:30-40].
Ueno, see at least [0082]: “…The portable terminal 10b [computing device] may further acquire information [configured to determine] of store holidays or closed business days [based on store schedule] from the store server and use the information to determine whether and when the shelf-stocking can be done for date restricted commodities. For example, if the day before the scheduled on-sale date of the commodity in question is a holiday (store is closed) [determine that the store is closed], the portable terminal 10b may determine that the commodity is permitted to stocked and/or displayed on a shelf or the like starting from the closing time of the store on the day before the store holiday…”
In view of these findings, the Examiner understands that there is motivation provided by both Maynard and Ueno to detect the status of the state of Howard’s store as being either “open” or “closed” for the purpose of restocking and therefore to also use such information, in a manner similar to how Howard’s system/method uses other such sensor status and state information, to alter or change displayed messaging set by a store owner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on this motivation from Maynard and/or Ueno, to have modified the system/method of Howard such that Howard’s system sensors also detect this particular type of status of the state of a store based on the store’s schedule – i.e. to detect the store is “closed”, or “open”, based on the store’s schedule and based upon such status to also change product imaging to improve Howard’s system messaging capabilities which already alter display content (e.g., alter display information provided to the display units) based on a sensor state of his display unit or system, e.g. to change messaging to be directed towards assisting employees when the store is closed, for example in restocking shelves with low inventory, etc… which is already an objective of Howard per [0009] (teaching: “…to facilitate re-ordering and/or re-stocking…”), and because per at least MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Although Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the above limitations and Howard teaches a second sensor status which dictates the mode of a display, i.e. dictates what information is displayed on a display, where his sensors are also used to check inventory on shelves and change their status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory, he may not explicitly teach the below nuance regarding the particular type of content claimed as being displayed. However, regarding this feature, Howard/Maynard/Ueno in view of Abboud teaches the following:
wherein the displayed image or video that assists an employee in configuring the products on the shelf comprises an image or video that includes the products and the configuration of the products on the shelf (Abboud, see at least Figs. 1-2 visual depiction of desired configuration of shelf display unit; and [0036]-[0038], teaching, e.g.: “…In brief, when a display 14 in the enterprise 10 needs stocking or restocking, the server 40, in response to a request from the client device 30, analyzes the inventory 22 of different items 16a, 16b, . . . , 16n, to find items with sufficient supply on hand (i.e., available) to stock the display 14 in accordance with certain criteria, such as the type of the display 14, the available supply of each given item 16, the desired appearance of the stocked display (e.g., all one type of item, mixed similar types of items, mixed dissimilar types of items), and, optionally, other criteria…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Abboud (directed towards providing a recommendation such as per Fig. 2 of a visual representation of a modular display which depicts “the desired appearance of the stocked display”, etc…), which is applicable to a known base device/method of Howard/Maynard/Ueno (already directed towards sensors checking inventory on shelves and changing status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Abboud to the device/method of Howard in order to perform the limitation in question to alter or change Howard’s imaging to depict a desired configuration of products on a shelf when a display unit requires restocking based on Howard’s sensor’s detecting restocking is required and a status of the store is closed, because Howard, Maynard, Ueno, and Abboud are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 4, 14: (previously presented)
Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Howard as shown teaches the following: … further comprising sensing environmental conditions using a sensor coupled to the display system, wherein the store is determined to be closed based on the environmental conditions sensed by a sensor (Howard, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0010] and [0086]: “…a system or display unit provided herein comprises an environmental sensor…”).
Claims 5, 15: (previously presented)
Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Howard as shown teaches the following: …wherein the information about the products comprises information promoting the products (Howard, see citations noted supra, including at least [0003]: “…retail options for displaying a variety of information in retail environments, including, pricing, labeling, promotions, etc…”; and per [0073]: “…displaying (e.g., interactively displaying) product information in a physical location, such as a retail store (i.e., at a brick-and-mortar merchant). In specific embodiments, the product information is displayed at the front edge of one or more shelf of the location…”; per [0086]: “…specific (and predetermined) display information, such as text describing the product(s), the price of the product(s), and optionally a QR code for the product(s) located at (e.g., on a shelf at, above, or below)…”).
Claim 6: (Previously presented)
Although Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Howard teaches a second sensor status which dictates the mode of a display, i.e. dictates what information is displayed on a display, where his sensors are used to check inventory on shelves and change their status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory, he may not explicitly teach the below nuance regarding type of content displayed when the mode of display is according to a particular second status of a sensor. However, regarding this feature, Howard/Maynard in view of Abboud teaches the following:
The display system of Claim 2, wherein the second display mode displays a video that shows a setup of the products on the shelf of the display system indicating how a manufacturer of the products expects the shelf to be stocked (Abboud, see at least [0036]-[0038], e.g.: “…the client application 32 communicates with the server application 42 over the network 50. The recommendation engine 44 of the server application 42 produces one or more recommendations for stocking the display 14 based, in general, on the user-supplied information, on other sources of information [e.g. a display mode or status], and on the types of items 16 available in inventory 22. The server application 42 sends each recommendation to the client application 32, which displays the results on the client device 30 through the user interface 34. The results displayed can include the requested recommendations and other relevant information… FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of an embodiment of a process 60 for stocking a display 14. In brief, when a display 14 in the enterprise 10 needs stocking or restocking, the server 40, in response to a request from the client device 30, analyzes the inventory 22 of different items 16a, 16b, . . . , 16n, to find items with sufficient supply on hand (i.e., available) to stock the display 14 in accordance with certain criteria, such as the type of the display 14, the available supply of each given item 16, the desired appearance of the stocked display (e.g., all one type of item, mixed similar types of items, mixed dissimilar types of items), and, optionally, other criteria…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Abboud (directed towards displaying a video which depicts “the desired appearance of the stocked display [shows a setup of the products on the shelf of the display system indicating how a manufacturer of the products expects the shelf to be stocked], etc…based on user-supplied information, other sources of information [e.g. a display mode or status], and on the types of items 16 available in inventory 22…), which is applicable to a known base device/method of Howard/Maynard (already directed towards sensors checking inventory on shelves and changing status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Abboud to the device/method of Howard in order to perform the limitation in question because Howard and Abboud are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 7: (Previously presented)
Although Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Howard teaches a second sensor status which dictates the mode of a display, i.e. dictates what information is displayed on a display, where his sensors are used to check inventory on shelves and change their status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory, he may not explicitly teach the below nuance regarding type of content displayed when the mode of display is according to a particular second status of a sensor. However, regarding this feature, Howard/Maynard in view of Abboud teaches the following:
The display system of Claim 2, wherein the second display mode provides a visual representation of the modular display in a fully stocked configuration such that an employee can receive instructions regarding proper product placement (Abboud, see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0036]-[0038], e.g.: “…the client application 32 communicates with the server application 42 over the network 50. The recommendation engine 44 of the server application 42 produces one or more recommendations for stocking the display 14… The server application 42 sends each recommendation to the client application 32, which displays the results on the client device 30 through the user interface 34. The results displayed [visual representation] can include the requested recommendations and other relevant information… FIG. 2A shows an end cap display 14e [visual representation of the modular display in a fully stocked configuration] with multiple shelves 18 stocked with the same type of items (i.e., with the same SKU) 16a, for example, drinks of the same flavor. …In brief, when a display 14 in the enterprise 10 needs stocking or restocking, the server 40, in response to a request from the client device 30, analyzes the inventory 22 of different items 16a, 16b, . . . , 16n, to find items with sufficient supply on hand (i.e., available) to stock the display 14 in accordance with certain criteria, such as the type of the display 14, the available supply of each given item 16, the desired appearance of the stocked display (e.g., all one type of item, mixed similar types of items, mixed dissimilar types of items), and, optionally, other criteria…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Abboud (directed towards providing a recommendation such as per Fig. 2 of a visual representation of a modular display which depicts “the desired appearance of the stocked display”, etc…based on user-supplied information, other sources of information [e.g. a display mode or status], and on the types of items 16 available in inventory 22…), which is applicable to a known base device/method of Howard/Maynard (already directed towards sensors checking inventory on shelves and changing status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Abboud to the device/method of Howard in order to perform the limitation in question because Howard and Abboud are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 9, 19: (previously presented)
Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Howard as shown teaches the following: …further comprising a sensor configured to detect an employee in proximity to the display screen, the computing device configured to, in response to detecting the employee, display an alert to the display screen indicating the shelf is out of inventory or low on inventory (Howard, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0086], e.g.: “…sensor states include (and/or a sensor, e.g., camera, provided herein is configured to be able to detect), by way of non-limiting embodiment, "motion," "no motion," and "captive" (e.g., as determined by identifying a face-i.e., facial recognition). Other exemplary sensor states include, by way of non-limiting example, "in proximity" or "not in proximity." In some embodiments, exemplary sensor states (e.g., based on information received from a rear facing camera) include "item out of place," "no item out of place," "inventory low," "inventory high," and/or "inventory acceptable."… when a sensor state is identified as an environmental state being below or above acceptable levels, an inventory state being below an acceptable level, or an item is out of place, the system is configured to provide specific (and predetermined) display information, such as a type of alert…”).
Claim 17: (Previously presented)
Although Howard/Maynard/Ueno teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Howard teaches a second sensor status which dictates the mode of a display, i.e. dictates what information is displayed on a display, where his sensors are used to check inventory on shelves and change their status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory, he may not explicitly teach the below nuance regarding type of content displayed. However, regarding this feature, Howard/Maynard in view of Abboud teaches the following:
The method of Claim 12, wherein the second display mode provides instructions regarding proper product placement on the shelf (Abboud, see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0036]-[0038], e.g.: “…the client application 32 communicates with the server application 42 over the network 50. The recommendation engine 44 of the server application 42 produces one or more recommendations [instructions] for stocking the display 14 [regarding proper product placement]… The server application 42 sends each recommendation to the client application 32, which displays the results on the client device 30 through the user interface 34. The results displayed can include the requested recommendations and other relevant information… FIG. 2A shows an end cap display 14e with multiple shelves 18 stocked with the same type of items (i.e., with the same SKU) 16a, for example, drinks of the same flavor. …In brief, when a display 14 in the enterprise 10 needs stocking or restocking, the server 40, in response to a request from the client device 30, analyzes the inventory 22 of different items 16a, 16b, . . . , 16n, to find items with sufficient supply on hand (i.e., available) to stock the display 14 in accordance with certain criteria, such as the type of the display 14, the available supply of each given item 16, the desired appearance [instructions regarding proper product placement] of the stocked display (e.g., all one type of item, mixed similar types of items, mixed dissimilar types of items), and, optionally, other criteria…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Abboud (directed towards providing a recommendation such as the desired appearance [instructions regarding proper product placement] of the stocked display (e.g., all one type of item, mixed similar types of items, mixed dissimilar types of items), and, optionally, other criteria…), which is applicable to a known base device/method of Howard/Maynard (already directed towards sensors checking inventory on shelves and changing status based on such inventory for the purpose of altering displayed messaging such as instructions to restock low inventory) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Abboud to the device/method of Howard in order to perform the limitation in question because Howard and Abboud are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Howard, in view of Maynard / Ueno, Abboud, and further in view of Bastian (US 2005/0140498 A1; hereinafter, "Bastian").
Claims 8, 18: (Previously presented)
Howard/Maynard/Ueno/Abboud teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Howard as shown teaches the following:
…wherein the second display mode provides a video (Howard, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least Fig. 9 video receiver transmits to display unit and per [0034]: “…the display unit(s) comprises a content identification module configured to identify the information (e.g., video, images, text, and/or the like) to be displayed at the identified location…” and see associated disclosure at [0071]-[0079]: “…the process further comprises displaying video, images, and/
or text associated with the display information on the one or more display units….”)
Although Howard teaches his display units may display video associated with a product display unit or system, he may not explicitly teach the content of the video which is recited below as being displayed. However, regarding this feature, Howard in view of Bastian teaches the following:
that includes barcodes of products to be restocked on the shelf (Bastian, see at least [0037]: “…Moreover, animations or videos can be shown on the image display 208 to illustrate techniques for handling and packaging items as well as other information…” and per [0070], teaching: “…As depicted, the display 208 on the PTD device 106 is capable of displaying a barcode 804, which in this case represents a product being handled, such as via a stock keeping unit (SKU). In the illustrated example, the image 320 of the product represented by the barcode 804 is also displayed on the PTD device 106 along with its description 322 and the location arrow 328 pointing to where the product is located [location to be restocked]…”; see also Abstract and [0042] the video may be an instructional video; e.g.: “…A pick/put to display (PTD) device includes an image display that allows the PTD device to display images related to a product, such as a picture of the product, a barcode or an instructional video…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Bastian (directed towards providing a display device which displays specific content, such as an instructional video and a barcode of an item needing to be restocked, to assist an employee to restock an item in a proper location) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Howard/Maynard (already directed towards product display shelves with dynamic displays which may alter the display messaging to indicate products need to be restocked, etc…) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Bastian to the device/method of Howard/Maynard in order to perform the limitation in question such that Howard’s dynamic display device also displays instructional videos and barcodes of products which need to be restocked, e.g. when Howard’s sensor(s) indicate inventory of a product is low, as noted per Howard [0086], and because Howard/Maynard and Bastian are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/0601) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Howard, in view of Maynard / Ueno, Abboud, and further in view of Swafford (US 2016/0134930 A1; hereinafter, "Swafford").
Claims 10, 20:
Although Howard/Maynard/Ueno/Abboud teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Howard per at least [0060] teaches RFID sensor and sensor detecting persons in proximity to his display shelf, he may not explicitly teach his RFID sensor detects an employee in proximity. However, Howard in view of Swafford as shown teaches the following:
…wherein the sensor uses BLUETOOTH, IBEACONS, NFC or RFID to detect the employee in proximity to the display screen (Swafford, see at least [0313], teaching: “…a shelf originally stocked with 50 items of a product is determined to only have 15 items of the product remaining after a period of time, such as an hour, a notice may be sent to a worker of the retailer to restock the product on the shelf. …The continuous display shelf edge label device may sense the presence of a worker, such as by sensing a NFC enabled access card of the worker being within a sensing range of a sensor associated with and/or included within the continuous display shelf edge label device..”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Swafford (directed towards detecting an employee in proximity to a product display shelf via NFC,which is a special subset of RFID) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Howard (who already teaches use of RFID to detect objects in proximity and also teaches sensor suitable to detect persons in proximity to his product display shelves; e.g. per at least [0060], teaching: “…other specific embodiments, (e.g., wherein the sensor is an RFID sensor) the module is configured to compare RFIDs of objects in proximity to the sensor or display unit to RFIDs of objects assigned to be in proximity to the sensor or display unit…” and teaches: “…sensor suitable for detecting the presence of a person [in] proximity to the display unit…”) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Swafford to the device/method of Howard in order to perform the limitation in question such that Howard’s sensor also uses NFC or RFID to detect an employee in proximity to the display screen because Howard and Swafford are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant canceled Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 and amended Claims 2, 10, 12 on 02/09/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 02/09/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 103 rejections with Howard in view of Maynard/Ueno and Abboud.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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 J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621