DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed 16 January 2025. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on PCT/JP2023/023380 filed 23 June 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2025 and 02 April 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 7 and 8 include the language “the one store in the one store.” The term “in the one store” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The term “a value” in claims 6 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 6 “a value” is not defined, because “a value” could be any conceivable value, therefore the term is indefinite. In claim 8 “a value” is used in a ratio determination “based on the number of users adjacent to each user who is visiting or is likely to visit the one store in the one store.” Similar to the term of claim 8, the “a value” of claim 8 could be any conceivable value, therefore the term is indefinite. Regarding claim 6, for examining purposes a computed degree of similarity between user adjacency information to any other variable or value is equivalent to the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 8, for examining purposes any corrected degree of similarity based on a ratio including the number of users adjacent to the one use in the one store and any variable or value is equivalent to the claimed limitation.
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 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 limitations use a generic placeholder, “unit,” 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 limitations are the computation unit and determination unit in claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom: “… a computation unit computing a degree of similarity between user adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each user and other users and store adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each store and other users assumed as a user who is visiting the store; and a determination unit determining the store that the user is visiting, on the basis of the degree of similarity computed by the computation unit.” Paragraph [0123] of the Specification states: “The ‘means’ in the configuration of each of the devices described above may be replaced with a "unit", a "circuit", a "device", and the like.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0094] of the Specification describes the store determination device as follows: “The store determination device 1 described above may be physically configured as a computer device including a processor 1001, a memory 1002, a storage 1003, a communication device 1004, an input device 1005, an output device.” Paragraph [0097] states: “… the acquisition unit 11, the computation unit 12, the determination unit 13, the output unit 14, and the like described above may be attained by the processor 1001.” See Figure 3. Examiner construes the corresponding structure as the processor 1001 described in the above excerpts from the Specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-11 of co-pending Application No. 18/881135 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the instant application is common to the claimed subject matter of co-pending Application No. 18/881135. See the following table for details:
18/995536 (Instant Application herein)
18/881135 (co-pending Application)
Claim 1: A store determination device, comprising: a computation unit computing a degree of similarity between user adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each user and other users and store adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each store and other users assumed as a user who is visiting the store; and a determination unit determining the store that the user is visiting, on the basis of the degree of similarity computed by the computation unit.
Claim 1: A store determination device, comprising processing circuitry configured to: specify a store that each user adjacent to a target user is visiting or is likely to visit; and determine a store that the target user is visiting, on the basis of the specifying, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set a user carrying a mobile terminal adjacent to a mobile terminal carried by the target user as the user adjacent to the target user, and wherein each of the mobile terminals performs near-field wireless communication, and in a case where the mobile terminals fall within a certain distance range, the mobile terminals automatically exchange identification information of the own mobile terminal with each other by the near-field wireless communication; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the user adjacent to the target user based on the exchange of the identification information among the users by the near-field wireless communication.
Claim 2. The store determination device according to wherein adjacency between users is adjacency between mobile terminals carried by each user.
Claim 2. Canceled.
Claim 3. The store determination device according to wherein each of the user adjacency information and the store adjacency information includes at least one type of information relevant to the number of adjacent other users, the number of times of being adjacent to other users, a time when being adjacent to the other users, and a store that the adjacent other users are visiting or are likely to visit.
Claim 3. The store determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to store store information relevant to the store that each user is visiting or is likely to visit, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform specifying with reference to the stored store information.
Claim 4. The store determination device according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the determination unit, on the basis of a degree of similarity for each store between user adjacency information of one user and store adjacency information of each store, determines a store that the one user is visiting.
Claim 4. The store determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform specifying by associating an adjacent user who is each user adjacent to the target user with a visit store that is a store that the adjacent user is visiting or is likely to visit.
Claim 5. The store determination device according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the determination unit corrects a computed degree of similarity between user adjacency information of one user and store adjacency information of one store, on the basis of a degree of similarity between user adjacency information of a user adjacent to the one user and the store adjacency information of the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the corrected degree of similarity.
Claim 5. The store determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the store that the target user is visiting, on the basis of the number of adjacent users associated with each visit store.
Claim 6. The store determination device according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the determination unit corrects a computed degree of similarity between user adjacency information of one user and store adjacency information of one store to a value based on the degree of similarity, and a degree of similarity between user adjacency information of each user adjacent to the one user and the store adjacency information of the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the corrected degree of similarity.
Claim 6. The store determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the store that the target user is visiting, on the basis of the number of adjacent users associated with the visit store and the number of users who are visiting or are likely to visit the visit store, for each visit store.
Claim 7. The store determination device according to wherein the determination unit further corrects the corrected degree of similarity, on the basis of at least one of the number of users adjacent to the one user in the one store and the number of users adjacent to a user who is visiting or is likely to visit the one store in the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the further corrected degree of similarity.
Claim 7. The store determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the store that the target user is visiting, on the basis of a ratio between the number of adjacent users associated with the visit store and the number of users who are visiting or are likely to visit the visit store, for each visit store.
Claim 8. The store determination device according to The store determination device according to wherein the determination unit further corrects the corrected degree of similarity, on the basis of a ratio between the number of users adjacent to the one user in the one store and a value based on the number of users adjacent to each user who is visiting or is likely to visit the one store in the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the further corrected degree of similarity.
Claim 8. The store determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the store that the target user is visiting, on the basis of the number of users who are visiting or are likely to visit each visit store associated with one or more adjacent users.
Claim 9. The store determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, on the basis of the number of adjacent users associated with the visit store, and the number of adjacencies of the adjacent user to a user who is adjacent to the adjacent user and is visiting or is likely to visit the visit store, for each visit store, determine the store that the target user is visiting.
Claim 10. The store determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, on the basis of a number weighted by each of the number of adjacent users associated with the visit store, and the number of adjacencies of the adjacent user to a user who is adjacent to the adjacent user and is visiting or is likely to visit the visit store, for each visit store, determine the store that the target user is visiting.
Claim 11. A method, implemented by processing circuitry of a store determination device, comprising: specifying a store that each user adjacent to a target user is visiting or is likely to visit; and determining a store that the target user is visiting, on the basis of the specifying, wherein the method includes setting a user carrying a mobile terminal adjacent to a mobile terminal carried by the target user as the user adjacent to the target user, and wherein each of the mobile terminals performs near-field wireless communication, and in a case where the mobile terminals fall within a certain distance range, the mobile terminals automatically exchange identification information of the own mobile terminal with each other by the near-field wireless communication; and wherein the method includes determining the user adjacent to the target user based on the exchange of the identification information among the users by the near-field wireless communication.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device for determining a store that a user is visiting (see Specification paragraph [0001]).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
a computation unit computing a degree of similarity between user adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each user and other users and store adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each store and other users assumed as a user who is visiting the store;
and a determination unit determining the store that the user is visiting, on the basis of the degree of similarity computed by the computation unit.
Under Step 1 independent claim 1 recites at least one step or act, including computing a degree of similarity. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of claim 1 for computing a degree of similarity and determining the store that the user is visiting, as drafted, illustrates a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because data related to the behavior of each user and user interaction (adjacency) with a store and other users adjacent to or visiting a store is monitored to make a determination of which store a user is visiting or is likely to visit. The claimed monitoring of adjacency using calculations and determinations is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity abstract idea. The limitations for computing a degree of similarity and determining a store that the user is visiting is a process of collecting user data, analyzing it, and outputting a result of the collection and analysis that falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. Per the Specification and the claims, the inventive concept is to determine a store that a user is visiting. The claims are interpreted as using a processor for performing the recited steps. The data processing elements are described at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0094] states: “The store determination device 1 described above may be physically configured as a computer device including a processor 1001, a memory 1002, a storage 1003, a communication device 1004, an input device 1005, an output device.” The Specification does not provide additional details about the computing device/processor that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical filed (See MPEP 2106.05(a)); do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)); and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Under Step 2B the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent claims 2-8 include the abstract ideas of independent claim 1. The dependent claims merely narrow how the data is analyzed to make the determination of which store the user may be visiting. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Therefore claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2013/0262479) in view of Jain et al. (US 2024/0395419).
Regarding Claim 1, Liang et al. discloses a store determination device, comprising: a computation unit computing a degree of similarity between user adjacency information … and store adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each store and other users assumed as a user who is visiting the store; (…systems and apparatuses for computing a relevant ranking score of mobile user's POIs based on user related mobile location data. The ranking scores can be used to determine user potentially visited POI with certain confidence level. …embodiments for ranking include a derivative formula to aggregate multi-modal context data available on mobile devices and rank potential POIs, such as physical distance, address distance, motion pattern correlation, time heuristic correlation, personal places, place visits, user context information, place category heuristic and place popularity. Liang et al. [para. 0023-0025]. … For at least some embodiments, user stays detected from multiple users are used to detect if the users (that is, multiple connected users) have been at the same place. Laing et al. [para. 0093]);
Liang et al. fails to explicitly disclose computing … a degree of similarity between user adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each user and other users. Jain et al. discloses this limitation. (… a computer system uses a combination of multiple data sources to perform contact tracing for individuals. Individual user devices, such as mobile phones, can detect wireless signals from any of a variety of sources, e.g., other user devices, GPS, Wi-Fi, cellular towers, location beacons, and so on. This data can indicate the locations of, for example, a user's phone over time and/or the proximity of the phone to devices of other users. Jain et al. [para. 0004, 0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of consumer behavior tracking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing step of Liang et al. to include computing a degree of similarity between user adjacency information relevant to adjacency between each user and other users as disclosed by Jain et al. to confirm and provide context for instances of detected proximity with other individuals (Jain et al. [para. 0004]), in a manner that would have yielded predictable results at the relevant time.
and a determination unit determining the store that the user is visiting, on the basis of the degree of similarity computed by the computation unit. (An embodiment includes associating a Point of Interest (POI) with the specific location, and adaptively determining the specific distance based on the POI. … . A user stay can be detected by clustering user location data continuously collected by the mobile device of a user, computing the cluster's centroid, and then matching it to a nearby POI. Liang et al. [para. 0029-0033]).
Regarding Claim 2, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device, wherein adjacency between users is adjacency between mobile terminals carried by each user. Jain et al. discloses this limitation. (Individual user devices, such as mobile phones, can detect wireless signals from any of a variety of sources, e.g., other user devices, GPS, Wi-Fi, cellular towers, location beacons, and so on. This data can indicate the locations of, for example, a user's phone over time and/or the proximity of the phone to devices of other users. Jain et al. [para. 0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of consumer behavior tracking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing step of Liang et al. to include a step wherein adjacency between users is adjacency between mobile terminals carried by each user as disclosed by Jain et al. to confirm and provide context for instances of detected proximity with other individuals (Jain et al. [para. 0004]), in a manner that would have yielded predictable results at the relevant time.
Regarding Claim 3, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device, wherein each of the user adjacency information and the store adjacency information includes at least one type of information relevant to the number of adjacent other users, the number of times of being adjacent to other users, a time when being adjacent to the other users, and a store that the adjacent other users are visiting or are likely to visit. (… at least some embodiments include processing of location (such as, GPS) data by continuously calculating location centroids and clustering a potential user stay out of input data stream at the same time, and then merging the current user stay with previously discovered user stays if possible. … a user stay of a user of the mobile device is defined by the mobile device being within the specific distance (which for at least some embodiments, is determined by a threshold physical distance) of a location for at least the specific minimal duration (which can also be defined by a threshold period of time). Laing et al. [para. 0025-0027, 0036 (user behavior analysis)]. … he popularity of the POI includes at least one of a number of reviews and ratings of the POI, a number of check-ins associated with the POI. Liang et al. [para. 0062]. … For at least some embodiments, user stays detected from multiple users are used to detect if the users (that is, multiple connected users) have been at the same place. Laing et al. [para. 0093]. … User stays generated by massive numbers of users can be used. Liang et al. [para. 0093]).
Regarding Claim 4, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device, wherein the determination unit, on the basis of a degree of similarity for each store between user adjacency information of one user and store adjacency information of each store, determines a store that the one user is visiting. (An embodiment includes associating a Point of Interest (POI) with the specific location, and adaptively determining the specific distance based on the POI. … . A user stay can be detected by clustering user location data continuously collected by the mobile device of a user, computing the cluster's centroid, and then matching it to a nearby POI. Liang et al. [para. 0029-0033]).
Regarding Claim 5, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device, wherein the determination unit corrects a computed degree of similarity between user adjacency information of one user and store adjacency information of one store, on the basis of a degree of similarity between user adjacency information of a user adjacent to the one user and the store adjacency information of the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the corrected degree of similarity. (… user inputs, such as correcting or adding or deleting a user stay and/or POI, can be used as important feedback information to boost the performance of overall user stay and/or POI determination processing. Laing et al. [para. 0033]. … the centroid point to the user stay is computed as a weighted average of the track points remaining after filtering. For at least some embodiments, the weight given to each track point is computed based on one or more of an accuracy of the location data for this track point, and a state of GPS and location determining device. Liang et al. [para. 0165]).
Regarding Claim 6, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device, wherein the determination unit corrects a computed degree of similarity between user adjacency information of one user and store adjacency information of one store to a value based on the degree of similarity, and a degree of similarity between user adjacency information of each user adjacent to the one user and the store adjacency information of the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the corrected degree of similarity. (… the confidence level is an indicator on how accurate the matching of the user stay and the POI is. The larger the confidence level is, the more accurate the matching is. For an embodiment, the confidence score is normalized to a number from 0 to 1, wherein 1 is the normalized score indicating the most confidence. For at least some embodiments, the confidence level is based on the difference of the ranking scores between the selected POI and the second best POI. If the difference is too small, the system is not (less) confident. If the difference is large enough, the system is confident. Liang et al. [para. 0046]).
Regarding Claim 7, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device, wherein the determination unit further corrects the corrected degree of similarity, on the basis of at least one of the number of users adjacent to the one user in the one store and the number of users adjacent to a user who is visiting or is likely to visit the one store in the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the further corrected degree of similarity. Jain et al. discloses this limitation. (… the location tracking data for different users may be used to refine the accuracy and precision of each other's location records, and to fill in gaps in location tracking records. … When the two phones are located together, they may exchange device-to-device wireless messages indicating each other's identity. Based on this know instance of the two devices being in the same location, the high-accuracy location data for the first phone can be used to augment or supplement the location data for the second phone, to specify the location of the second phone at that time. Jain et al. 0011]. …the computer system 110 can evaluate the incoming stream of data for each user, and compare it to evaluation standards. Jain et al. [para. 0246]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of consumer behavior tracking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing step of Liang et al. to include a step wherein the determination unit further corrects the corrected degree of similarity, on the basis of at least one of the number of users adjacent to the one user in the one store and the number of users adjacent to a user who is visiting or is likely to visit the one store in the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the further corrected degree of similarity as disclosed by Jain et al. to confirm and provide context for instances of detected proximity with other individuals (Jain et al. [para. 0004]), in a manner that would have yielded predictable results at the relevant time.
Regarding Claim 8, Liang et al. and Jain et al. combined disclose the store determination device according to The store determination device according to wherein the determination unit further corrects the corrected degree of similarity, on the basis of a ratio between the number of users adjacent to the one user in the one store and a value based on the number of users adjacent to each user who is visiting or is likely to visit the one store in the one store, and performs determination on the basis of the further corrected degree of similarity. (A first step 1110 includes estimating a location of a user stay. A second step 1120 includes accessing a database of POIs, and parameters of the POIs. A third step 1130 includes generating a ranking score for a plurality of POIs based on a weighted comparison of each of the parameters of the POIs with corresponding parameters of the user stay. Liang et al. [para. 0171]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Emigh et al. (US 2016/0078484) - One of the features of the inventive system is the ability to determine where the consumers are based upon the locations of their mobile phones. The cell phones can transmit this information to the system and the server can determine how close a consumer is to a store 301. The system can also determine if the consumer is within the store 301. If GPS is not available, various other location detection mechanisms can be used to determine the location of the consumer and distance 309 from the store 301.
Hunter et al. (US 2013/0297422) - methods, systems and devices for presenting marketing information to a customer based on proximity to marketing areas. A wireless identity transmitter associated with the customer may periodically transmit wireless broadcast messages that include obscured identifiers. A proximity broadcast receiver within a retail store, such as near a product display or aisle, may receive and relay the broadcast messages to a server which may process the included information. Based on proximity information and other conditions, the server may transmit marketing information relevant to the customer and a proximate marketing area.
Shakedd et al. (US 2023/0186329) - systems, methods, and computer readable media for detecting human foot traffic may be provided. Embodiments may include at least one processor configured to receive, during a first period of limited traffic activity first signals transmitted from wireless tags to receivers within an establishment; determine, based on the first signals, baseline signal characteristics for at least one location within the establishment; receive, during a second period of increased traffic activity, second signals transmitted from the wireless tags to the receivers within the establishment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
