DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 19/181514. This communication is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant filed an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) on 4/17/2025. This filing is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97.
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), a copy of the PTOL -1449 form, initialed and dated by the examiner, is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 4/17/2025 are acceptable as filed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely on line using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12314967 B2 in view of U.S Patent Number 11605117 to Zavaleta. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are obvious over the subject matter recited in claims 1-9 of the '967 patent in view of the cited prior art. The portions that are not identical contain only minor changes or narrowing of the claim language which are well known to a person of ordinary skill. In particular, the limitation “calculate an average value of the degree of familiarity obtained for a certain number of customers, for each of the items, and store the average value in a storage as familiarity degree information” is the only new limitation in the independent claims. Examiner asserts that averaging scores and storing them in databases is well known in the art (For example see teachings from the Zavaleta reference (Col. 11 lines 25-52 - Col 12 line 10)) and when combined with the claims from the ‘967 patent are rendered as an obvious variation and not patentably distinct under the nonstatutory double patenting framework.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “a first illumination unit towards or at a bottom of the item shelf… a second illumination unit towards or at a top of the item shelf,” however, Examiner notes the term “towards” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “towards” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim limitations consistent with the specification and assume that the illumination units are positioned at the top and bottom of the shelf. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Additionally, Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “wherein the second item camera is vertically higher lower than the first item camera.” This appears to be a typographical error; however, it introduces uncertainty as to whether the second camera is higher or lower, or it the positioning does not matter. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim limitations consistent with the specification and assume that the second item camera is vertically higher than the first item camera. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Additionally, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “ the video of the customer captured by the light-of-sight camera.” This appears to be a typographical error; however, it introduces uncertainty as to whether the camera is a line-of-sight camera or a different type of camera. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim limitations consistent with the specification and assume that the claim limitation intended to recite a line-of-sight camera. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are found to overcome the art of record. The claims would be found to be allowable if they overcame the 35 USC 112 and Double Patenting rejections.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication for overcoming the prior art of record:
The following limitations of claim 1,
A system comprising:
a line-of-sight camera disposed above an item shelf and configured to capture a video of a customer in front of the item shelf, including a face of the customer;
a first item camera disposed on a left portion of the item shelf and including a first illumination unit towards or at a bottom of the item shelf, the first item camera and configured to capture a video of the item shelf in an upper right direction while the first illumination unit is illuminating the item shelf in the upper right direction, the video including a hand of the customer taking or putting back an item from the item shelf:
a second item camera disposed on a right portion of the item shelf and including a second illumination unit towards or at a top of the item shelf, the second item camera and configured to capture a video of the item shelf in a lower left direction while the second illumination unit is illuminating the item shelf in the lower left direction, the video including the hand of the customer taking or putting back the item from the item shelf, wherein the second item camera is vertically higher lower than the first item camera;
a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
calculate a time while a hand is being viewed when a customer is viewing the hand, based on the video of the customer captured by the light-of-sight camera;
calculate a time while an item is being held when the customer is holding the item, based on the videos of the item shelf captured by the first and second item cameras;
estimate a degree of familiarity of the customer with respect to the item based on the time while the hand is being viewed and the time while the item is being held; and
calculate an average value of the degree of familiarity obtained for a certain number of customers, for each of the items, and store the average value in a storage as familiarity degree information
wherein disposition of the first and second item cameras on the left and right portions of the item shelf, respectively, where the second item camera is vertically higher than the first item camera, ensures that the item is included in the video captured by one of the first and second item cameras includes the item even when the item is hidden by the hand of the customer in the video captured by another of the first and second item cameras
are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are likewise found to overcome the art of record.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Ellison (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0414732) - The abstract provides for the following: In some embodiments, apparatuses and methods are provided herein useful to a price display system for a product. In some embodiments, a price display system for a product comprises a product display unit, a price sign comprising a substrate upon which markings are applied, wherein the markings include a price for a product and a visual identifier to identify the product, the visual identifier comprising a plurality of markers including a pair of markers, the pair of markers indicate boundaries of the visual identifier, data markers, wherein each of the data markers represents one of two states, wherein the data markers collectively represent an identification number corresponding to the product for sale in the retail environment, and timing markers, wherein each of the timing markers represent one of two states, wherein the timing markers collectively represent a timing value.
Chachek et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11354728) - The abstract provides for the following: System, device, and method of Augmented Reality based mapping of a venue and navigation within a venue. A method includes: performing a crowd-sourced mapping process, that maps a retail store and maps particular products sold within that retail store, based on computer-vision analysis of a plurality of images captured by a plurality of end-user devices of customers within that retail store; and generating a representation of a store map reflecting actual real-time location of particular products within that retail store. Turn-by-turn walking directions are provided, to guide the user from his current in-store location towards a destination product within that retail store. Augmented Reality promotions, advertisements and marketing content elements, route guidance, and other content are generated and displayed on the end-user device.
Rabinawitz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0194918) - The abstract provides for the following: Security apparatus is provided for the display of battery operated hand-held electronic devices. It includes an electronic recoiler device that combines the function of tethering the displayed devices while at the same time providing the power required by each of the displayed devices by means of a continuous electrical connection from a power supply to each displayed device. It also provides wire and wireless alarm functions, as well as visual perpetrator identification. The apparatus also provides specific product information and comparative product information to the potential customer by visual and audible means.
Rhoads et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0192872) - The abstract provides for the following: Content identifiers are associated with respective metadata. Through use of the metadata, a user's experience with the content can be enhanced. A variety of other arrangements are also detailed.
Zavaleta et al. (U.S Patent Number 11605117) – The abstract provides for the following: This disclosure is directed to a system and method that generates personalized recommendations of media items for customers based on a customer's preference for familiar or novel media items. A customer can be associated with user data that can include data such as a customer's purchase data, shopping data, etc. The user data can be used to determine media item data that is associated with the customer. Based on the customer's media item data, a familiarity score can be generated that indicates a media consumption preference of the customer. Using the familiarity score, a recommendation identifying a media item can be generated for the customer.
Li Yusheng et al. “User Familiar Degree-Aware Recommender System.” The abstract provides for the following: In a recommender system, items can be rated across multiple fields by users with varying degrees of familiarity. Hence, the ratings in a recommender system should have different recommended weights. Ratings in fields wherein the user has high or low familiarity should be given high or low recommended weights, respectively. However, current recommendation algorithms ignore this problem and use the ratings indiscriminately, thus affecting the accuracy of the recommendation system. In this paper, we provide a focused study of user-familiarity degree-aware recommendation and develop a user-familiarity degree-aware latent factor model for recommendations that considers both user familiarity and item features reflected by the tagging information. We also design a user-familiarity degree-aware probability matrix factorization model, which computes the degree of familiarity of a user with the items he/she has rated. By using the user-familiarity degree, different recommended weights are given to every rating to obtain precise recommendations. The experiment results on real-world datasets show that our algorithm significantly outperforms state-of-the-art latent factor models and effectively improves the accuracy of the recommendation results.
Fedorovskaya et al. (WO Patent Number WO 2014/004864 A1) - The abstract provides for the following: A method for determining an interest level of a digital image to a particular person. The digital image, or metadata as -sociated with the digital image, is analyzed to designate one or more image elements in the digital image. Familiarity levels of the designated image elements to the particular person are determined. The interest level of the digital image to the particular person is then determined responsive to the determined familiarity levels. In some embodiments the image elements include persons and scene contexts, where digital images containing more familiar persons and less familiar scene contexts correspond to higher interest levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/MATTHEW H DIVELBISS/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights