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
Preliminary Amendment
All pending claims 1-7, 11-14, 16-20 and 27-30 are examined in this non-final office action. Claims 8-10, 15 and 21-26 were canceled by Applicant.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
.
Claims 1, 11 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al., US 2018/0114250 “Phillips,” in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923.
In Phillips see at least (underlined text is for emphasis):
Regarding claim 1: (Original) A method comprising:
[Phillips: 0004] In one aspect, provided is a method for promoting store items at a retail environment, comprising: electronically pairing an augmented-reality gaming application, executed on a mobile electronic device with a shopping cart; determining a location of the shopping cart; establishing an electronic communication between the gaming application and the shopping cart during a shopping cart user's presence in the retail environment; receiving data at the mobile electronic device pertaining to a store item promotion in response to determining the location of the shopping cart; and applying information regarding the location of the shopping cart to the gaming application.
determining, by a server, a first location of a cart within an environment based on radio frequency (RF) measurements received via a wireless network from a first wireless device associated with the cart;
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings applied to claim 1 by Phillips and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer.
In Phillips see at least:
[Phillips: 0036] The pairing permits the mobile device 14 to receive (104) relevant data via the store's Wi-Fi network 22. Electronic communication devices such as infrared (IR) or radio frequency identification (RFID) beacons may be located at shelves (e.g., 19), aisle endcaps, aisles, and/or other store locations for detecting the shopping cart 16. Aisle beacons 13 can report (103) a location of nearby carts 16 back to the store server 24. The IoT device 15 of the shopping cart 16 may include a built-in IR or RFID tag for receiving (102) such signals. This communication between the mobile device 14, store WiFI network 22, and shopping cart 16 allows the store computer 24 to locate the cart 16, and by extension also the mobile device 14 due to the pairing. This feature permits the customer to enjoy navigational functions while also providing the customer with access to promotion-related information, product information, and/or other information, e.g., from the store server 24, that may improve or enhance the shopper's experience at the store. Therefore, store customers provide more interaction with respect to items of interest, especially items that are being promoted, than merely perusing items stored on shelves due to the customer receiving an increased amount of promotion due to the customer's location in a store. The store computer 24, in turn, can collect customer shopping pattern information for performing analytics or other reasons.
[Phillips: 0044] Referring to the first application 300, an aisle or other location closest to the customer may be established by the nearest aisle beacon 13 outputting signals to locate nearby shopping carts 16. When the aisle beacon 13 identifies a cart, it reports the location of the cart to the store server 24 which can process the location information and in response output information relevant to that region of the store.
Although Phillips’ in-store sensors identify a cart’s location within a predetermined distance established by the geofence and therefore determine the location of the user’s mobile device electronically paired with the user’s cart, Phillips does not expressly mention techniques for determining distance based upon measurements using RF devices. Bauer on the other hand would have taught Phillips such techniques.
In Bauer see at least:
[Bauer: 0027] The distance determination module 200 determines a distance between a client device and a shopping cart. To determine the distance between the client device and the shopping cart, the distance determination module receives device sensor data from one or more sensors. The device sensor data is sensor data that describes one or more measurements of the client device. For example, the device sensor data may include GPS data, Bluetooth data, accelerometer data, WiFi data, image data, sound data, or NFC data. The one or more sensors may be coupled to the client device, the shopping cart, or to portions of a brick-and-mortar store in which the client device is located.
[Bauer: 0058] FIG. 4A illustrates sensor data being captured in a brick-and-mortar store, in accordance with some embodiments. The sensor data may be captured by sensors coupled to a shopping cart 400 or sensors coupled to client devices 410 held by users in the store. In some embodiments, sensors mounted in the store also capture sensor data to be used by an automated checkout system. As described above, device sensor data is sensor data that measures client devices 410 in the store, and cart sensor data is sensor data that measures the shopping cart 400. Additionally, distances 420 between the shopping cart 400 and client devices 410 may be determined based on the device sensor data and the cart sensor data.
[Bauer: 0069] The automated checkout system receives 700 device sensor data from a first set of sensors. The device sensor data describes a set of measurements of a client device by the first set of sensors. The automated checkout system receives 710 cart sensor data from a second set of sensors. The cart sensor data describe a set of measurements of a shopping cart by the second set of sensors.
[Bauer: 0071] The automated checkout system determines 730 one or more distances of the client device from the shopping cart. Each distance may be determined at one of the timestamps of an action event; in other words, the automated checkout system may determine the distance of the client device from the shopping cart at each timestamp when the automated checkout system detects an action event. The automated checkout system may determine the one or more distances based on the device sensor data and the cart sensor data.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Bauer, which a) measure the distance of the user’s cart using RF technology, b) measure of the user’s mobile device using RF technology, and c) measure the distance between the user’s cart and the user’s mobile device. Such techniques would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Bauer to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Phillips-Bauer and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer.
receiving, by the server via the wireless network, an association of a second wireless device with the cart and a second location of the second wireless device;
[Phillips: 0045] Thus, when the shopping cart 16 is detected, the cart 16 automatically associates, or pairs (302), with the nearest aisle beacon 13, for example, similar to step 102 of FIG. 1. In doing so, the mobile device store application executed at the customer's mobile device 14 which in turn is paired with the identified cart 16 may display information relevant to the region of the store where the customer is currently located.
determining, by the server, a first group of products associated with a first region of the environment in a vicinity of the first location;
[Phillips: 0012] In some embodiments, the retail establishment includes a location beacon device, and the method further comprises: scanning for the shopping cart when the shopping cart is within a predetermined distance from the location beacon device; notifying by the location beacon device a store server when the cart has entered a geofence or other electronically formed perimeter establishing the predetermined distance; sending by the server a promotional message to the linked mobile device that corresponds to the location beacon device; and prompting the user with the promotional message.
[Phillips: 0033] … For example, beacon 13 is in the cereal aisle and sees cart 16. It sends a message to the server 24 that cart 16 has been detected. The server 24 finds that cart 16 is paired with mobile device 14. It sends a message related to cereal to mobile device 14. Please note: Cereal aisle qualifies as a first group of products.
[Phillips: 0039] Since the system can identify the location of the cart 16, and therefore by extension may identify the location of the store customer via the customer's mobile device 14, the system may present the customer with information about nearby items.
[Phillips: 0054] Promoted items throughout the store would trigger a pop-up when the user is a predetermined distance from the promoted items, for example, detected by geofencing, WiFi, or other navigation or detection technology. The user is prompted to add the item to a discount card or the like or pass by. If added to the cart, the customer is rewarded by bonus points and/or sharable “badges” for social sharing.
determining, by the server, a first indication from a sensor corresponding to the first region, the first indication identifying a first potential product selection; and
[Phillips: 0037] For example, wireless communications, such as IR/RFID and/or geofencing, may provide for a beacon 13 to scan for and locate any shopping cart that enters a certain proximity, e.g., ˜3 feet. When the beacon 13 detects the cart 16 within a predetermined range, it reports to the central server 24 that the cart 16 has entered the geofence, WiFi region, or other electronic communication perimeter within proximity of the beacon 13. The server 24 then sends the promotional message to the linked device 14 that corresponds to that beacon 13. The customer is prompted with the promotion, but has to select it on the device 14 to take advantage of the promotional data available due to the pairing. The message may be canceled, or otherwise communication can be broken, when the cart 16 leaves the predefined region, e.g., geofence area.
determining, by the server, whether the first potential product selection meets one or more criteria involving the first location and the second location.
[Phillips: 0039] … For example, the mobile device store application may be configured to filter information by price, dietary needs, and so on. For example, if a customer is diabetic, the customer may not be interested in sugary cereals. Filters can be implemented that would allow any advertisements and promotions to be more relevant and effective to the customer's needs. Please note: Phillips determines user criteria.
[Phillips: 0068] Another feature may permit the customer to input a shopping list remotely from the store, for example, from a home computer. This may synchronize with items available in the store and provide the user with navigational functionality within the store using the IR or RFID beacons to guide the cart to the desired items. If a customer builds a shopping list at home or on their device, the customer can navigate to it via the cart's in-store location. For example, a location detector such as a beacon or the like may provide a location of a customer in the store. The customer may receive and follow prompts on the mobile device 14 to find the item of interest. The shopping list is entered into the application 21, or more specifically, user's store account. The completed shopping list may trigger the starting point of a game in some embodiments. The gaming application permits a user to search for items of interest as a game objective, wherein the pairing includes a navigation feature that guides the user to promoted items during the game play, for example, shown in the screenshot of the display 800 shown in FIG. 6.
Regarding claims 11 and 27: Rejections are based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Phillips-Bauer and further upon Phillips-Bauer regarding system and apparatus computing elements:
[Phillips: 0032] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of electronic components of an environment at which a virtual promotion of store items may be performed, in accordance with some embodiments.
[Phillips: 0033] A store customer's mobile device 14 is paired (101) with a shopping cart 16 or the like that is equipped with an Internet of Things (IoT) device 15. The pairing communication permits the mobile device 14 to be located. Pairing can be achieved by using the mobile device 14 to scan a quick response (QR) code, barcode, or other cart identification device on the shopping cart 16. Data related to the linking between device 14 and cart 16 may be stored at the database 25. When the beacon 13 senses a cart, it sends that cart ID to the server 24. The server 24 looks up which device paired with that cart ID and sends the message to that device 14. For example, beacon 13 is in the cereal aisle and sees cart 16. It sends a message to the server 24 that cart 16 has been detected. The server 24 finds that cart 16 is paired with mobile device 14. It sends a message related to cereal to mobile device 14.
Please note: For claims 1 and 11 the first location pertains to the cart and the second location pertains to the wireless device. For claim 27 first location pertains to the wireless device and the second location pertains to the cart.
Regarding claim 28: Rejections are based upon the disclosures applied to claim 27 by Phillips-Bauer and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer pertaining to pairing the user’s mobile device with the user’s cart.
Regarding claim 29: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 27 by Phillips-Bauer and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer to determine the distance between the user’s cart and the user’s mobile device using RF technology.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, US 2018/0114250, in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923, and Davis et al., US 10,885,336 “Davis.”
Regarding claims 2 and 12 : Rejections are based upon the teachings applied to claims 1 and 11 by Phillips-Bauer and further upon Phillips-Bauer-Davis wherein the first region comprises a product shelf, and wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a surveillance camera having a field of view at least partially covering the first region or a weight sensor associated with the product shelf in the first region.
In Phillips see at least:
[Phillips: 0042] … The IoT device 15 at the cart 176 can provide navigational services, for example, directing the customer to the items on the shopping list using IR beacons 13 or other sensors.
[Phillips: 0067] In another example, the customer's device 14, when paired with a shopping cart 16, could scan items that the customer is interested in purchasing. The customer could then place the items into a special area of the cart that would weigh items.
Although Phillips-Bauer teach using other sensors to direct the customer to items, Phillips-Bauer do not expressly mention techniques using at least one surveillance camera having a field of view covering the first region, the first region comprising a product shelf. Davis on the other hand would have taught Phillips-Bauer such techniques.
In Davis see at least:
(Davis: D60: col. 6, lines 16-23) One such means is an array of downwardly-looking cameras, which may be provided at regularly-spaced intervals along the length of a shelf, or shelf rack. For example, the cameras may be spaced at 12, 24 or 36 inch intervals. The front of each shelf may have such a camera array—to capture data indicating withdrawal of items from the shelf beneath, or a single array of cameras may be positioned above a rack of shelves.
(Davis: D62: col. 6, lines 26-28) Such an array of cameras along a shelf or rack essentially defines a vertical sensing curtain that is monitored for hands reaching toward a shelf, and stocked items being withdrawn.
(Davis: D68: col. 7, lines 20-27) In other embodiments, greyscale or color imagery need not be used. Thermal or depth sensing cameras can be used—simply to identify the region on the shelf/rack at which a shopper reached for an item, or from which an item was removed. Planogram data (e.g., in a store database) that specifies the known locations where different items are stocked, can serve to associate different shelf locations with different items.
(Davis: D69: col. 7, lines 28-40) If a single curtain of camera data is collected for a rack of shelves as in FIG. 5A, there is ambiguity as to which shelf—vertically—is being accessed by the shopper. A pressure sensitive mat can be provided on each shelf, and can serve to unambiguously identify the particular shelf from which an item was withdrawn. The camera data thus provides a spatial coordinate datum down the length of the aisle (i.e., laterally, or horizontally), and the mat provides a spatial datum vertically, allowing identification of the withdrawn item from the planogram data. (For clarity of illustration, FIG. 5A shows just a single pressure sensitive mat 21. It will be understood that each shelf in the vertical rack of shelves would have its own such mat.)
(Davis: D88: col. 9, lines 39-55) A sample log of detected item removals is shown in FIG. 9. The first item is a time-stamp (e.g., hour: minute: second). Next is an indication of the item location in the store, indicated by Row/Side number (e.g., Aisles 1-6 marked in FIG. 3, followed by E, W, N or S to indicate side). Appended after the colon is the location down the aisle, from the front of store, or west of store end, indicated in feet. Following that is the shelf number from which the item was removed (e.g., with “1” being the bottom shelf.) Next are the item GTIN, a textual description (for the register tape), and the item weight. Other metadata (e.g., item price) can also be included.
(Davis: D153: col. 17, line 55-col. 18, line 2) If shopper 3 approaches the front of the store first, they can rest their basket on a counter of a customer service desk or bagging station that is equipped with a weight sensor. The measured weight will quickly indicate whether a can of soup and a bag of sugar are present, or just a bag of sugar. If extra weight consistent with a can of soup is detected from the basket of shopper 3, that item is added to the checkout tally. Additionally, the tally of shopper 4—still in the aisles of the store—is updated, to set the probability of trellis node 64 to zero; the system knows shopper 4 does not have the soup. (Additionally or alternatively, store-provided baskets and totes may be equipped with integral weight sensors, which wirelessly report weight data for their aggregate contents to a store computer, allowing such disambiguation to be performed prior to either shopper checking out.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Davis, which include a) at least one of a surveillance camera having a field of view at least partially covering the first region, i.e. rack of shelves, and b) shelf pressure mats used to measure weight of items removed from shelves. Such techniques would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Davis to the teachings of Philips-Bauer would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 2 and 12 by Phillips-Bauer-Davis and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Davis regarding wherein determining whether the first potential product selection meets one or more criteria comprises determining the first potential product selection is valid based on a distance between the first location and the second location not exceeding a threshold distance.
In Phillips-Bauer-Davis see at least:
[Phillips: 0037] For example, wireless communications, such as IR/RFID and/or geofencing, may provide for a beacon 13 to scan for and locate any shopping cart that enters a certain proximity, e.g., ˜3 feet. When the beacon 13 detects the cart 16 within a predetermined range, it reports to the central server 24 that the cart 16 has entered the geofence, WiFi region, or other electronic communication perimeter within proximity of the beacon 13. Please note: A predetermined range establishes a distance threshold.
(Davis: D100: col. 11, lines 27-33) The number within nodes through which a track passes indicates the probability (confidence) that the shopper picked up that item. In the illustrated embodiment, the probability ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 being 100% confidence that this shopper picked up this item. FIG. 11A indicates such certainty that shopper 1 picked up the toothpaste. Please note: Fig. 11A indicates 100% confidence that the shopper picked up toothpaste in T8 which qualifies as validation.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, US 2018/0114250, in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923 and Davis, US 10,885,336, as applied to claims 3 and 13 further in view of DeLuca et al., US 2018/0189835 “DeLuca.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 3 and 13 by Phillips-Bauer-Davis and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Davis-DeLuca.
In Phillips-Bauer-Davis see at least:
[Phillips: 0012] In some embodiments, the retail establishment includes a location beacon device, and the method further comprises: scanning for the shopping cart when the shopping cart is within a predetermined distance from the location beacon device; notifying by the location beacon device a store server when the cart has entered a geofence or other electronically formed perimeter establishing the predetermined distance; sending by the server a promotional message to the linked mobile device that corresponds to the location beacon device; and prompting the user with the promotional message.
[Phillips: 0037] For example, wireless communications, such as IR/RFID and/or geofencing, may provide for a beacon 13 to scan for and locate any shopping cart that enters a certain proximity, e.g., ˜3 feet. When the beacon 13 detects the cart 16 within a predetermined range, it reports to the central server 24 that the cart 16 has entered the geofence, WiFi region, or other electronic communication perimeter within proximity of the beacon 13. The server 24 then sends the promotional message to the linked device 14 that corresponds to that beacon 13. The customer is prompted with the promotion, but has to select it on the device 14 to take advantage of the promotional data available due to the pairing. The message may be canceled, or otherwise communication can be broken, when the cart 16 leaves the predefined region, e.g., geofence area.
Although Phillips a) detects a shopping cart entering a geofence and sends a promotional message to the user’s mobile device, and b) cancels the promotional message when the shopping cart leaves the geofence area, Phillips does not expressly mention techniques to offer a second promotional message when the user moves into another geofence area within the store. DeLuca on the other hand would have taught Phillips such techniques that apply to in-store geofences.
In DeLuca see at least:
[DeLuca: 0003] A geofence's perimeter may be virtually established around a point of interest such as an address, a business, landmark, home, etc. Programs that incorporate geo-fencing allow an administrator of a geofence to set up triggers so when a device enters (or exits) the boundaries of the geofence (defined by the administrator), a text message or email alert is sent. Many geo-fencing applications incorporate Google® Earth, allowing administrators to define boundaries on top of a satellite view of a specific geographical area. Other applications may define boundaries by longitude and latitude or through user-created and Web-based maps.
[DeLuca: 0021] In some embodiments, computer systems managing the geofence may map the geofence within a defined boundary to specified location on a map. The computer systems managing the geofence may track one or more computer devices entering, exiting and dwelling within the geofence (triggering events) linked to the marketing campaign.
[DeLuca: 0036] Geofence configuration data 306 inputted into the mapping module 107 may further configure one or more acceptable geofence transitions (e.g. enter, exit, dwell). The performance of a geofence transition by a client device 201 may trigger the transmission of a campaign message to the client device 201 interacting with the geofence once the geofence has been established and activated. The mapping module 107 may configure a response provided by the geofence upon the occurrence of one or more of the programmed transitions. For example, in some embodiments, when a client device 201 breaches the virtual boundary of the geofence and enters the geofenced area, a campaign message may be transmitted to the client device 201, describing nearby events, activities, promotions, coupons and products. Similarly, the exit transition may be programmed to allow for the campaign management system 101 to deliver a different campaign message to a client device 201 exiting the geofence. For instance, the campaign message may thank the user for participating in the marketing campaign and/or inform a campaign participant about upcoming promotions to look out for in the geofence space that the participant had just exited. Likewise, in some embodiments, where the transition selected is a “dwell” action, the mapping module 107 may configure the geofence to transmit a campaign message to a client device 201 once the tracked device has maintained a location within the geofence for a pre-set or pre-programmed amount of time.
[DeLuca: 0055] As shown in FIG. 4, the mapping module 207 may plot geofence events 405a, 405b and a surrounding geofence boundary 403a, 403b onto the mapping interface 302. The locations of each geofence event 405a, 405b and the size of the geofence boundaries 403a, 403b may be defined by the configuration settings prescribed by the mapping module 107 of the campaign management system 101 and subsequently created by the geofence management system 301 according to the prescribed settings. Each geofence event 405a, 405b may be tied to a region, store, public location, address, live event occurring in real time, or any other type of event. The timing of the geofence event 405a, 405b and the associated marketing campaign may be predetermined and/or timed to a specific start date/times. In some embodiments, the geofence events 405a, 405b may also have a pre-determined end date/times of a particular events real time length, however special promotions and geofences designed for the event may have a conversion limit that may cause the event to end once a specified number of qualifying events have occurred, rather than the scheduled end time.
[DeLuca: 0058] As depicted by the embodiment of FIG. 5a, the device location 304 of the client device 201 has changed location. As shown, the device location 304 has repositioned as a function of the location information, to a new position inside the geofence boundary 403a. In response to the penetration of the device location 304 into the geofence boundary 403a, the geofence management system 301 may transmit a campaign message 510 corresponding to the geofence event 405a, while the geofence event 405a is still operating under an active marketing campaign.
[DeLuca: 0060] FIG. 6a depicts an embodiment of a client device 201 having a device location 304 positioned within the geofence boundary 403b of the geofence event 405b. As it can be observed, the marketing campaigns for geofence events 405a and 405b may differ from one another, thus, the campaign messages 510, 610 delivered when the geofence boundary 403a, 403b is penetrated differs accordingly. As shown in FIG. 6a, upon the change in position of the device location 304 to a location within the geofence boundary 403b of geofence event 405b, the geofence management system 301 transmits a campaign message 610 associated with the marketing campaign of geofence event 405b. In an embodiment of the geofence system 100, wherein the geofence events 405a, 405b are derived from different marketing campaigns, the campaign messages 510, 610 may differ as depicted by the figures.
DeLuca a) establishes more than one geofence within an area, b) entry into each geofence triggers different promotional messages and c) tracks the location of the user’s mobile device. Given that Phillips-Bauer-Davis demonstrate the use of an in-store geofence associated with a promotional message, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system and methods of Phillips-Bauer-Davis to i) establish two or more geofences each associated with different promotional messages, and ii) track movement of the user’s mobile device for geofence entry, dwell and exit as taught by DeLuca, in order to promote more than one area of the store as the user’s mobile device leaves a geofence and enters a different geofence.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, US 2018/0114250, in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923 and Davis, US 10,885,336, as applied to claims 3 and 13 further in view of Cohn et al., US 2021/0177163 “Cohn.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 3 and 13 by Phillips-Bauer-Davis and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Davis-Cohn further comprising receiving, by the server, a notification from the first wireless device regarding placement of a product into the cart as detected by a camera; and responsive to the notification, transmitting an alert to the second wireless device indicating the product placed into the cart.
In Phillips-Bauer-Davis see at least:
(Davis: D72: col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 2) Yet another embodiment employs camera sensors provided within baskets—imaging items as they are placed in, and/or rest in, the basket, and identified using one of the above-referenced technologies.
(Davis: D81: col. 9, lines 9-15) In still other embodiments, item-removal sensing is not performed by fixed infrastructure sensors—such as cameras and/or mats, but rather by sensors conveyed by shoppers' baskets. For example, one or more cameras can capture imagery of a selected item as it is placed in a basket. As before, the item can be recognized by machine readable indicia, image fingerprinting, neural networks, etc.
Although Phillips-Davis detect an item is removed and placed in the shopping basket, Phillips-Davis do not expressly mention techniques used to detect sending the shopper an alert to indicate a product was placed in the cart. Cohn on the other hand would have taught Phillips-Davis such techniques.
In Cohn see at least:
[Cohn: 0002] Traditionally, when the user has finished identifying and retrieving the items he or she desires, the user may transport the items in the cart to a check-out destination within the materials handling facility, such as a distribution station, a cashier, or a dedicated self-checkout stand, and transition the items to a human operator or an automated agent. …
[Cohn: 0005] FIG. 1 illustrates an example sequence of operations in which a user places an item into an item-identifying cart, which identifies the item using image data generated by one or more cameras mounted to the cart. In response to identifying the item, the cart outputs one or more indications indicating that an item has been an identified. Sometime thereafter, the cart uses weight data generated by one or more weight sensors of the cart to determine an outcome of an event involving the identified item, such as an action related to the item (e.g., take or return) and a quantity involved.
[Cohn: 0023] In some instances, the item-identifying cart (or “smart cart”) may include one or more cameras for generating image data, which the cart may thereafter analyze to identify one or more items represented in the image data. After identifying one or more items, the cart may provide feedback to a user operating the cart to indicate that one or more items have been identified. For example, upon a user placing an item into or removing an item from the cart, the cart may generate image data, identify the item, and cause one or more output devices on the cart (or otherwise) to output an indication that the item has been identified. For example, the cart may cause a lighting element on the cart to turn a predefined color (e.g., green) or to illuminate in a predefined lighting sequence. In addition, or in the alternative, the cart may cause a display located on the cart to present data identifying the item, thus indicating to the user that the cart has successfully identified the item that has been placed into or removed from the cart. In still other instances, the cart may cause one or more other displays or output devices (e.g., a mobile phone of the user) to output one or more indications, which may be audible, visual, and/or the like. In still other instances, the cart may cause one or more speakers (on the cart or otherwise) to output an audible tone or other sound indicating that the item has been identified.
[Cohn: 0057] FIG. 2 illustrates an example environment of a materials handling facility 200 that includes the item-identifying cart 102 of FIG. 1 to identify items placed in, and removed from, a basket of the cart by a user 202. FIG. 2 further illustrates a process 216 that the cart may implement for providing feedback to the user 202 of the cart that an item 104 placed into or removed from the cart has been identified and, thereafter, feedback identifying a determined result of an event involving the identified item.
[Cohn: Fig. 8A (102); 0157] In some examples, the cart management system 830 may further include a locating component 878 configured to determine locations of the cart 102 in the facility 200. … In such examples, the cart 102 may include a light sensor to generate the sensor data 854 representing the IR or NIR and determine the location of the cart 102 in the facility. In some instances, there may be visible landmarks or markers throughout the facility that indicate a location in the facility, and the locating component 878 may analyze image data 856 generated by an outward facing camera to determine a location of the cart 102. …
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Cohn, which a) use image data to determine whether an item has been placed into or removed from a shopping cart, and b) identify the item and provide the cart user with feedback, e.g. message, audio or visual sounds etc., that indicate the item has been identified and placed or removed from the shopping cart. Such known techniques would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Cohn to the teachings of Phillips-Bauer-Davis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 7, 17, 18 and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, US 2018/0114250, in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923 and Backlund et al., US 7,213,751.
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 30: Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1, 11 and 27 by Phillips-Bauer and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Backlund wherein the wireless network includes access points associated with an Electronic Shelf Label (ESL) system of the environment, wherein the ESL system includes a plurality of ESL devices deployed in different product regions throughout the environment, and wherein the first location of the cart is determined based on the RF measurements of wireless signals exchanged between the first wireless device and one or more of the access points.
In Phillips see at least:
[Phillips: 0036] The pairing permits the mobile device 14 to receive (104) relevant data via the store's Wi-Fi network 22. Electronic communication devices such as infrared (IR) or radio frequency identification (RFID) beacons may be located at shelves (e.g., 19), aisle endcaps, aisles, and/or other store locations for detecting the shopping cart 16. Aisle beacons 13 can report (103) a location of nearby carts 16 back to the store server 24. The IoT device 15 of the shopping cart 16 may include a built-in IR or RFID tag for receiving (102) such signals. This communication between the mobile device 14, store WiFI network 22, and shopping cart 16 allows the store computer 24 to locate the cart 16, and by extension also the mobile device 14 due to the pairing. Please note: Phillips discloses network access points.
[Phillips: 0056] When a customer is in proximity of the item of interest in the aisle, a small sprite, image, icon, or other electronic representation of the item may be displayed, for example, on a map that serves as a treasure map of the like, allowing the customer to tap on it and open up a barcode scanner or view further information on the item. To achieve this, the customer's shopping list is loaded onto the mobile device application 21 executed at the mobile device 14.
[Phillips: 0060] … For example, a customer may open up the circular advertisement or the like and notice that an advertisement regarding an item of interest such as a box of cereal has a QR code beside it. The customer can use a mobile device 14 to scan this QR code and in response receive a displayed notification that there is a promotion for the particular type of cereal of interest.
Although Phillips-Bauer a) use network access points to communicate shopping cart and user mobile device location, and b) scan product QR codes/barcodes, Phillips-Bauer do not expressly mention techniques using electronic shelf labels. Backlund on the hand would have taught Phillips such techniques.
In Backlund see at least:
(Backlund: B5: col. 1, lines 24-34) Further a shelf-edge marking is applied at the location of each article, which marking states the name of the article and normally also a cost-per-unit price, e.g. the price per kilogram. Earlier, each article was usually provided also with a sticker stating the price and possibly a temporary discount price. In order to reduce the cost of such a price marking, effort is made, particularly in larger retail stores, to leave out the individual price marking of each article, in which case the price marking is achieved only by means of shelf-edge marking at the storing place of each type of article.
(Backlund: B6: col. 1, lines 35-43) A further step in cost optimization includes electronic shelf-edge markings, which are controlled from the central system computer, thereby stating the price stored in the central system computer of the article in question. Through this, it will be ensured that the items of information of the price marking will correspond to the price charged to the customer at the cash-point, which obtains the price indicating items of information, just like the shelf-edge marking, from the central system computer.
(Backlund: B7: col. 1, lines 48-56) Common to such systems is that the transmission of information should be achieved via wireless in order to obtain a flexible price-marking system. Such transmission is suitably performed by means of radio or light waves. Preferred radio waves are within the short wave range, mainly due to bandwidth regulations. Preferred light waves are within the range of non-visible light, e.g. IR-light as used in prior art for various remote control devices to control electronic or electrical apparatuses, such as TV-sets etc.
(Backlund: B8: col. 1, line 57-col. 2, line 3) Electronic Shelf Labelling (ESL) systems in retail environments using wireless transmission of data from transmitters to electronic labels (EL) commonly comprise a Base Station (BS) to which a number of transceivers are connected, which BS is capable of issuing messages to be transmitted via said transmitters. The BS is in turn connected to and controlled by a central processing unit, and in special embodiments the BS may even be integrated in the central processing unit. Large systems may further comprise several BS, all connected to the central processing unit. With Transciever (TRX) is meant a combined transmitter and receiver device for electromagnetic radiation (like radio, IR etc) or sound waves or other physical means of distributing signals.
(Backlund: B9: col. 2, lines 4-17) FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of a typical ESL system 10 wherein eight TRX 20 are connected to a BS 30. The TRX 20 is typically connected to the BS 30 by a signal distribution line 40, such as a twisted pair-cable, a coaxial-cable or the like. The coverage area 50 from a single TRX 20 is shown by the solid line, but to obtain maximum coverage, the TRXes are arranged such that constructive interference of signals is used to obtain the required signal-level in the intermediate regions 60 between the coverage areas 50 of two adjacent TRX 20. FIG. 2a shows the principle of constructive interference of signals from two spaced apart TRX 20. The required signal level is shown by L1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Backlund, which a) teach electronic shelf labels as an evolving technology that convey accurate product pricing and information to the shopper, and b) utilize a communications network to transmit product pricing and information to ESLs. Such techniques would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Backlund to the teachings of Phillips-Bauer would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 18: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 17 by Phillips-Bauer-Backlund and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Backlund regarding asset tracking:
[Phillips: 0034] The shopping cart 16 may also be equipped with an infrared (IR) or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag or the like so that aisle beacons 13 can detect when the shopping cart 16 is within a predetermined proximity of the beacon 13. The shopping cart 16 may include other accessories such as a digital scale or other IoT device for weighing items.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, US 2018/0114250, in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923, and Backlund, US 7,213,751, as applied to claim 17 further in view of Francis, US 2023/0177457.
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 17, by Phillips-Bauer-Backlund and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Backlund-Francis.
In Phillips-Bauer-Backlund see at least:
[Phillips: 0034] The shopping cart 16 may also be equipped with an infrared (IR) or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag or the like so that aisle beacons 13 can detect when the shopping cart 16 is within a predetermined proximity of the beacon 13. The shopping cart 16 may include other accessories such as a digital scale or other IoT device for weighing items.
Although Phillips-Bauer-Backlund a) teach electronic shelf labels as an evolving technology that convey accurate product pricing and information to the shopper, b) utilize a communications network to transmit product pricing and information to ESLs, and c) detect cart location using aisle beacons, Phillips-Bauer-Backlund do not expressly mention techniques for equipping the cart with a camera to capture visual information pertaining to an area of the environment to determine cart location. Francis on the other hand would have taught Phillips-Bauer-Backlund such techniques.
In Francis see at least:
[Francis: 0014] In one example, the present disclosure is directed to a system comprising a plurality of stocked items arranged throughout a store and mobile scanning device components connected to a cart, wherein the mobile scanning device components include a camera that is configured to acquire images in the store, and wherein the mobile scanning device components are configured to determine a location of the cart and the camera in the store based on the acquired images.
[Francis: 0458] FIG. 61B illustrates a view down the aisle, such as from a user's perspective. The cameras are illustrated as being aimed in different directions and having different fields of view. The cameras are illustrated as attached to a cart, although the cameras may be attached to or included in another object, or included in an MSD carried by the user. In FIG. 61B, two cameras capture the left side of the aisle, while a wider field of view camera captures images of the right side of the aisle. If the cart were moved to the right side of the aisle, the two cameras on the same side of the cart would begin to acquire images having overlapping items.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Francis, which a) implement mobile scanning device components that include a camera that is configured to acquire images in the store, and b) wherein the mobile scanning device components are configured to determine a location of the cart and the camera in the store based on the acquired images. Such techniques would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Francis to the teachings of Phillips-Bauer-Backlund would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, US 2018/0114250, in view of Bauer, US 2023/0376923 and Backlund, US 7,213,751, as applied to claim 17 further in view of Hill et al., US 2021/0012635 “Hill.”
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 17 by Phillips-Bauer-Backlund and further upon the combination of Phillips-Bauer-Backlund-Hill. Although Phillips-Bauer-Backlund measure distance between a user’s cart and the user’s mobile device in an RF-based network, Phillips-Bauer-Backlund do not expressly mention techniques for distance calculations based upon at least one of round-trip time, angle of arrival or time difference of arrival. Hill on the other hand would have taught Phillips-Bauer-Backlund such techniques.
In Hill see at least:
[Hill: 0037] FIG. 18 is a diagram of a shopping cart with an embodiment of an article-identification-and-location device coupled to one side of the cart.
[Hill: 0095] The processor of the activated article-identification-and-location device 102 turns on the indicator 120 (e.g., an LED if configured with one), with the purpose of notifying the customer of the location of the item of interest. The LED can flash green, for example, and may turn on after the customer comes within a certain distance of the article-identification-and-location device, a distance calculated by the processor of the article-identification-and-location device 102 based on the RF signals (e.g., signal-strength, angle of arrival or time of arrival measurements) arriving from the customer mobile device 110.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Hill, which measure distance based upon signal-strength, angle of arrival or time of arrival measurements. Such techniques would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of HIll to the teachings of Phillips-Bauer-Backlund would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Studerus et al., US 2024/0038011 “Access Control Method, Device and System,” discloses:
[Studerus: 0055] Multilateration and/or multiangulation relies on determining the distances between the authentication device(s) 100 and the plurality of ultra-wideband transceiver(s) 12 of the access control device 10. Determining the distances between the authentication device(s) 100 and the plurality of ultra-wideband transceiver(s) 12 based on the propagation time of the ultra-wideband transmissions comprises measuring the time required for a signal to travel from the ultra-wideband transceivers 12 to the ultra-wideband communication module 102 of the authentication device 100; and/or the time required for a signal to travel from the ultra-wideband communication module 102 of the authentication device 100 to the ultra-wideband transceiver 12. In a particular embodiment, a time difference is used as a basis for determining the distances, as it is more secure against spoofing attacks, wherein a third party may use a radio relay device to gain unauthorized access to a location or system in a so-called “relay-attack”. Depending on the embodiment, the time difference is a “one-way time-of-flight” time difference between the ultra-wideband transceivers 12 sending a signal and the authentication device 100 receiving the signal, or a “round-trip time-of-flight” time difference, in which a second transmission takes place from the ultra-wideband communication module 102 of the authentication device 100 to the ultra-wideband transceivers 12 either prior to, or after, the first transmission of the signal. In the “one-way time-of-flight” scenario, the ultra-wide-band transceivers 12 and the ultra-wideband communication module 102 of the authentication device 100 need to be provided with tightly synchronized clocks for accurately determining the distances. In the latter case of a “round-trip time-of-flight” calculation, there is stored, either in the authentication device 100 or the ultra-wideband transceivers 12, an accurate representation of the processing time, i.e. the time it takes between the reception of an ultra-wideband transmission and the sending of a response ultra-wideband transmission, which processing time allows for accurately determining the distances. Measurement of a time required for the signal to travel from the ultra-wideband transceivers 12 to the ultra-wideband communication module 102 of the authentication device 100 and back “round-trip time-of-flight” is advantageous as it does not require the precise synchronization of clock signals of the ultra-wideband transceivers 12 and the authentication device 100.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
September 26, 2026
