AU2008203390A1 - Supermarket Navigator - Google Patents

Description

Australian Standard Patent Application "Supermarket Navigator" Introduction The "Supermarket Navigator" or "Shopping List Route Optimiser" is a practical, convenient, time saving technology that will be very popular with supermarket customers and therefore an effective means of improving the market share of supermarket chains that use it. It would also be popular with supermarket staff and management by reducing the time on-floor staff spend in answering frequent requests from customers about where particular items are shelved - time better spent by the staff getting on with their other duties. The Simplest Form - Paper Printout The "supermarket navigator" can come in two forms, the simplest and least expensive being a paper printout of a particular supermarket's shelf map with additional customised useful information printed on the paper. In particular the customer's desired items and their shelf places are labelled and displayed on the map. In addition the most efficient path through the store to obtain the items is indicated. This useful information is generated from data provided by the customer either when the customer enters the store, or data previously sent to the store by the customer, or data retained by the store from previous occasions. The recycled paper printout may be returned at the checkouts and the paper recycled again. More Complex Forms - Portable Computer Screen The second more complex and expensive system consists of a portable computer with a touch sensitive interactive display rather than a paper printout. The portable computer screen could include more dynamic options that will be outlined later. Data Entry of the Customer's Shopping List The customer's data entry could occur in a variety of ways. With the paper printout system the customer could bring along their usual hand written shopping list to a non-mobile module located just inside the entrance to the store. The simplest data entry option would be for the customer to scan their hand written list with optical character recognition technology and check the electronic list thus generated and displayed on the screen with their own handwritten list. The customer could optionally respond to prompts on the touch screen about different brands etc 1 generated by the computer program from the full shop inventory. Another option for data entry would be selecting items via a touch screen display of a categorised menu of products with subgroups that pop up under each major group. Alternatively the customer could type in keywords, or truncated words, with allowance for inaccurate spelling correction, using a keyboard or alphanumeric touch-screen. Yet another option for data input could be voice recognition technology. The possibility exists for downloading the shopping list from a computer memory stick the customer has previously made at home, or a list the customer has emailed or sent ahead via SMS etc to the shop, or transfer via SMS format from a cell phone or the like while at the shop. However caution would have to be exercised in receiving this sort of electronic data since it may contain computer viruses. Frequent customers usually have a preferred list of their regular purchases and this list may be used to select the particular items needed on each occasion. Each frequent customer's list could be stored electronically by the shop and brought up using a customer name and password. Similar arrangements already exist with some email shopping services. Advertising Discounts and special promotions could be highlighted or otherwise drawn to the shopper's attention at an appropriate stage during the procedure. The customer could be notified if any of the desired items are out of stock and they may either delete those items or still include them and check the shelf position for similar products or alternative brands located at the same shelf position. Additional Customer Prompts There may be prompts from the computer on the input display asking whether the customer wants to collect their cold, frozen or heavy goods at the end, even if it means a longer walk along the supermarket aisles. The computer can have a processing device that then displays and prints out an annotated map and optimal route onto recycled paper for the customer to take with them as they make their purchases. They could be notified of alternative shelf position for similar items. There could be an option for including a printed list of desired items as well as the annotated map. The list could be in the order of the initial shopping list, and or the order in which the items occur on the optimal route. 2 Portable Computer Screen - Details The second more complex and expensive approach does not use a paper printout but a portable computer screen to display the annotated map. This option can come in several forms. In its simplest form, the map would be static as described above. In a more elaborate form, the map could also change orientation with the moving orientation of the customer. The change in orientation could be determined from a simple magnetic compass and or gyroscope installed in the navigator. An even more complex system could show position as well orientation on the map as with present car navigation devices. Position could be determined similar to a mini localised GPS, either using a short range FM or ultrasound transmitter located either at the corners of the store with characteristic frequencies, or transmitted from the navigator detected by receivers at the corners of the store and fed back to the navigator. The portable computer screen option could easily include existing technology in which customers have a hand held scanner that records the cumulative price of their purchases as they proceed. In practice the customer could pick up a shopping trolley from inside the secure perimeter of the store with the portable computer already attached to the handle of the trolley. Alternatively the customer could ask for a "(supermarket navigator" from a service desk on entry to the shop and fit it to their trolley. The store would have an updated inventory of products prices and locations already loaded onto a removable memory card or the like in the navigator. The customer would take either a few seconds or minutes to enter their desired purchase items - depending on the data entry method chosen. The map would display the best route along the store shelves, highlighting the position of desired purchases. The navigator could include already existing technology that allows the customer to scan items as they go, and so give a cumulative total of cost. After paying at the checkout the customer or shop assistant would disconnect the navigator, and the customer then proceeds out of the shop with their trolley but not he navigator. A security device and sensor at the perimeter of the shop could ensure that the navigator isn't inadvertently or deliberately taken from the shop. Navigator devices could have security features that automatically disable the device at the end of each day, and that cannot be used without entering a day specific password or some other security means. This could be done when the memory card or the like, with updated inventory inserted by staff at the beginning of each day. 3 The hardware aspects would include a robust waterproof and mechanical shock proof, (ie padded) case, and rechargeable batteries. The device would have a simple, secure, quick release, but child-proof clamp to attach the navigator to the trolley handle. Calculating the Optimal Path - Computer Algorithms From a software perspective most of the programs would be open source, out of patent, or simple enough to write de-novo without great cost under sub-contract. The geometry of a particular store's shelf layout could mapped onto one of a selection of common types of store layout general topologies. The selection of topologies would best be for larger than usual numbers of shelves as it would be relatively easy to crop or truncate the shelf floor map. The sequencing of shelf items could begin at any point of the larger topology without altering the relative distance for optimisation. The intersection of regions where the shelves change orientation or have a non-rectilinear shelf arrangement would be the main point of variation with different general topologies. Logic points for choices of optimal path would include whether or not cold or frozen or very heavy items are to be purchased, these being placed at the end of the route. Another logic point occurs when an item is only a short distance up an aisle and therefore it would be quicker to retrace one's steps after getting that item rather than continue down the aisle and proceed to the next aisle. Whether an aisle is a closed dead end or connecting through also make a big difference with determining optimal path. Each of the general topologies of shelf map could be solved for patterns of optimal routes for different patterns of desired purchase items. Any particular supermarket could choose from the numerous topologies the one that matches their shelf layout. When the appropriate general topology has been chosen then suitable cropping or truncation including the exact number and length of shelves results in the particular supermarket shelf map. Since each general topology can easily have an algorithm that calculates the optimal shelf route to include given position of the shelves, this algorithm can directly applied to the particular truncated topology of a particular store. The generalised topology and corresponding concise algorithms could be linked to a similar generalised topology but using more cumbersome 4 methods of calculating the length and number of reversals of direction for every possible path that joins all the items. This and the more targeted algorithms are discussed further in the claims section of the patent application. This approach of each store truncating one of range of general topologies, and their respective algorithm solutions, would be more simple and reliable than having to program each shop's shelf map and using the more complicated approaches of current computerised road map navigation assistance, technology which is thoroughly patented already and not yet open source - though it could probably be purchased for use under licence. Miscellaneous Not every item in the whole of the shop inventory would need to be assigned a separate position number on the shelf topology, rather grouped together for every meter or so of shelf length. It would be useful to include the shelf height or shelf number above floor level in the customer's display, but this would not alter the optimisation of length of route. There may be several nearly equivalent efficient routes, in which case the best route would be the one that tends to avoid the paths most often to be congested as often occurs in some supermarkets. Optimal routes in multi level department stores or warehouse-like supermarkets, would have to take account of access points between the various levels. There may be less impulse buying with customers wandering along less supermarket shelf length in total, but this would be offset by greater customer satisfaction and less frustration. A frustrated, hence hurried customer is not likely to indulge much in impulse shopping. 5

Claims (6)

1. I claim to have invented an electronic, photonic, or the like, computerised device that calculates and gives an annotated visual map of the optimal, generally the shortest route, around a supermarket or department store in order for customers to make the required purchases. The device includes at least some of the following features:

2. Data entry formats for the customer's shopping list that include: 2.A. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, that can be entered as data input to the device using optical character recognition technology utilising a handwritten, or otherwise legible shopping list on paper or other writing medium produced by the customer. 2.B. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, that can be entered as data input from a touch screen with the shop inventory categorised as menu and sub menu(s) that can be selected by the customer using a touch screen or the like. 2.C. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, as data input from an alphanumeric - with multilingual options, or an iconic touch screen or keyboard using keyword or truncated keywords to assist in compiling an electronic shopping list. 2.D. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, that can be entered as data input via a touch screen or keyboard that selects from a previously entered and stored list of an individual customer's commonly preferred items. Access to the stored information from previous occasions is accessed via a customer name and password or the like. 2.E. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, that can be entered as data input from voice recognition technology - with multi-lingual options, which could be corrected if necessary by the customer using an alphanumeric touch- screen or keyboard or the like. 2.F. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, that can be entered as data input from an electronic format previously generated by the customer and transferred to the supermarket device via email, SMS phone messaging, portable memory storage devices such as memory card, "flash" memory stick, and the like. Such data entry would undergo rigorous computer virus screening prior to downloading. 6 2.F. Purchase item name, and or type, and or quantity, that can be entered as data input from an optical character recognition touch sensitive screen suitable for handwriting, and correctable with an alphanumeric or voice input and the like. 2.G. With all the above input forms allowance for inaccurate spelling correction may be included.

3. Visual display formats showing a shop floor map with recommended route(s), and or names of requested shelf items names, and or prices, and or alternate or similar products. 3.A. The visual display uses a printout of the map onto paper, cardboard, plastic or the like, of a convenient size for the customer to take with them through the shop, the map etc being carried either by hand, or inserted into a suitably sized and orientated frame on the shopping trolley. 3.B. The visual display uses a flat screen computerised display of a convenient size for the customer to take with them through the shop, either by hand or inserted into a suitably sized and orientated frame on their shopping trolley, or otherwise securely attached to the shopping trolley. 3.B.1. The portable computer display may have interactive features including adding an item to the shopping list as an afterthought, or deleting items from the shopping list - with recalculation of remaining optimal route. 3. B.2. A visual display that keeps track of the cumulative cost of items as they are scanned using a hand held scanner by the customer - a novel use of an already existing technology as part of the new system. 3.C. The shop floor map screen may change orientation as the shopping trolley changes orientation, the time varying orientation being determined by a magnetic compass, and or a gyroscope, or the like. 3.D. The shop floor map screen may show the time varying position of the shopping trolley on the map, the position being determined by ultrasonic or short range FM radio and the like - emitters and receivers located either on the trolley and around the shop, or visa versa. The position may be calculated as the integration of a function of displacement and direction with respect to time - displacement (w.r.t. time) being obtained from an odometer and or speedometer driven by the 7 shopping trolley wheels, and direction (w.r.t time) being obtained by the magnetic compass and or gyroscope.

4. Options for input into the initial customer data before optimisation of the route may include: 4.A. A prompt for whether the customer wants to collect their cold, frozen or very heavy purchases just before going to the check-out. 4.B. A prompt for whether the customer wants suggestions for alternative products if the initial selection of out of stock. 4.C. A prompt for whether the customer wants to be made aware of duplicate shelf positions for the same or similar product. 4.D. A prompt asking whether the customer wishes to know the price of the items listed, and or, prices of special deals on similar items. 4,E. A prompt asking whether the customer wants to include a printed list of the shopping items on the printout - in addition to the usual annotated map. The list may be either in the order of the original list compiled by the customer, or the order of the items on the optimal route.

5. System of calculating optimal shortest routes may include one of the following approaches, or other algorithms adapted for use with the shopping navigator: 5.A. Each supermarket chooses the shelf and hence aisle topology that matches its own shelves. Choices are from wide selection of likely generalised shelf topologies - each with its own algorithm for optimal routes. Certain optional constraints such as collecting cold, frozen or very heavy purchases last, or the like are included in the algorithms. Each general topology may have a number of blocks of aisles, or shelves that define aisles. These blocks are arranged in orientations to other such as commonly occur in overall shelf patterns in supermarkets etc. Each block has a definable number of parallel shelves, and each shelf has a definable length. Each aisle can be numbered "Aisle"(X)[inventory order], or simply "Aisle"(X)[i.o], where X is a positive integer, and can be defied as having a dead-ends or being an open aisle at each end. Overall entry and exit points also need to be defined or determined. Various regions, and or sets of inventory numbers can be allocated as being cold, frozen or heavy goods and optimal routes for each of these 8 stages can be optimised with appropriate entry and exit points for these regions points which will vary except for the final exit point, as will be discussed soon. The customer-generated list is correlated with a shop inventory and respective shelf positions on each of the previously defined aisles are noted. The number aisles that have at least one item is counted and each relevant aisle is assigned a unique number: "Aisle"(N)[list order], or "Aisle"(N)[l.o], where N is a positive integer. In a topology which has a rectilinear block of parallel shelves or aisles, abutting their open ends with either a wall lined with shelves or another block of parallel shelves or aisles, this second wall or block being orientated at a different angle to the first block, then one may consider the first block to be a closed aisle, and the shop inventory items situated on the second block or wall's shelf can be assigned an "Aisle"(X)[i.o.] number corresponding to the closed end of the respective first block aisle. Typical decisions that need to be included in the algorithm are: "Are there cold, frozen, or heavy items?" This can be answered by the computer checking the shopping list against an inventory check list. If "yes", a prompt asks the customer the question: "Are cold or frozen items to be included last on the optimal route?" The simplest algorithm occurs if the customer answers "no", the algorithm proceeding as follows for a simple rectilinear arrangement of a block of aisles in which the inventory order begins at the extremity of the aisle closest to the entry point, and continues in ascending order along the aisles - aisles which may be either open or closed at either end. If the existing inventory number corresponds to a different sequencing then a different inventory number corresponding to aisle order need to be allocated. The first point on the optimal route is the entry point, generally the same point as where the customer entered the initial shopping list data. The entry to closest "Aisle"(N)[.o] to this overall entry point can be determined proceeding to the lowest N, ie N=l, "Aisle"(1)[1.o]. Another question needs to be answered from the aisle data previously defined for each "Aisle"(N)[L.oj: "Is this aisle open at only the closest end, only at the farthest end, or at both ends?". If open at the closest end only then the positions of the items in "Aisle"(N)(L.o) are marked on the optimal route map and the optimal path is plotted on the map from the 9 overall entry point of "Aisle"(N+1), and so on till the final N, and thence to the nearest checkout to that point. If however, the "Aisle"(N)[1.o] is open at both ends then the algorithm needs to determine whether any of the items in "Aisle"(N)[L.o] are beyond the halfway point for that particular aisle, based on information defined earlier. The closest and furthest distances of "Aisle"(N+1)[.o] also need to be known at this point. If the extremity distance of items on both "Aisle"(N)[L.o] and "Aisle"(N+1) are both less than their respective halfway point then the optimal path is to proceed "up" "Aisle"(N)[L.o] and then turn around, or reverse and retrace one's steps "down" to the entry of "Aisle"(N)[L.o], and then proceed to "Aisle"(N+1)[L.o] and go "up" that aisle, entering from the same approach direction as "Aisle"(N)[L.o.]. Items are marked and paths plotted for these two aisles. If however, the extremity distance of items on "Aisle(N)[l.o] are more than the halfway distance of that aisle, then the length of the path to the items in "Aisle"(N+1)[l.o] is the same regardless whether one continues in the same direction and turns a right angle at the end of "Aisle"(N)[L.o], or retraces one's steps in "Aisle"(N)[L.o] - however it is more convenient, and more optimal with respect to time, to continue in the same direction than reverse direction. Another way of expressing this optimisation is that the quickest path through a block of doubly open-ended parallel aisles is a path winding through in a connected series of "S" shaped paths, unless two adjacent aisles only have items only positions close the extremities of those shelves, in which case one can backtrack for that aisle and continues in an "S" or mirror imaged "S". If in the unusual situation that "Aisle"(1)[l.o] is only open at the farthest end from the overall entry point to the lowest numbered aisle "Aisle"(N)[l.o] that is open, and then from the previous known point one goes back to "Aisle"(1)[.o] and proceed with the algorithm, though omitting "Aisle(N)[1.o], and proceeding from "Aisle"(N-1)[L.o] to "Aisle"(N+1)[L.o]. Alternatively one could assign "Aisle"(X)[i.o] numbers that reflect this state of affairs, or even better re-design the supermarket shelves to eliminate this inefficient aisle arrangement with tucked away dead ends. If the customer when asked the question: "Are cold, frozen or heavy items to be included last on the optimal route?" responds "yes", then optimise the path through cold, frozen or heavy items working backwards 10 from overall exit point, in sub- blocks similar to the algorithm above, after one first defines optimal exit and entry points to the respective sub block in various combinations. This overall exit point may vary if there are a number of checkouts, and indeed the customer may over-rule the calculated theoretical optimal route if when they arrive at the checkouts the "optimal" checkout has a long que of other customers. Nevertheless the theoretical optimal route should first determine which of the checkouts is closest to any of the frozen etc items, this becomes the overall exit point. (This type of algorithm is discussed later under 5.B,C.) After optimising the route between the now determined exit point and the entry point of frozen etc goods, one then optimises the path for the cold items, working backwards from the overall first point of the frozen etc items. Likewise for very heavy items is selected, depending on priority. Then optimise the path through other item (at room temperature), commencing from the overall entry position to the first of the cold goods, in the normal rather than "backwards" order. Note that one could not merely optimise the path from the overall entry point to the "cold goods", because one would not know at the commencement of the algorithm which of the cold items would be the optimal first cold item, and there is often more than one region within the supermarket with cold items. 5.B. Another approach to calculating the optimal route would be to calculate the route length of every possible combination of paths between every possible sequence of items. Although this may appear to be simpler than the algorithm described above under 5.A, it would uses much more computing power, requires more RAM, and thus may have to be driven by a more powerful and expensive computer rather than a compact calculator. For example "Aisle"(N)[l.o] may have N=10, typical of a customer with about 15 items on a diverse shopping list. Merely taking into account the options of reversing or not reversing in each aisle results in 2 to the power 10, ie 1024 different paths, each of which would need to have its length calculated, the length stored together with the minimum length with minimum number of reversals chosen to find the optimum path. However this approach is not at all prohibitive with modem computing capacity and could be used by he "supermarket navigator". 5.C. When optimising a path through a rectilinear pattern of multiple aisles intersected by similarly multiple cross-aisles - such that one does not have a system of long shelves and long aisles, but a more open plan array - typical of open market style display tables. Here the simplest optimal path is to adopt one of a number of more suitable algorithms. 11 One is ideally obliged to consider all permutations as in 5.B and use a distance metric based on the sum of absolute value of the differences in Cartesian coordinates of each point in the array. (Note that one is not minimising the shortest length between points as in some other situations which would use Pythagoras' theorem.) An approximation to the optimal solution that involves less computing power would be to plot the entry point as the first point, then using the Cartesian metric as defined above, to measure the distance to all N items, the shortest distance of these is taken as corresponding to the second point and is plotted as such. From this second point the Cartesian metric is used to measure the distance to the remaining (N- 1) items and minimise the distance, and so on, the final portion of the route being connection from the last item directly to the exit point. Note that this is not the same as the consider all possible item sequence paths and minimising the length as in 5.B. That 5.C is not equivalent to 5.B can be seen by considering a path which ideally would be a circular but by placing the two closest points on the circle equidistant to each other but closer than the distance from the next point on the circle and an entry point which was the same as the exit point. The approximate algorithm of 5.C would give a longer path than the true circular path. 5.D. More complex general topologies, with rectilinear blocks of different sizes and orientations would usually be able to be split up into stepwise algorithms solved along similar principles to those outlined above in 5.A,B,C.

6. Additional features may include: 6.A. The updated shop inventory may have a changeable security access code(s) that can be installed via a memory card or downloaded by supermarket staff and stored in the portable or fixed route optimising computer so that current and out of stock information can be included in the route optimisation. 6.B. Security aspects such as customer passwords to access previous shopping lists may be installed. 12 6.C. Security devices may sound an alarm or otherwise alert staff, disable any portable computerised device if it is taken outside a set store perimeter. 6.D. A gyroscope and or magnetic compass that can input the orientation of the device may be determine the orientation of the map on the visual display. 6.E. Inputs from transducers coupled from the shopping trolley wheels and the spatial orientation information may be used to dynamically calculate the position of the shopping trolley and be indicated on the visual display map. 6.F. A navigation system for giving the location of a shopping trolley using either GPS or a smaller scale localised positioning system using a grid of FM radio or ultrasound emitters and receivers. 6.F. A quick release, child proof securing of the portable computerised device that may attach to the shopping trolley handle or other appropriate part of the trolley. Application by Errol John Smith 28 July 2008 13