DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims priority as a CON of US Application No. 17/725,299 (filed 4/20/2022), which claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/177,011 (filed 4/20/2021).
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected.
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 Longi, 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 online 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,380,490.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application set forth a scope that is substantively similar to that of claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 12,380,490. The scope of the instant claims and represents an obvious variation covering the same patentable invention. For example, and regarding claim 8, ‘490 claims a system comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, an image of a plurality of products (claim 1: col. 12 lines 61-65);
identifying, by the processor, each product of the plurality of products in the image (claim 1: col. 12 lines 66-67);
retrieving, by the processor from an item data server, dimension data for each identified product of the plurality of products (claim 1: col. 13 lines1-3);
determining, by the processor for each identified product of the plurality of products, a section of the image corresponding to the identified product using the retrieved dimension data for the identified product (claim 1: col. 13 lines 4-7);
receiving, by the processor, user input selecting one of the sections of the image (claim 1: col. 13 lines 8-12);
identifying, by the processor, a selected product of the plurality of products corresponding to the selected section of the image (claim 1: col. 13 lines 4-7 & lines 17-30, claim 5: col. 13 lines 59-62);
generating, by the processor, an augmented reality presentation for the selected product (claim 1: col. 13 lines 16-18);
and presenting, by the processor via a user interface, the augmented reality presentation (claim 1: col. 13 lines 24-26).
Regarding dependent claims 11-13, these claims are rendered obvious over the combination of claim 1 (e.g., col. 12 lines 61-64, col. 13 lines 8-12) with at least dependent claims 2, 5 and 6.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6 (method) and claims 15 and 18-20 (CRM), claims 1 and 4-6 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 8 and 8-11 above. Further, ‘490 includes method claims (see: ‘490 claims 8-14) that parallel system claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, as well as CRM claims that parallel 1, 2, 5 and 6 (see: ‘490 claims 15-18). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-6, 15 and 18-20 are rejected over their corresponding claims of ‘490.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘490 in view of Walker (US 2021/0056580).
Regarding claim 2, ‘490 teaches a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a customer (see: claim 8: col. 14 lines 18-19),
retrieving, by the processor from a personalization server, personalized data for the user related to the selected product (claim 8: col. 14 lines 23-24); and
presenting, by the processor via the user interface, the personalized data as part of the augmented reality presentation (claim 8: col. 14 lines 25-26).
‘490, however, does not teach
receiving, by the processor, a user identifier;
identify, by the processor, a user associated with the user identifier;
To this accord, Walker teaches an augmented reality-based shopping method (see: abstract, 0056, Fig. 1B (170), Fig. 2-7, Fig. 8 (806)) comprising:
receiving, by the processor, a user identifier (see: 0070, Fig. 1 (101, 106), 0047);
identify, by the processor, a user associated with the user identifier (see: 0067, 0070, Fig. 8 (802)).
Notably, Walker also teaches:
retrieving, by the processor from a personalization server, personalized data for the user related to the selected product (see: Fig. 1 (102, 104), 0118-0120, Fig. 8 (808)); and
presenting, by the processor via the user interface, the personalized data as part of the augmented reality presentation (see: 0154-0157, 0159, Fig. 2 (202), Fig. 5B (502B-508B); See also: Fig. 6B and 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of ‘490 to have utilized the known technique for proving personalized promotional offers as taught by Walker in order to have enabled product vendors, manufacturers, and/or retailers to be able to better customize and target their marketing efforts, thereby allowing customers to experience a more entertaining and fun shopping experience that also resulted in cost savings (see: Walker: 0004).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the personalized data for the user related to the selected product includes one or more of previous purchase information for the user, a rating for the selected product by the user, a personalized promotion for the user, inclusion information for a cart of the user, inclusion information for a wish list of the user, and suggestions for the user based on a browsing history of the user (see: Walker: 0023 (target offers and information, learn and improve the types of offers that customers receive), 0092-0104, 0119, 0163 (iii), ).
Regarding claims 9-10 (system) and 16-17 (CRM), claims 9-10 and 16-17 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 2-3, and are rejected over the respective system and CRM claims of ‘490 in view of Walker similar to the discussion above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘490 in view of Chachek (US 2020/0302510).
Regarding claim 7, ‘490 claims all of the above but does not claim wherein the processor identifies each product of the plurality of products from the image using a machine learning model trained with training images of the plurality of products.
To this accord, Chachek teaches wherein the processor identifies each product of the plurality of products from the image using a machine learning model trained with training images of the plurality of products (see: Chachek: 0011, 0120-0121, 0148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of ‘490 to have utilized the known technique for training a machine learning model as taught by Chachek in order to have provided improved computer-vision based identification of the product (see: Chachek: 0011).
Regarding claim 14 (system), claim 14 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 7, and is rejected over the respective system claims of ‘490 in view of Chachek for at least similar reasons to the discussion above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Non-Statutory
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 15-20 recite a “computer readable medium including instructions” that embraces non-statutory subject matter (e.g., signal per se – see MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Computer readable media (CRM), under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), will cover an ineligible signal per se unless defined otherwise in the application as filed. Although the specification (e.g., 0008, 0054) discusses memory “non-transitorily” stores instructions, claims 15-20 do not limit claim scope to only the “non-transitory” types of mediums (nor do the claims recite the specific “memory” from the specification). Claims 15-20 are thereby rejected because the BRI of claims 15-20 encompasses a signal per se, which is not one of the four statutory classes of invention. Applicant is advised that amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium shall overcome the noted rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Judicial Exception
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
obtaining an image of a plurality of products;
identifying each product of the plurality of products in the image;
retrieving dimension data for each identified product of the plurality of products;
determining for each identified product of the plurality of products, a section of the image corresponding to the identified product using the retrieved dimension data for the identified product;
receiving user input selecting one of the sections of the image;
identifying a selected product of the plurality of products corresponding to the selected section of the image;
generating a presentation for the selected product;
and presenting the presentation.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes personalizing shopping based on identifies products. This represents the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a processor, an item data server, an augmented reality presentation, and a user interface.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, even assuming arguendo that obtaining an image of a plurality of products and presenting the augmented reality presentation do not form part of the abstract idea (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), these limitations represent little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering and output, obtaining information and transaction, presentation of offers) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, dependent claims 2-7 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-7 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-7 rely upon similar additional elements as discussed above with claim 1. Further additional elements such as an image capture device (claim 4), an augmented reality presentation button (claim 5-6), or a machine learning model trained with training images of the plurality of products are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 2-7 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 8-14 (system) and claims 15-20 (CRM), claims 8-14 and 15-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 8, 11-14, 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek (2020/0302510 – IDS citation #7) in view of Shekar (US 2016/0321518).
Regarding claim 1, Chachek discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, an image of a plurality of products (see: 0009 (captured or streamed by end-user device), 0051, 0081 (the user points his electronic device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, AR or VR gear or glasses, or the like) towards a shelf or an aisle or other region in the store), 0111 (user points the camera of his smartphone toward the shelf));
identifying, by the processor, each product of the plurality of products in the image (see: 0012, 0081 (a computer vision analysis operates to identify or recognize the products that are captured in the frame or image));
determining, by the processor for each identified product of the plurality of products, a section of the image corresponding to the identified product (see: 0081 (construct a table that indicates which product is represented in different image regions; may include responsive elements or clickable elements or selectable elements));
receiving, by the processor, user input selecting one of the sections of the image (see: 0081, Fig. 5, 0084, Fig. 7);
Note: a user may select a specific product by tapping or clicking, e.g., on “Info” of “I” symbol.
identifying, by the processor, a selected product of the plurality of products corresponding to the selected section of the image (see: 0081 (obtain additional content about this particular product), 0084);
Note: based on the selection, additional information (e.g., text, graphics, animation about the particular product, a promotion related to it, particular benefits or characteristics of that product, etc.) for the selected product is obtained. That is, the selected product is identified by determining which product was selected to retrieve its corresponding additional information.
generating, by the processor, an augmented reality presentation for the selected product, and, presenting, by the processor via a user interface, the augmented reality presentation (see: 0063, 0081, 0084, 0111, Fig. 5, Fig. 7, Fig. 19).
Note: the retrieved additional information is presented to the user in the augmented reality view.
Though disclosing the above including product regions within an augmented reality view (see again: 0081), Chachek does not disclose:
retrieving, by the processor from an item data server, dimension data for each identified product of the plurality of products, and,
determining, by the processor for each identified product of the plurality of products, a section of the image corresponding to the identified product using the retrieved dimension data for the identified product.
To this accord, Shekar teaches a method for using image recognition to identify items by obtaining an image of a plurality of products (see: Fig. 9 (902), 0075; see also: 0025, 0049, Fig. 4) to identify each product of the plurality of products in the image (see: Fig. 9 (904), 0075). More specifically, Shekar teaches:
retrieving, by the processor from an item data server, dimension data for each identified product of the plurality of products (see: Fig. 5, 0070-0071, Fig. 7, 0073, Fig. 9 (910));
determining, by the processor for each identified product of the plurality of products, a section of the image corresponding to the identified product using the retrieved dimension data for the identified product (see: 0068 (polygon outline), Fig. 9A (906-912), 0075 (region of interest; returns 11 rectangular polygon ROIs bordering each one of the identified items), Fig. 10 (1006, 1018), 0078 (region of interest; returns 11 rectangular polygon ROIs bordering each one of the 11 “ABC” breakfast cereal boxes in the image), 0080 (region of interest)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chachek to have utilized the known technique3 for identifying items using dimensions as taught by Shekar in order to have improved the accuracy in distinguishing identified products varying only in size in a received image (see: Shekar: abstract, 0063), thereby enhancing the computer vision/image recognition used by Chachek.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the image is captured by an image capture device of a mobile device and the user interface is part of the mobile device (see: Chachek: 0081, 0099, 0109; see alternatively: Shekar: 0025).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the user input comprises a selection of an augmented reality presentation button associated with the selected section of the image corresponding to the selected product (see: Chachek: 0081 (responsive elements or clickable elements or selectable elements), Fig. 5 (e.g., “Info”), Fig. 7 (“i”)).
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: presenting, by the processor via the user interface, the augmented reality presentation button as part of the augmented reality presentation (see: Chachek: 0081 (responsive elements or clickable elements or selectable elements), Fig. 5 (e.g., “Info”), Fig. 7 (“i”)).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the processor identifies each product of the plurality of products from the image using a machine learning model trained with training images of the plurality of products (see: Chachek: 0011, 0120-0121, 0148).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 11-14 (system), claims 8 and 11-14 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1 and 4-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8 and 11-14 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claims 15 and 18-20 (CRM), claims 15 and 18-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1 and 4-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek in view of Shekar as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Walker (US 2021/0056580 – IDS citation #9).
Regarding claim 2, Chachek in view of Shekar teaches all of the above as well as implying some form of targeted promotions (e.g., Chachek: 0015, 0094), but the combination does not teach:
receiving, by the processor, a user identifier;
identify, by the processor, a user associated with the user identifier;
retrieving, by the processor from a personalization server, personalized data for the user related to the selected product; and
presenting, by the processor via the user interface, the personalized data as part of the augmented reality presentation.
To this accord, Walker teaches an augmented reality-based shopping method (see: abstract, 0056, Fig. 1B (170), Fig. 2-7, Fig. 8 (806)) comprising:
receiving, by the processor, a user identifier (see: 0070, Fig. 1 (101, 106), 0047);
identify, by the processor, a user associated with the user identifier (see: 0067, 0070, Fig. 8 (802));
retrieving, by the processor from a personalization server, personalized data for the user related to the selected product (see: Fig. 1 (102, 104), 0118-0120, Fig. 8 (808)); and
presenting, by the processor via the user interface, the personalized data as part of the augmented reality presentation (see: 0154-0157, 0159, Fig. 2 (202), Fig. 5B (502B-508B); See also: Fig. 6B and 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chachek in view of Shekar to have utilized the known technique for proving personalized promotional offers as taught by Walker in order to have enabled product vendors, manufacturers, and/or retailers to be able to better customize and target their marketing efforts, thereby allowing customers to experience a more entertaining and fun shopping experience that also resulted in cost savings (see: Walker: 0004).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the personalized data for the user related to the selected product includes one or more of previous purchase information for the user, a rating for the selected product by the user, a personalized promotion for the user, inclusion information for a cart of the user, inclusion information for a wish list of the user, and suggestions for the user based on a browsing history of the user (see: Walker: 0023 (target offers and information, learn and improve the types of offers that customers receive), 0092-0104, 0119, 0163 (iii), ).
Regarding dependent claims 9-10 (system) and claims 16-17 (CRM), these claims recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 2-3 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Calman (US 2012/0233015) discloses an augmented reality method including obtaining, an image of a plurality of products (see: Fig. 5 (504-506), 0103),identifying each product of the plurality of products in the image (see: Fig. 5 (510), 0103, 0008 (real-time vision object recognition…products…can be recognized)) retrieving item data (see: col. 5 lines 34-42), and generating an AR presentation comprising indicators that enabled user selection/input(see: Fig. 4, 0017, 0026).
McNamara (US 11,615,460) discloses generating user paths including image analysis to identify items, the shape of the item and/or identifiers included on the items. the image may be further analyzed to determine an approximate shape and size of the item selected by the user. The determined approximate shape and size of the item may then be compared to item inventory information stored by the inventory management system (see: col. 12 line 50-col. 13 line 28, Fig. 1).
Tatzel (US 2014/0100994 - IDS citation #13) discloses utilizing augmented reality markers to enable item selection in an AR presentation (see: Fig. 2A-Fig. 4, 0042-0044).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights