Ex Parte CRUCSDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201611564926 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation