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 .
Priority
Applicant claims continuation priority to U.S. Patent Application Number 17/481,218 (now patent No. 12,277,586 B2), filed September 21, 2021, continuation priority to U.S. Patent Application Number 15/192,724 (now patent No. 11,164,227 B2), filed June 24, 2016, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 62/184,150 filed June 24, 2015 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 62/195,184 filed July 21, 2015.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 4/28/2025 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 3/13/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
As noted for reasons in the “REASONS FOR INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER” section below, claims 1-20 are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “represented by GPS coordinates” in line 1 and should recite “represented by global positioning system (GPS) coordinates”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a scanner at the retail location is configured to: determine whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, and transmit identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user, and the remote server is configured to: determine, based on the identification data, whether the product has been purchased by the user” in lines 25-32. The metes and bounds of this claim is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not appraised of the scope of the limitation “a scanner at the retail location is configured to: determine whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, and transmit identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user” and the scope of the limitation “the remote server is configured to: determine, based on the identification data, whether the product has been purchased by the user” within the process claim, and therefore in order to ensure that the scope of claim is clear and to demarcate the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent it is required that the claim language to be precise and unambiguous. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine lines 25-32 to read as:
determining, by a scanner at the retail location, whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting, by the scanner at the retail location, identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining, by the remote server, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
Claims 2-16 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “generating a notification data structure from the remote server to a second remote server” in claims 1-2. The metes and bounds of this claim is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not appraised of the scope of the limitation “generating a notification data structure from the remote server to a second remote server” , and therefore in order to ensure that the scope of claim is clear and to demarcate the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent it is required that the claim language to be precise and unambiguous. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine lines 1-2 of claim 8 to read as: “generating a notification data structure which may be transmitted from the remote server to a second remote server” as described in paragraph [0008] of the Specification. Claims 9-11 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “a scanner at the retail location is configured to: determine whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, and transmit identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user, and the remote server is configured to: determine, based on the identification data, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and” in lines 27-34. The metes and bounds of this claim is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not appraised of the scope of the limitation “a scanner at the retail location is configured to: determine whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, and transmit identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user” and the scope of the limitation “the remote server is configured to: determine, based on the identification data, whether the product has been purchased by the user” within the system claim performing a process, and therefore in order to ensure that the scope of claim is clear and to demarcate the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent it is required that the claim language to be precise and unambiguous. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine claim 17 to read as:
A system comprising:
an augmented reality device comprising one or more sensors;
a remote server;
a scanner at a retail location; and
one or more processors configured to perform a method comprising:
identifying, using the augmented reality device, a product that is being considered for purchase by a user of the augmented reality device, wherein the identifying the product using the augmented reality device comprises detecting that the user is viewing the product at a retail location, wherein the detecting comprises:
acquiring, using the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, an image of the user, and
executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium to recognize a visual feature based on the image, the visual feature indicating a proximity between the product and the user;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product has been picked up by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product has been picked up by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a first location of the product and a first location of the user, and
determining that the first location of the product and the first location of the user are within a threshold distance;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product is carried by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product is carried by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a second location of the product and a second location of the user after determining that the product has been picked up by the user, and
determining that the second location of the product and the second location of the user are within the threshold distance,
determining, by the scanner at the retail location, whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting, by the scanner at the retail location, identification data of the product to the remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining, by the remote server, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with a determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, receiving, via the augmented reality device, an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user, the alert generated by the remote server.
Claims 18-20 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-16, are directed to a process the system, as claimed in claims 17-20, are directed to a machine (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1 (as interpreted), taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
identifying a product that is being considered for purchase by a user, wherein the identifying the product comprises detecting that the user is viewing the product at a retail location, wherein the detecting comprises:
acquiring an image of the user, and
recognize a visual feature based on the image, the visual feature indicating a proximity between the product and the user;
determining that the product has been picked up by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product has been picked up by the user comprises:
determining a first location of the product and a first location of the user, and
determining that the first location of the product and the first location of the user are within a threshold distance;
determining that the product is carried by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product is carried by the user comprises:
determining a second location of the product and a second location of the user after determining that the product has been picked up by the user, and
determining that the second location of the product and the second location of the user are within the threshold distance,
determining whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting identification data of the product to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with a determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, receiving an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user, the alert generated.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because identifying a product picked up by a user, determining the product has left the retail location, determining the product has not been purchased by the user, and sending an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 17 (as interpreted) recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 17 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 (as interpreted) includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
identifying, using an augmented reality device, a product that is being considered for purchase by a user of the augmented reality device, wherein the identifying the product using the augmented reality device comprises detecting that the user is viewing the product at a retail location, wherein the detecting comprises:
acquiring, using one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, an image of the user, and
executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium to recognize a visual feature based on the image, the visual feature indicating a proximity between the product and the user;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product has been picked up by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product has been picked up by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a first location of the product and a first location of the user, and
determining that the first location of the product and the first location of the user are within a threshold distance;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product is carried by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product is carried by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a second location of the product and a second location of the user after determining that the product has been picked up by the user, and
determining that the second location of the product and the second location of the user are within the threshold distance,
determining, by a scanner at the retail location, whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting, by the scanner at the retail location, identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining, by the remote server, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with a determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, receiving, via the augmented reality device, an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user, the alert generated by the remote server.
In this case, claim 17 (as interpreted) includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
an augmented reality device comprising one or more sensors;
a remote server;
a scanner at a retail location; and
one or more processors configured to perform a method comprising:
identifying, using the augmented reality device, a product that is being considered for purchase by a user of the augmented reality device, wherein the identifying the product using the augmented reality device comprises detecting that the user is viewing the product at a retail location, wherein the detecting comprises:
acquiring, using the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, an image of the user, and
executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium to recognize a visual feature based on the image, the visual feature indicating a proximity between the product and the user;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product has been picked up by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product has been picked up by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a first location of the product and a first location of the user, and
determining that the first location of the product and the first location of the user are within a threshold distance;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product is carried by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product is carried by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a second location of the product and a second location of the user after determining that the product has been picked up by the user, and
determining that the second location of the product and the second location of the user are within the threshold distance,
determining, by the scanner at the retail location, whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting, by the scanner at the retail location, identification data of the product to the remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining, by the remote server, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with a determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, receiving, via the augmented reality device, an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user, the alert generated by the remote server.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“using an augmented reality device,” “using one or more sensors of the augmented reality device”, “executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium”, “by a scanner at the retail location”, “by the remote server”, etc.) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (acquiring/receiving information, transmitting information, presenting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1A; paragraphs [0020]-[0045]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; 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 technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving/accessing, displaying, and transmitting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 17 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1 and 17, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1 and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 17 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 17.
Claims 2-4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 set forth:
wherein the determining the first location and the second location of the product comprises determining a geographic location of the product.
wherein the geographic location is represented by GPS coordinates.
wherein the identification data of the product comprises product category data.
wherein the identifying the product that is being considered for purchase by the user comprises determining, using the one or more sensors, a distance between the user and the product.
wherein the identifying the product that is being considered for purchase by the user comprises detecting, using the one or more sensors, a location of the product relative to the retail location.
wherein the alert further indicates that the product has been purchased.
wherein in accordance with the determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with the determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, the user's account is automatically charged for purchasing the product.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of identifying a product picked up by a user, determining the product has left the retail location, determining the product has not been purchased by the user, and sending an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 17, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1 and 17.
Thus, dependent 2-4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 5-11, 14, and 18
Dependent claim(s) 5-11, 14, and 18 sets forth:
wherein the remote server comprises a database of a plurality of computer-executable instruction sets, wherein each computer-executable instruction set is specific to a different product, and wherein the database is stored in non-volatile computer-readable medium.
wherein one or more of the plurality of the product-specific computer-executable instruction sets have been transmitted to the remote server from a second remote server.
wherein the second remote server is controlled by a merchant.
further comprising generating a notification data structure which may be transmitted from the remote server to a second remote server.
wherein the notification data structure comprises user-identification data.
wherein the notification data structure comprises user payment data.
wherein the notification data structure is associated with the alert.
wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more of an image sensor, a motion sensor, a location sensor, a proximity sensor, an orientation sensor, and an eye- tracking sensor.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of identifying a product picked up by a user, determining the product has left the retail location, determining the product has not been purchased by the user, and sending an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a database”, “computer-executable instruction sets”, “non-volatile computer-readable medium”, “a second remote server”, an image sensor, a motion sensor, a location sensor, a proximity sensor, an orientation sensor, and an eye- tracking sensor” these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 17, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 5-11, 14, and 18 are also ineligible.
REASONS FOR INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
The present invention is directed towards identifying a product picked up by a user, determining the product has left the retail location, determining the product has not been purchased by the user. Independent claim 1 (as interpreted), when looking at the claim as a whole, teaches the novel and non-obvious features of:
acquiring, using one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, an image of the user, and
executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium to recognize a visual feature based on the image, the visual feature indicating a proximity between the product and the user;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product has been picked up by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product has been picked up by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a first location of the product and a first location of the user, and
determining that the first location of the product and the first location of the user are within a threshold distance;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product is carried by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product is carried by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a second location of the product and a second location of the user after determining that the product has been picked up by the user, and
determining that the second location of the product and the second location of the user are within the threshold distance,
determining, by a scanner at the retail location, whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting, by the scanner at the retail location, identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining, by the remote server, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with a determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, receiving, via the augmented reality device, an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user, the alert generated by the remote server.
The Examiner notes the claimed limitations, when looking at the claims as a whole, especially distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art. While identifying a product picked up by a user and determining the product has not been purchased by the user is known, the specification of the combination of the limitations, as a whole, is novel. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims (as interpreted) exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
The following reference has been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention(s). The prior art generally relates to item identification and tracking. Templeton et al. (US 10,304,053 B1) discloses identifying a product, tracking movement of the product in the store, and if the product has left the store, determining if the product was purchased, and sending an alert for potential theft. Atchley et al. (US 20160260161 A1) discloses using sensors to determine if an item is within a threshold distance of a user. y Arcas et al. (US 2014/0172570 A1) discloses providing a user alerts via an augmented reality device based on the user’s detected location. Poglitsch (US 2015/0363816 A1) discloses delivering alerts to a consumer based on the presence of the consumer at a physical location. Gibb (US 2008/0103939 A1) discloses detecting using a sensor when an item has been removed from a shelf. Worley et al. (US 10,664,795 B1) discloses managing inventory as it transitions between locations within a location using sensors that monitor weight to track an items location. Calman et al. (US 2012/0233003 A1) discloses using real-time video analysis and AR to assist the user of a mobile device via object recognition in order to recognize shoppable products and provide recommendations. Templeton et al., Atchley et al., y Arcas et al., Poglitsch, Gibb, Worley et al., and Calman et al. does not anticipate nor render obvious:
acquiring, using one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, an image of the user, and
executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium to recognize a visual feature based on the image, the visual feature indicating a proximity between the product and the user;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product has been picked up by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product has been picked up by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a first location of the product and a first location of the user, and
determining that the first location of the product and the first location of the user are within a threshold distance;
determining, by the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, that the product is carried by the user, wherein:
the determining that the product is carried by the user comprises:
determining, via the one or more sensors of the augmented reality device, a second location of the product and a second location of the user after determining that the product has been picked up by the user, and
determining that the second location of the product and the second location of the user are within the threshold distance,
determining, by a scanner at the retail location, whether the product carried by the user has left the retail location, wherein:
the determining whether that the product has left the retail location comprises:
transmitting, by the scanner at the retail location, identification data of the product to a remote server to determine whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
determining, by the remote server, whether the product has been purchased by the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the product has left the retail location and further in accordance with a determination that the product has not been purchased by the user, receiving, via the augmented reality device, an alert indicating that the product was not purchased by the user, the alert generated by the remote server.
As such, when reviewing the claims (as interpreted) as a whole, the Examiner asserts that the totality of the Evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rational for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. Accordingly, claims 1-20 (as interpreted) are novel over the prior art.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Templeton et al. (US 10,304,053 B1) discloses identifying a product, tracking movement of the product in the store, and if the product has left the store, determining if the product was purchased, and sending an alert for potential theft.
Reference B of the Notice of References Cited Atchley et al. (US 2016/0260161 A1) discloses using sensors to determine if an item is within a threshold distance of a user.
Reference C of the Notice of References Cited y Arcas et al. (US 2014/0172570 A1) discloses providing a user alerts via an augmented reality device based on the user’s detected location.
Reference D of the Notice of References Cited Poglitsch (US 2015/0363816 A1) discloses delivering alerts to a consumer based on the presence of the consumer at a physical location.
Reference E of the Notice of References Cited Gibb (US 2008/0103939 A1) discloses detecting using a sensor when an item has been removed from a shelf.
Reference F of the Notice of References Cited Worley et al. (US 10,664,795 B1) discloses managing inventory as it transitions between locations within a location using sensors that monitor weight to track an items location.
Reference G of the Notice of References Cited Calman et al. (US 2012/0233003 A1) discloses using real-time video analysis and AR to assist the user of a mobile device via object recognition in order to recognize shoppable products and provide recommendations.
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “Store Security - Proximity Trust Level for Mobile Shopper Audit” discloses retailers using tags and cameras to monitor movement of items though the store to decrease illegal behavior.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights