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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
1. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are directed to calling attention to a set of items in a warehouse, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-9 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 10-18 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which attention is called to a set of items in a warehouse, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
capturing, within a warehouse, an image depicting a plurality of structural elements within the warehouse;
applying an item detection engine to the captured image to identify the set of structural elements within the image, wherein the item detection engine is configured to identify elements within images captured within warehouses;
accessing a layout of the warehouse, wherein the layout describes a set of locations within the warehouse associated with structural elements within the warehouse;
generating a predicted location of the client device based on the accessed layout of the warehouse and the set of structural elements identified in the image;
applying the item detection engine to the captured image and the predicted location of the client device to identify a set of items depicted in the image;
generating a set of elements that call attention to the set of items identified in the image data; and
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to call attention to a set of items in a warehouse. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
by a camera of a client device
comprises a machine-learning model that,
by client devices
from a layout database
by an AR interface engine
augmented reality
sending the set of augmented reality elements to the client device for display to the user.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“by a camera of a client device”, “comprises a machine-learning model that”, “by client devices”, “from a layout database”, “by an AR interface engine”, “augmented reality”) and insignificant post solution activity (sending). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0023]-[0029] indicate that any number of known technologies can be used to implement the invention, and show that any elements or combinations of 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.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 limitations 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 apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation 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 technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements 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, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation 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 technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claim 10 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-6, 8, 11-15, 17
Theses dependent claims merely set forth embellishments to the abstract idea, applied to the same technological environment recited in claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, they do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 7, 16
Claims 7, 16 sets forth:
wherein the machine-learning model is trained using images of physical elements stored in an inventory database, a layout database, or a content database.
Such a recitation merely further details the generic computing environment to which the abstract idea is applied. The training data set does not alter the manner in which machine learning is performed. Accordingly, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9, 18
Claims 9, 18 recite:
wherein generating the prediction location for the client device comprises: accessing location sensor data captured by a location sensor of the client device.
This additional element is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
1. Claims 1- 5, 7-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (US 20140214600 A1, hereinafter Argue) in view of Bronicki (US 20260010911 A1)
Regarding Claim 1
Argue discloses a method comprising:
capturing, by a camera of a client device within a warehouse, an image depicting a plurality of structural elements within the warehouse; (Argue: see at least ¶51, 66, 70-74: images of shelves captured by head mounted customer device)
applying an item detection engine to the captured image to identify the set of structural elements within the image, wherein the item detection engine is configured to identify elements within images captured by client devices within warehouses; (Argue: see at least ¶70-74: items on shelves in field of view identified)
accessing, from a layout database, a layout of the warehouse, wherein the layout describes a set of locations within the warehouse associated with structural elements within the warehouse; (Argue: see at least ¶19, 22, 25, 26: product database stores locations of all products within store on shelves)
generating a predicted location of the client device based on the accessed layout of the warehouse and the set of structural elements identified in the image (Argue: see at least ¶62)
applying the item detection engine to the captured image and the predicted location of the client device to identify a set of items depicted in the image (Argue: see at least ¶62-68)
generating, by an AR interface engine, a set of augmented reality elements that call attention to the set of items identified in the image data; (Argue: see at least ¶70-71, fig. 4A-4E)
sending the set of augmented reality elements to the client device for display to the user (Argue: see at least ¶70-71, fig. 4A-4E)
Argue does not explicitly disclose, but Bronicki teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the item detection engine comprises a machine-learning model (Bronicki: see at least ¶94, 109)
It would have ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Argue, with the teachings of Bronicki, since such a modification would have provided new ways for deriving information in retail stores in an efficient manner. (Bronicki: see ¶4)
Regarding Claims 2, 11
Argue further discloses:
wherein the set of structural elements comprises one or more of aisles, shelves, display areas, entrances, exits, floors, ceilings, walls, stairs, or elevators (Argue: see at least ¶19, 22, 25, 26: product database stores locations of all products within store on shelves)
Regarding Claims 3, 12
Argue further discloses:
determining an orientation of the client device within the warehouse based on the identified set of structural elements and the layout of the warehouse (Argue: see at least ¶51)
Regarding Claims 4, 13
Argue further discloses:
wherein the set of augmented reality elements comprises one or more of highlights, icons, arrows, circles, or animations to call attention to the set of items (Argue: see at least ¶24-26)
Regarding Claims 5, 14
Argue further discloses:
wherein the set of augmented reality elements obscures one or more items in the image by blocking, blurring, or otherwise visually modifying the display of the item (Argue: see at least ¶26)
Regarding Claims 7, 16
Argue does not explicitly disclose, but Bronicki teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the machine-learning model is trained using images of physical elements stored in an inventory database, a layout database, or a content database (Bronicki: see at least ¶109)
It would have ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Argue, with the teachings of Bronicki, since such a modification would have provided new ways for deriving information in retail stores in an efficient manner. (Bronicki: see ¶4)
Regarding Claims 8, 17
Argue further discloses:
wherein the set of augmented reality elements is generated based on a set of preferences or dietary restrictions associated with a user profile (Argue: see at least ¶24-46: items highlighted based on “desired product” on shopping list, which is a set of preferences)
Regarding Claims 9, 18
Argue further discloses:
wherein generating the prediction location for the client device comprises: accessing location sensor data captured by a location sensor of the client device (Argue: see at least ¶62)
3. Claim(s) 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue in view of Bronicki, as applied above, and further in view of Greenberger et al. (US 20190156402 A1, hereinafter Greenberger).
Argue in view of Bronicki does not disclose, but Greenberger teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the set of augmented reality elements includes a comparison of two or more items, of the identified set of items (Greenberger: see at least abstract, ¶4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Argue in view of Bronicki with the teachings of Greenberger, since such a modification would have provided for individuals to actively obtain product information and lists of features for products as well as be able to actively recall product information associated with these previously viewed products for the purpose of making comparisons or obtaining recommendations. (Greenberger: see ¶26)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McCoy et al. (US 20150310539 A1) discloses in-store object highlighting by a real world user interface, including highlighting items in a camera view of a customer in a store.
Chachek et al. (US 20200302510 A1) discloses a system, device, and method of augmented reality based mapping of a venue and navigation within a venue, including determining products that are on a particular shelf of a camera view.
Pettyjohn et al. (US 20150170256 A1) discloses systems and methods for creating an augmented reality mobile device application and using such an application in a retail environment to display marketing messages to a user, including determining a user’s location in a store based on their camera field of view.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights