DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejections of amended independent claim 19 and dependent claims 20 and 22 below in view of Shmueli.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are allowed.
Claim 1 is allowed since none of the prior art alone or in combination suggests an interactive system, comprising:
a camera configured to capture imagery of an environment over time; and
a controller configured to:
analyze a first portion of the imagery to identify a guest in the environment;
instruct an output device to provide an initial output to attempt to interact with the guest, wherein the initial output is not guest-specific and is selected from a plurality of available initial outputs based on a rotation schedule;
analyze a second portion of the imagery to determine whether the guest responded to the initial output;
instruct, in response to determining that the guest responded to the initial output, the output device to provide a guest-specific additional output; and
block, in response to determining that the guest failed to respond to the initial output, the output device from providing the guest-specific additional output.
Claim 12 is allowed since none of the prior art alone or in combination suggests an interactive system, comprising: a controller configured to:
instruct an output device to provide an initial output to attempt to interact with one or more guests in an environment;
analyze imagery received from one or more cameras to determine whether at least one guest of the one or more guests responded to the initial output;
instruct the output device to provide an enhanced additional output in response to determining that the at least one guest of the one or more guests responded to the initial output; and
block the output device from providing the enhanced additional output in response to determining that the one or more guests failed to respond to the initial output;
wherein the initial output, the enhanced additional output, or both are based on one or more characteristics of the one or more guests, and the controller is configured to identify the one or more characteristics of the one or more guests based on the imagery, based on one or more identifiers received via radiofrequency communication with one or more portable objects carried by the one or more guests, or any combination thereof.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13 and 15-18 are allowed for being dependent upon aforementioned independent claims 1 and 12.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by EP 2136329 A2 to Shmueli.
As to claim 19, Shmueli discloses a method of operating an interactive system (Abstract: "The invention is a comprehensive computer implemented digital signage system and method for personalizing the advertising content according to the requirements and/or desire of a customer that is currently viewing the screen."), the method comprising:
instructing, using one or more processors, an output device to provide an initial output to attempt to interact with one or more guests in an environment ([0056]: "1. Based on these profiles the clips are sorted wherein the clip that most closely matches the gender, age and clothes type of the selected customer is placed first. 2. iv. Play the first clip in the ordered list");
analyzing, in response to the one or more guests entering a field of view of a camera and using the one or more processors, imagery captured by the camera to gather initial information from the imagery ([0056]: "a face recognition algorithm running on the computer determines from the images collected by the first camera 42 that at least one customer is watching the screen, the system enters the interactive mode");
utilizing, using the one or more processors, the initial information to provide the initial output, to determine whether at least one guest of the one or more guests demonstrated signs of interest in the initial output, or both (i.e. raising of a right hand, [0056]);
instructing, in response to determining that the at least one guest of the one or more guests demonstrated signs of interest in the initial output and using the one or more processors, the output device to provide a guest-specific additional output to continue to attempt to interact with the at least one guest of the one or more guests ([0056]: "v. If this customer raises his right hand, then the system recognizes this agreed upon signal and shows the next clip in the list.").
As to claim 22, Shmueli discloses wherein the initial output comprises a guest-specific initial output ([0056]: "1. Based on these profiles the clips are sorted wherein the clip that most closely matches the gender, age and clothes type of the selected customer is placed first. 2. iv. Play the first clip in the ordered list").
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2136329 A2 to Shmueli in view of US Patent No. 10,555,393 B1 to Fu et al (“Fu”)
As to claim 20, Shmueil fails to disclose comprising: instructing, using the one or more processors and one or more artificial intelligence algorithms, the output device to carry out a conversational interaction with the at least one guest of the one or more guests to provide the guest-specific additional output
Fu discloses comprising: instructing, using the one or more processors and one or more artificial intelligence algorithms, the output device to carry out a conversational interaction with the at least one guest of the one or more guests to provide the guest-specific additional output (col. 22, lines 50-62; col. 24, lines 1-45; Fu discloses artificial intelligence may be configured to interact/conversate with a user.).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shmueli with the teachings of Fu of comprising: instructing, using the one or more processors and one or more artificial intelligence algorithms, the output device to carry out a conversational interaction with the at least one guest of the one or more guests to provide the guest-specific additional output, as suggested by Fu thereby similarly using known configurations for utilizing AI algorithms for interacting with users in an interactive system.
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 NICHOLAS J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6PM.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights