Ex Parte CRUCS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

11564926 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111564,926 11130/2006 Kevin M. CRUCS
119392 7590 05/25/2016
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP/APTERYX/CRUCS
1 Gojo Plaza
Suite 300
Akron, OH 44311
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
201260.00005 3359
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patents@hahnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a system and method for
managing characteristics of a domain using information obtained by tracking
the location of individuals within the domain in real time. (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Appellant describes such characteristics as, for example, managing the re-
location of employees or determining point-of-sale or point-of-interest
placement. (Spec. i-f 33). Claims 1, 12, 24, and 36, reproduced below with
the disputed limitations in italics, are representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of managing at least one characteristic of a
domain occupied by individuals, said method comprising:
tracking each of a plurality of individuals in real time with
respect to location within a domain by periodically or
continuously acquiring location information for each of said
individuals;
identifying at least one dominant path of movement
created by said plurality of tracked individuals within said
domain in response to said acquired location information;
correlating said at least one identified dominant path of
movement to at least one time-of-day; and
adapting at least one managed characteristic of said
domain in response to said at least one correlated dominant path
of movement.
12. A method of managing at least one characteristic of a
domain occupied by individuals, said method comprising:
tracking each of a plurality of individuals in real time with
respect to location within a domain by periodically or
continuously acquiring location information for each of said
individuals;
2
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
correlating each of said tracked individuals to
corresponding age information of each of said tracked
individuals in response to said acquired location information;
identifying at least one spatial grouping of at least two of
said tracked individuals within said domain according to at least
one age group in response to said location information and said
correlated age information; and
adapting at least one managed characteristic of said
domain in response to said at least one identified spatial
group mg.
24. A method of managing at least one characteristic of a
domain occupied by individuals, said method comprising:
tracking each of a plurality of individuals in real time with
respect to location within a domain by periodically or
continuously acquiring location information for each of said
individuals;
correlating at least one subset of said plurality of tracked
individuals to an event location within said domain and to at
least one time-of-day in response to said acquired location
information in order to identifj; at least one cluster of said
individuals; and
estimating at least one waiting time for said event location
in response to said identified cluster.
3 6. A method of managing at least one characteristic of a
domain occupied by individuals, said method comprising:
tracking at least two individuals in real time with respect
to location within a domain by periodically or continuously
acquiring location information for each of said individuals;
3
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
determining when said at least two individuals are at least
a pre-defined distance from each other in response to said
acquired location information; and
generating a signal or message in response to said
determining.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--6, 9, 12, 15-17, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Swanson, Sr. (US
7,475,813 B2; issued Jan. 13, 2009) ("Swanson") and DeTemple et al. (US
5,572,653; issued Nov. 5, 1996) ("DeTemple").
Claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Swanson, Sr., DeTemple, and Corbett, Jr. (US
7,327,251 B2; issued Feb. 5, 2008).
Claims 7, 8, 11, 18, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Swanson, Sr.,
DeTemple, and O'Donnell et al. (US 2005/0200487 Al; published Sept. 15,
2005) ("O'Donnell").
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Swanson, Sr., DeTemple, Corbett, Jr.,
and Goldberg (US 6,526,158 Bl; issued Feb. 25, 2003).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Swanson, Sr., DeTemple, and Lancos
et al. (US 6,873,260 B2; issued Mar. 29, 2005) ("Lancos").
Claims 25-29, 32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Swanson, De Temple, Lancos,
and Corbett, Jr.
4
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U .S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Swanson, Sr., DeTemple, Lancos, and
O'Donnell.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination Swanson, Sr., DeTemple, Corbett, Jr.,
Lancos, and Goldberg.
Claims 36, 37, and 42--47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by O'Donnell.
Claims 38--41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of 0 'Donnell and Corbett, Jr.
ANALYSIS
After considering of each of Appellant's arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from which this
appeal was taken. (Ans. 20-34; Final Act. 2-24). Our discussions here will
be limited to the following points of emphasis.
Claim 1
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Swanson
and DeTemple teaches or suggests "identifying at least one dominant path of
movement created by said plurality of tracked individuals within said
domain in response to said acquired location information" and "correlating
said at least one identified dominant path of movement to at least one time-
of-day," as recited in claim 1?
5
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
The Examiner relies on Swanson for all disputed limitations except
the explicit recital of "one time-of-day," for which the Examiner relies on
DeTemple. (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 27-29). Appellant contends "Swanson
does not appear to be concerned with determining such a dominant path of
movement of many individuals and is instead, concerned with determining a
separate and distinct path formed by each individual customer over an
extended period of time as each customer moves independently throughout a
merchant location." (App. Br. 18, emphasis omitted; see also Reply Br. 10-
11 ). With respect to De Temple, Appellant contends it does the opposite of
Appellant's claim invention in that it first adapts the environment or domain
and then determines how that affects customer shopping traffic. (App. Br.
19; Reply Br. 11 ). Appellant also argues "De Temple simply describes
determining the percentage of shopping traffic in a specific store aisle at a
specific time and day." (Reply Br. 11, emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 3--4, 21-22; Ans. 27-29). Swanson
describes collecting tracking information on customers as they move through
a merchant location. (Swanson, col. 3, 11. 19-23). Swanson states:
This tracking information is collected and analyzed over time to
determine the traffic patterns of customers 16 within merchant
location 22. This traffic pattern information is then used along
with demographic information regarding the customers 16 in
order to improve store layouts, such as the store layout or product
positioning, within merchant location 22 in order to increase
sales potential for merchant 14.
(Swanson, col. 3, 11. 29-35; see also col. 8, 11. 40--44, emphasis omitted).
Therefore, we disagree with Appellant's characterization that Swanson is
only concerned with paths of individual customers. We also note, as pointed
6
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
out by the Examiner, that Appellant's Specification describes a "traffic
pattern" as "a dominant path of movement of individuals within a domain."
(Ans. 27, citing Spec. i-f 25). We therefore are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding Swanson teaches or suggests "identifying at least one
dominant path of movement created by said plurality of tracked individuals"
as recited in claim 1.
Appellant's arguments regarding De Temple do not persuasively
address the combination of De Temple and Swanson, as applied by the
Examiner. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The Examiner relies on DeTemple for identifying at least one
dominant path of movement to at least one time-of-day because that
limitation is not expressly taught in Swanson. (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 28).
Swanson describes that the position of the customer's tracking device may
be determined by biangulation, triangulation, or other calculations at any
location, and that the customer's tracking device may be time stamped to
indicate the date and time of day. (Swanson col. 5, 11. 19-32). DeTemple
describes using transmitters mounted on shopping carts to track the position
of shopping carts in a retail facility. (DeTemple, col. 8, 11. 40-44, col. 1, 11.
20-26, Abstract). The position of the transmitters (and therefore the
shopping carts) can be tracked with respect to time. (DeTemple, col. 9, 11.
7-11 ). This information can be sent to the central computer for
manipulation and report generation, such as reports on the percentage of
shopping traffic in a specific aisle at a specific day and time. (DeTemple,
col. 9, 11. 33-38). (Final Act. 21-22).
Appellant's arguments that DeTemple teaches or suggests an
"opposite" version of Appellant's invention, adapting the environment or
7
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
domain and then determining how that affects customer shopping traffic, do
not take into account the Examiner's reliance on Swanson's disclosure that
uses traffic patterns and demographic data of customers to determine
modifications to be made to the physical layout of the merchant location.
(See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 28-29). We agree with the Examiner that
De Temple teaches or suggests that the correlation of shopping patterns with
time of day is made for the purpose of providing feedback regarding pricing
and advertising, and that Swanson teaches or suggests a system where
feedback regarding the traffic pattern is used to modify price or advertising.
(Ans. 29). We therefore find the combination of Swanson and DeTemple
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Swanson and De Temple teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. We therefore sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2-7, which
were not argued separately. (App. Br. 17-19, 21-22).
Claim 12
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Swanson
and DeTemple teaches or suggests "identifying at least one spatial grouping
of at least two of said tracked individuals within said domain according to at
least one page group in response to said location information and said
correlated age information," as recited in claim 12?
The Examiner relies on Swanson and DeTemple to teach or suggest
the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 22; Ans. 30). Appellant contends
8
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
Swanson "mentions age information as possibly being a part of demographic
information provided by a customer," but does not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. (App. Br. 20). Appellant argues the merchant location
in Swanson is the overall domain, while the spatial grouping refers to two or
more tracked individuals who are of similar age who are also in spatial
proximity to each other relative to the overall domain. (Reply Br. 12-13).
Appellant further argues DeTemple "generally mentions that data can be
manipulated and sorted as a function of customer demographics." (App. Br.
20; Reply Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 22; Ans. 30). As described supra, both
Swanson and DeTemple describe tracking customers in a merchant or retail
location. In addition, both Swanson and DeTemple teach or suggest tracking
customer information by demographics. (Swanson col. 3, 11. 29-35, col. 7,
11. 58-62, col. 8, 11. 40-45, col. 8, 11. 51-53; DeTemple col. 9, 11. 39--41).
Swanson describes age as demographic information. (Swanson col. 7, 11.
58---62). Further, Swanson and DeTemple teach or suggest tracking the
position of customers in the merchant or retail location. (Swanson col. 5, 11.
18-32, col. 3, 11. 19-32; De Temple col. 9, 11. 7-11 ). For example, Swanson
teaches that "the time spent by customers 16 at various locations within
merchant location 22 may also be determined." (Swanson col. 3, 11. 30-32).
DeTemple teaches monitoring shopping behavior regarding the percentage
of shoppers located in a specific aisle of a store. (DeTemple col. 9, 11. 34--
39). We agree with the Examiner that an aisle is a defined space in a store.
(Final Act. 22). Such demographic and location information is stored in the
data storage module 52 in Swanson, and may be used to determine
9
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
modifications to be made to the physical layout of the merchant location.
(Swanson col. 7, 11. 58---62, col. 8, 11. 3-9, col. 8, 11. 40-51). Based on the
foregoing, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Swanson and
DeTemple teaches, or at least suggests, "identifying at least one spatial
grouping of at least two of said tracked individuals within said domain
according to at least one age group," as recited in claim 12.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Swanson and De Temple teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. We therefore sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 12. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 13-23, which were not
argued separately. (App. Br. 17-19, 21-22).
Claim 24
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Swanson,
DeTemple, and Lancos teaches or suggests "correlating at least one subset of
said plurality of tracked individuals to an event location within said domain
and to at least one time-of-day in response to said acquired location
information in order to identify at least one cluster of said individuals" and
"estimating at least one waiting time for said event location in response to
said identified cluster," as recited in claim 24?
The Examiner relies on Lancos to teach or suggest "estimating at least
one waiting time for said event location in response to said identified
cluster" and on Swanson and DeTemple to teach or suggest "correlating at
least one subset of said plurality of tracked individuals to an event location
within said domain and to at least one time-of-day in response to said
10
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
acquired location information in order to identify at least one cluster of said
individuals." (Final Act. 10).
Appellant contends Swanson and DeTemple are concerned with
merchant and retail centers, not event locations. (App. Br. 24). Appellant
further argues that while Lancos' operations process 1200 may be used to
calculate wait times, operations process 1200 is concerned with processing a
single individual guest to authorize that guest and activate and entry
mechanism, so "it is not clear how the process 1200 could be used to
calculate a wait time." (Id.; Reply Br. 18).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 10, 23; Ans. 30-31). As the Examiner
points out, Appellant defines an "event location" as "the area or position of
any event or attraction within the domain," which we agree is broad enough
to encompass the merchant areas and retail centers described in Swanson
and DeTemple. (See Ans. 31, citing Spec. i-f 25). We find Lancos also
teaches or suggests an "event location." (Lancos col. 8, 11. 24--27). Lancos'
operations process 1200 "can also be used for entering into rides, attractions
and other events within the coverage area 102" and "may be used to
calculate the wait times for rides, attractions, restaurants and other events
within the coverage area 102." (Lancos col. 10, 11. 15-17, emphasis
omitted). Such wait times may be informed to "guests at the coverage area
102." (Lancos col. 8, 11. 33-35, col. 3, 11. 10-12). We disagree with
Appellant's characterization of Lancos. Rather, we agree with the Examiner
that a plurality of individuals waiting in line is a cluster and that Lancos
teaches or suggests calculating at least one wait time with respect to those
11
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
individuals. (Ans. 31 ). However, we note that Lancos does teach how the
wait time is calculated for a plurality of individuals at column 12, lines 2-14.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Swanson, DeTemple, and Lancos teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 24. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 25-35, which
were not argued separately. (App. Br. 25-27).
Claim 36
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding O'Donnell discloses
"determining when the at least two individuals are at least a pre-defined
distance from each other in response to the acquired location information" as
recited in claim 36?
Appellant contends 0 'Donnell discloses determining "relative
distance between individuals wearing monitors ... without using the
location of each individual" rather than determining "an actual location of
each individual," as claimed. (App. Br. 16-17, emphasis omitted; Reply Br.
8). According to Appellant, "[a] relative distance between two individuals is
not the same as a location of each of the individuals." (App. Br. 17,
emphasis omitted; Reply Br. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 14--15, 20-21; Ans. 25-26). We agree
with the Examiner that Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of the claim language, which recites "acquiring location
information," not acquiring "an actual location." (Final Act. 20-21; Ans.
12
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
25). Appellant's Specification broadly describes "location information" as
"any data that is used to identify a particular area within a domain."
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that 0 'Donnell discloses
detecting the monitor position, which discloses the claim limitation even
under a narrower interpretation. (Final Act. 20-21, citing 0 'Donnell i-fi-1 41,
51; Ans. 25, citing O'Donnell i1 44; see also O'Donnell i162, emphasis
omitted (describing that the monitor may include a transceiver 92 which
"may be used to transmit a radio frequency identification tag to other
members or to a central command station, for example, to track the location
of monitor 18, and thus the wearer"). For example, paragraph 51 of
0 'Donnell describes that "the centralized monitor may communicate with
the monitors 18 to provide information, for example, the status or location of
members[.]"
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
0 'Donnell discloses the disputed limitation. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 36. For the same reasons,
we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claims
37--47, which were not argued separately. (App. Br. 14--17, 27).
13
Appeal2014-005573
Application 11/564,926
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--47 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
14