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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2026 June 29 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1-11
Claims cancelled: 12-15
Claims added: 16-24
Claims currently pending: 1-11, 16-24
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in the “REMARKS” section, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “I. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) – Claim 13” section, refers to the grounds of rejection previously presented with respect to claim 13. As claim 13 has been cancelled, the grounds of rejection previously presented is moot and has been withdrawn.
Applicant, in section II.A, refers to claims 16 and 17 and argues that the use of “real-time camera-based person-count sensing and hardware display mode control constitutes a practical application”. The examiner disagrees with this notion because the image analysis is claimed at a high level of generality. As such, the claimed invention is little more than performing advertisement selection based on observed people (i.e., potentially observed by a human) within a retail store. Additionally, the options to display advertisements in disparate manners on a display is part of the abstract idea itself of displaying advertisements and does not represent a practical application thereto.
Applicant, in section II.B, refers to claim 18 and argues that the process of receiving bakery product information, generating an advertisement with respect to the product information and displaying the advertisement “cannot be characterized as a mental process or abstract idea”. This argument is unpersuasive as the claims only pertain to the idea of presenting advertisements for bakery products within the store and do not enable new or improved functionality of the computer itself. Rather the claims put the computer to use performing tasks previously and readily performed by a human as a mental process and abstract idea. Advertising for products available within a store on a signboard does not become a practical application when performed by a computer.
Applicant then refers to newly added claim 19 and asserts that using a live camera feed as an advertisement represents a practical application due to the use of a “second camera, the display control unit, and the display device”. Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s assertion and notes that the three pieces of hardware utilized are utilized in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. An in-store salesperson hawking in-store goods (i.e., advertising those goods) does not represent more than the abstract idea of advertising simply by live-streaming a video of the salesperson.
Applicant then refers to newly added claim 20 and argues that the steps of acquiring sequential camera frames, evaluating those frames over time to determine the number of people therein “cannot be characterized as an abstract idea”. This argument is like that raised with respect to claims 16 and 17 and the image recognition features present therein. This argument has been addressed adequately in the rebuttal of the arguments raised above. The computer steps are specified at a very high level of generality and do not represent more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant then argues further along these lines with respect to claim 22, but, likewise, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant refers to claim 21 and argues comparing the frequency of a product identification and comparing it to stored data to determine which advertisement to present. While the claim contains many words that appear technical on the surface, the claim does little more than perform a database query and match process that is selecting an advertisement based on the frequency of the product within a database. Thus, this claim represents additional limitations that fall well within the abstract idea itself, without additional elements that comprise significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant refers to claims 23 and 24 and argues that the techniques for displaying advertisements (on multiple displays in claim 23 and by screen division in claim 24) represent “specific hardware control” and “concrete multi-input, multi-output hardware display control”. Examiner disagrees to this characterization as the display of information on a presumably electronic display using a computer is akin to instantiating an advertising abstract idea with computing techniques that were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time the invention was filed. That is, deciding to display an advertisement in two places within a retail environment simultaneously does not represent significantly more than the abstract idea of advertisement itself.
Applicant, in section II.C, does not present arguments with respect dependent claims 1-11 except to rely on the arguments advanced with respect to the parent independent claims. These arguments have been addressed above, and no further rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103” section, that the stated motivation to combine Shibuya with Hicks “bears no relationship to the interrupt display architecture of claim 16”. As claim 16 was newly added, this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein utilizing Hong in view of Schumacher which were necessitated by Applicant’s addition of claim 16. Applicant further argues that Ko is similarly deficient in reference to claims 2-6. However, as these claims now depend upon claim 16, this argument is similarly moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 371 is acknowledged. The instant application is a national phase application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of PCT/JP2022/033102.
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 16, 1-11, 18-24 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 16, 1-11, 18-24 are directed towards a system. Claim 17 is directed towards a method. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
An information processing device comprising a display control unit configured to:
cause a display device installed at a predetermined position in a store to display a target advertisement for products provided in the store;
and cause the display device to display an interrupt advertisement for products provided in the store, while causing the target advertisement to display, where the interrupt advertisement is different from the target advertisement,
wherein the display control unit is configured to determine that an interrupt condition is satisfied in response to an image analyzing unit determining that persons equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value are detected from a first captured image by analyzing the first captured image,
where the first captured image has been obtained by imaging a first imaging area,
the first imaging area including a position at which the target advertisement displayed by the display device is visible,
and wherein the display control unit is configured to perform, in response to a determination that the interrupt condition is satisfied, any one of:
causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement while the target advertisement being displayed, where the interrupt advertisement is superimposed on the target advertisement;
causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement along with the target advertisement by screen division of a screen of the display device;
and causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement by full screen display instead of the target advertisement.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of displaying advertisements on a display in a store based on imaging persons in the store which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The additional independent claims fail to recite any additional elements beyond those identified above. The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified except: “a storage unit configured to store the customer data” (claim 7); and “a communication unit configured to communicate with a server storing the customer data.” (claim 8); a “storage unit” (claim 21).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: “An information processing device”, “a display control unit”, “a display device”, “a storage unit configured to store the customer data”, “a storage unit”and “a communication unit configured to communicate with a server storing the customer data.”. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As the claims do not contain additional elements other than those set forth above in Step 2A, the analysis is complete and the claims are found to be absent additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Additional Discussion Regarding the Remaining Claims: The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: presenting ads according records in a table (claims 2, 3); presenting ads based on attributes of an additional person (claims 4, 5); attributes is frequency of purchase (claim 6); additional hardware components (claims 7, 8); details regarding customer information (claim 9); an additional point of sale (claim 10); conditions for display of ads (claim 11); presenting in-store bakery advertising (claim 18); presenting in-store video in the advertising (claim 19); sum of persons detected (claim 20); advertising most frequented product (claim 21); return to display generic advertising after no persons detected (claim 22); additional displays (claim 23); . Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
D. A. Mora Hernandez, in “How Computer Vision Provides Physical Retail with a Better View on Customers”, describes systems and techniques for using computer vision to enhance retail sales via a better understanding of customers.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hong et al. (Pub. #: KR 20180000566 A) in view of
Schumacher et al. (Pub. #: US 6,213,394 B1).
Claim(s) 16, 17:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments: claim 16 is a system embodiment and claim 17 is a method embodiment. Hong discloses a computing device with a display for advertisements and memory in at least Figure 2 and Page 4, Ll. 41-48 for performing the steps:
cause a display device installed at a predetermined position in a store to display a target advertisement for products provided in the store;
(Hong discloses an advertisement display in a store that shows advertisements for "products to be sold at the store" where the display is installed in at least Page 8, Ll. 43-48.)
and cause the display device to display an interrupt advertisement for products provided in the store, while causing the target advertisement to display , where the interrupt advertisement is different from the target advertisement,
wherein the display control unit is configured to determine that an interrupt condition is satisfied in response to an image analyzing unit determining that persons equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value are detected from a first captured image by analyzing the first captured image,
(Hong discloses selecting advertisements upon detection of a number of persons in view of a camera in at least Figure 3 and Page 6, Line 10 - Page 7, Line 15. Hong discloses a camera view area in front of the display in at least Page 4, Line 41 - Page 5, Line 53. See specifically "within a predetermined range from the digital display device".)
where the first captured image has been obtained by imaging a first imaging area,
the first imaging area including a position at which the target advertisement displayed by the display device is visible,
(Hong discloses a camera view area in front of the display in at least Page 4, Line 41 - Page 5, Line 53. See specifically "within a predetermined range from the digital display device".)
and wherein the display control unit is configured to perform, in response to a determination that the interrupt condition is satisfied, any one of:
causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement while the target advertisement being displayed, where the interrupt advertisement is superimposed on the target advertisement;
causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement along with the target advertisement by screen division of a screen of the display device;
and causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement by full screen display instead of the target advertisement.
(Hong discloses selecting advertisements upon detection of a number of persons in view of a camera in at least Figure 3 and Page 6, Line 10 - Page 7, Line 15. Hong discloses selecting a customized content from a plurality of contents to display on the device in at least Page 8, Ll. 5-14.)
As for, "causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement while the target advertisement being displayed, where the interrupt advertisement is superimposed on the target advertisement; causing the display device to display the interrupt advertisement along with the target advertisement by screen division of a screen of the display device;": Hong discloses an advertisement display in a store that shows advertisements for "products to be sold at the store" where the display is installed in at least Page 8, Ll. 43-48. Hong does not appear to specify displaying advertisements in response to an interrupt condition in the form of a superimposed image or a split screen. However, Schumacher teaches a technique for presenting advertisements (graphics presentations) in a store display via superimposition and/or split screen in at least Col. 13, Ll. 11-36.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong with the technique of split screen and/or superimposition display of advertisements taught by Schumacher. Motivation to combine Hong with Schumacher derives from the desire to increase the ability of a store to provide advertisements (Schumacher: Col. 1, Ll. 30-67).
Claim(s) 18:
determine that the interrupt condition is satisfied in response to baked bread information indicating a type of product to be produced and baking time information indicating a scheduled production time of the type of product are received by the information processing device; and perform causing of the interrupt advertisement to display by generating, as the interrupt advertisement, an advertisement for notifying that the type of product indicated by the baked bread information is to be produced at the time indicated by the baking time information, and causing the display device to display the generated interrupt advertisement.
As for the underlined language above: Hong does not appear to specify displaying advertisements for products in the store based upon time information respectively. However, Schumacher teaches a technique of displaying information on an in-store display related to in-store specials in at least Col. 1, Ll. 30-67 and Col. 5, Ll. 56-62. Schumacher further discloses the store having a "bread and pastry section" in at least Figure 4 and Col. 6, Line 63 - Col. 7, Line 10.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong with the technique of in-store specials as advertisements taught by Schumacher. Motivation to combine Hong with Schumacher derives from the desire to increase the ability of a store to provide advertisements (Schumacher: Col. 1, Ll. 30-67).
Claim(s) 21:
store, in a storage unit, sales-promotion product information correlated with the interrupt advertisement, the sales-promotion product information indicating a product of which sales are to be promoted by the interrupt advertisement;
and perform the causing of the interrupt advertisement to display in response to the interrupt condition being satisfied and a product identified as having a highest identification frequency in the target advertisement display process matches the product indicated by the sales-promotion product information.
(Hong discloses a "content output policy determination unit" that determines which advertisements to display to a user based on at least user demographics and shopping history in at least Page 8, Ll. 14-54. This includes displaying different advertisements dependent upon a change in the age and gender of the target customer in at least Page 8, Ll. 22-25.)
Claim(s) 22:
monitor, while the causing of the interrupt advertisement to display is being performed, whether an interrupt ending condition is satisfied;
and end the causing of the interrupt advertisement to display and resume the causing the target advertisement to display in response to the interrupt ending condition is satisfied, wherein the interrupt ending condition is satisfied in response to the image analyzing unit determines that persons less than the predetermined threshold value are detected from the first captured image.
(Hong discloses returning to display "general advertisement" when a "human object is not detected" in at least Page 3, Ll. 23-29.)
Claim(s) 24:
wherein the interrupt condition comprises a plurality of conditions, and wherein the display control unit is configured to, in response to two or more of the plurality of conditions are satisfied simultaneously, cause the display device to display respective interrupt advertisements corresponding to the satisfied two or more conditions by screen division of the screen of the display device.
(Hong discloses a "content output policy determination unit" that determines which advertisements to display to a user based on at least user demographics and shopping history in at least Page 8, Ll. 14-54. This includes displaying different advertisements dependent upon a change in the age and gender of the target customer in at least Page 8, Ll. 22-25.)
As for the underlined claim language above: Hong discloses an advertisement display in a store that shows advertisements for "products to be sold at the store" where the display is installed in at least Page 8, Ll. 43-48. Hong does not appear to specify displaying advertisements in response to an interrupt condition in the form of a split screen (i.e., a screen division). However, Schumacher teaches a technique for presenting advertisements (graphics presentations) in a store display via superimposition and/or split screen in at least Col. 13, Ll. 11-36.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong with the technique of split screen and/or superimposition display of advertisements taught by Schumacher. Motivation to combine Hong with Schumacher derives from the desire to increase the ability of a store to provide advertisements (Schumacher: Col. 1, Ll. 30-67).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hong et al. (Pub. #: KR 20180000566 A) in view of
Schumacher et al. (Pub. #: US 6,213,394 B1) in view of
Shibuya et al. (Pub. #: US 2023/0142288 A1) in view of
Hicks (Pub. #: US 2009/0257620 A1).
Claim(s) 1:
wherein the display control unit is configured to cause configured to cause the display device installed at a position in a store to display an advertisement on the basis of:
(Hong discloses an advertisement display in a store that shows advertisements for "products to be sold at the store" where the display is installed in at least Page 8, Ll. 43-48.)
customer data including information in which viewed target advertisement information indicating the advertisement viewed by a first customer out of advertisements displayed on the display device,
purchased product information indicating a product purchased by the first customer,
(Hong discloses using "shopping history information" in the selection of advertisements for display in at least Page 8, Ll. 43-48.)
and customer attribute information indicating attributes of the first customer are correlated;
(Hong discloses using "the age and gender" of a customer in the selection of advertisements for display in at least Page 8, Line 55 - Page 9, Line 10.)
and the first captured image in which a first imaging area including a position at which an advertisement displayed on the display device is visible is imaged.
As for, "customer data including information in which viewed target advertisement information indicating the advertisement viewed by a first customer out of advertisements displayed on the display device": Hong does not appear to specify customer data that includes a record of the viewed advertisements. However, Shibuya discloses recording customer information including the advertisements viewed by the customer in at least 0053, 0062-0064.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher, with the advertisement selection technique taught by Shibuya. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher, with Shibuya derives from the references pertaining to in-store advertisement systems and to most effectively display information to induce users to buy products (Shibuya: 0005, 0021).
As for, "and a first captured image in which a first imaging area including a position at which an advertisement displayed on the display device is visible is imaged.": Hong discloses a camera view area in front of the display in at least Page 4, Line 41 - Page 5, Line 53. See specifically "within a predetermined range from the digital display device". Hong does not appear to specify that the camera captures advertisements on the display. However, Hicks teaches a technique of intentionally pointing a camera at an advertisement display in at least Figure 15, 0109-0113, and 0141-0147.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher and Shibuya, with the technique of camera-based audit of advertisement display taught by Hicks. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher and Shibuya, with Hicks derives from the desire to audit the display of advertisements and to determine information regarding the advertisements performance and strategy (Hicks: 0002, 0003, 0147).
Claim(s) 2:
wherein the customer data is data in a table format including a record in which the viewed target advertisement information, the purchased product information, and the customer attribute information are correlated,
(Hong disclose a storage device that contains "data structures" in at least Page 14, Ll. 20-30.)
wherein the display control unit identifies one or more first target records satisfying a first specific condition out of the customer data
(Hong discloses determining a plurality of human objects and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36. Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
and causes the display device to display the target advertisement on the basis of the identified one or more first target records when no person is included in the first captured image,
(Hong discloses returning to display "general advertisement" when a "human object is not detected" in at least Page 3, Ll. 23-29.)
and wherein the first specific condition is a record in which a product correlated with the advertisement indicated by the viewed target advertisement information and a product indicated by the purchased product information match.
(Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
Claim(s) 3:
wherein the display control unit identifies the one or more first target records, identifies a product with a highest identification frequency on the basis of the identified one or more first target records,
and causes the display device to display the target advertisement of the identified product when no person is included in the first captured image.
(Hong discloses returning to display "general advertisement" when a "human object is not detected" in at least Page 3, Ll. 23-29.)
As for, "wherein the display control unit identifies the one or more first target records, identifies a product with a highest identification frequency on the basis of the identified one or more first target records,": Hong, in view of Schumacher and Hicks, does not appear to specify a highest identification frequency. However, Shibuya discloses determining customer attributes including via image/video captured from a camera in at least 0040, 0052, 0059, 0060, and 0086. Shibuya discloses selecting advertisements based on popularity and/or the most frequently purchased products in at least 0050, 0052-0054, and 0078. The "highest identification frequency" is interpreted to mean the product most frequently found in the records {see page 18, Ll. 3-14}.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher, with the advertisement selection technique taught by Shibuya. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher, with Shibuya derives from the references pertaining to in-store advertisement systems and to most effectively display information to induce users to buy products (Shibuya: 0005, 0021).
Claim(s) 4:
wherein the display control unit identifies attributes of a second person and causes the display device to display the target advertisement on the basis of the identified attributes of the second person and the customer data when a second person is included in the first captured image.
(Hong discloses determining "a plurality of genders" and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36.)
Claim(s) 5:
wherein the customer data is data in a table format including a record in which the viewed target advertisement information, the purchased product information, and the customer attribute information are correlated,
(Hong disclose a storage device that contains "data structures" in at least Page 14, Ll. 20-30.)
wherein the display control unit identifies one or more first target records satisfying a second specific condition out of the customer data on the basis of the identified attributes of the second person
and causes the display device to display the target advertisement on the basis of the identified one or more first target records when the second person is included in the first captured image,
(Hong discloses determining a plurality of human objects and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36. Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
and wherein the second specific condition is a record which includes the customer attribute information indicating attributes of the second person and in which a product correlated with the advertisement indicated by the viewed target advertisement information and a product indicated by the purchased product information match.
(Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
Claim(s) 6:
wherein the display control unit identifies the one or more first target records,
(Hong discloses determining a plurality of human objects and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36.)
identifies a product with a highest identification frequency on the basis of the identified one or more first target records,
and causes the display device to display the target advertisement of the identified product when the second person is included in the first captured image.
(Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
As for, "identifies a product with a highest identification frequency on the basis of the identified one or more first target records,": Hong does not appear to specify selecting a product with the highest identification frequency based on the records of the target user. However, Shibuya a technique for selecting advertisements based on popularity and/or the most frequently purchased products in at least 0050, 0052-0054, and 0078. The "highest identification frequency" is interpreted to mean the product most frequently found in the records {see page 18, Ll. 3-14}.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher, with the advertisement selection technique taught by Shibuya. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher, with Shibuya derives from the references pertaining to in-store advertisement systems and to most effectively display information to induce users to buy products (Shibuya: 0005, 0021).
Claim(s) 7:
a storage unit configured to store the customer data; and a control unit comprising a processor configured to include the display control unit and the image analyzing unit according to a program stored in the control unit.
(Hong discloses a processor communicating with a database for storage of information in at least Figure 6, Page 9, Ll. 15-24, Page 10, Ll. 30-39. Hong discloses that units may be hardware or software in at least Page 2, Ll. 49-52 and includes a "content output unit" (i.e. display control unit) in at least Page 4, Ll. 44-49 and "human object detection unit" (i.e. image analyzing unit) in at least Page 5, Ll. 41-54.)
Claim(s) 8:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a server storing the customer data.
(Hong discloses a "content server" that selects advertisements based on a target customer in at least Page 9, Ll. 15-40.)
Claim(s) 9:
wherein the customer data includes information in which the viewed target advertisement information, the purchased product information, the customer attribute information, and situation information indicating a situation in the first imaging area are correlated,
(Hong discloses a processor communicating with a database for storage of information in at least Figure 6, Page 9, Ll. 15-24, Page 10, Ll. 30-39.)
and wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display the target advertisement based on attributes of a person and the situation in the first imaging area on the basis of the first captured image and the customer data when the person is included in the first captured image.
(Hong discloses determining a plurality of human objects and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36. Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
Claim(s) 10:
a generation unit configured to identify the target advertisement viewed by the first customer out of advertisements displayed on the display device,
a product purchased by the first customer,
(Hong discloses that the content server receives data regarding "the purchased product" in at least Page 4, Ll. 17-25.)
and attributes of the first customer on the basis of a second captured image in which a second imaging area including a position at which the first customer performs a procedure for purchasing a product in the area of the store is imaged and the first captured image and to generate the customer data on the basis of the identified advertisement, the identified product, and the identified attributes.
(Hong discloses determining a plurality of human objects and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36. Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
As for, "a generation unit configured to identify the target advertisement viewed by the first customer out of advertisements displayed on the display device": Hong does not appear to specify that the camera captures advertisements on the display. However, Hicks teaches a technique of intentionally pointing a camera at an advertisement display in at least Figure 15, 0109-0113, and 0141-0147.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher and Shibuya, with the technique of camera-based audit of advertisement display taught by Hicks. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher and Shibuya, with Hicks derives from the desire to audit the display of advertisements and to determine information regarding the advertisements performance and strategy (Hicks: 0002, 0003, 0147).
As for, "second" and "which a second imaging area including a position at which the first customer performs a procedure for purchasing a product in the area of the store is imaged". Hong discloses an advertisement display in a store that shows advertisements for "products to be sold at the store" where the display is installed in at least Page 8, Ll. 43-48. Hong does not appear to specify multiple images taken from a purchasing point. However, Schumacher teaches a technique of a plurality of displays in a retail environment with at least one of the displays allowing for the purchase of products in at least Col. 12, Line 52 - Col. 13, Line 10.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong with the technique of multiple in-store displays with at least one acting as a purchasing point as taught by Schumacher. Motivation to combine Hong with Schumacher derives from the desire to increase the ability of a store to provide advertisements (Schumacher: Col. 1, Ll. 30-67).
Claim(s) 11:
wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display the target advertisement according to a predetermined interrupt condition when the interrupt condition has been satisfied.
(Hong discloses determining a plurality of human objects and their ages in the captured image that are then used to select the advertisement in at least Page 5, Ll. 26-36. Hong discloses selecting one of the plurality as the target customer in at least Page 5, Ll. 38-56 and selecting an advertisement based on the attributes of the target customer in at least Page 6, Ll. 1-9 and Page 8, Ll. 18-54.)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hong et al. (Pub. #: KR 20180000566 A) in view of
Schumacher et al. (Pub. #: US 6,213,394 B1) in view of
Okubo (Pub. #: US 2023/0237458 A1).
Claim(s) 19:
determine that the interrupt condition is satisfied in response to an operation of displaying a fourth captured image captured by a second imaging unit imaging a second area of the store on the display device is received by the information processing device; and perform the causing of the interrupt advertisement to display by causing the display device to display a moving image having the fourth captured image as a frame as the interrupt advertisement.
As for the underlined language above: Hong does not appear to specify utilizing video from an in-store camera as part of the advertisement display. However, Okubo teaches a technique that includes an "in-store camera" and an "in-store monitor" and presenting advertisement information (i.e., pricing information) regarding products within the image on the output video in at least 0030, 0031 and 0097-0118.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher, with the technique of in-store video being used in an in-store advertisement as taught by Okubo. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher, with Okubo derives from the desire to make users aware of discounts available to them for products within the store (Okubo: 0017-0019).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hong et al. (Pub. #: KR 20180000566 A) in view of
Schumacher et al. (Pub. #: US 6,213,394 B1) in view of
Chuah et al. (Pub. #: US 11,416,803 B1).
Claim(s) 20:
wherein the display control unit is configured to determine that the interrupt condition is satisfied in response to a sum of persons detected from a plurality of the first captured images acquired in a predetermined time period is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold value.
As for the underlined claim language above: Hong discloses selecting advertisements upon detection of a number of persons in view of a camera in at least Figure 3 and Page 6, Line 10 - Page 7, Line 15. Hong discloses a camera view area in front of the display in at least Page 4, Line 41 - Page 5, Line 53. Hong does not appear to specify an interrupt condition that corresponds to a threshold sum of persons detected above a threshold. However, Chuah discloses and advertisement system with the technique of interrupting advertisement display based on the number of persons detected within a time period in at least Col. 19, Line 45 - Col. 20, Line 14.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher, with the technique of a threshold interrupt based on a sum of persons detected as taught by Chuah. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher, with Chuah derives from the desire to present users with the most effective advertisements (Chuah: Col. 1, Ll. 46-62).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hong et al. (Pub. #: KR 20180000566 A) in view of
Schumacher et al. (Pub. #: US 6,213,394 B1) in view of
Wright (Pub. #: US 2014/0236728 A1).
Claim(s) 23:
wherein the display control unit is further configured to cause at least one additional display device installed in the store to display the interrupt advertisement when the causing the interrupt advertisement to display is performed on the display device, the at least one additional display device being different from the display device on which the causing of the target advertisement to is performed.
As for the underlined claim language above: Hong discloses selecting advertisements upon detection of a number of persons in view of a camera in at least Figure 3 and Page 6, Line 10 - Page 7, Line 15. Hong does not appear to specify synchronizing the display of advertising to an additional display. However, teaches a technique of synchronizing advertising on a plurality of displays in at least Figure 4, Figure 16, and 0140.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retail display advertisement system of Hong, in view of Schumacher, with the technique of synchronizing advertising on a plurality of displays as taught by Wright. Motivation to combine Hong, in view of Schumacher, with Wright derives from the references pertaining to advertising displays and to display optimum advertisements to users (Wright: 0002 and 0004).
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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 at (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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
