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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (independent claims 1, 8, 14) recite(s) limitations drawn to mental processes and financial transactions (organized human activity) as it applies to transactions within a store. The claims recites the limitations of monitoring, determining, storing, and providing. These steps, are a process under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a processor and memory (claim 8) nothing in the claim preclude the steps from being performing by the human mind. Additionally, the limitations are also drawn to a fundamental financial transaction (organized human activity), namely performing transactions and storing and providing indications, which is generic data processing/ data manipulation. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and is no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and thus cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency and for also merely specifying further details of the abstract idea without significantly more/ practical application. For example, claim 2 is merely limiting the environment to a store, claim 3 is limitations to the post solution activity, claim 4 is a mental step or part of the abstract idea with generic computer components, claim 5 and deleting of data is insignificant post solution activity (data manipulation and storing results), claim 7 is post solution activity of the mental step of monitoring. The remaining independent and dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Re the limitations of one or more of the monitoring as recited, the Examiner note that records created by the employee of the retail store is part of a fundamental economic transaction (recording the transaction), which is abstract and/ or can be a mental process, thus the claims remain ineligible under 101.
Monitoring can be a mental step or part of the organized human activity / routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea. The recitation of the generic computer components do not provide a practical application as they are performing generic computer processes and are recited at a high level of generality. Determining is a mental step. Providing an alert is post solution activity, tantamount to displaying results for 101 purposes. Collecting and comparing information as recited is similar to concepts in Classen Immunotherapies, Electric Power v. Alstom, and Universal Secure Registry v Apple.
To further clarify, the claims fall under the mental process/ organized human activity categories. The abstract idea has both mental steps and organized human activity (as it pertains to business transactions). While an audio/ video monitoring device may not be mental in of itself, the underlying abstract idea is monitoring, which is mental/ part of the organized human activity. Accordingly, the generic computerization of the abstract idea by such elements does not pull the claims out of the mental process/ organized human activity grouping.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conzola et al. (US 6924743) in view of Morrison et al. (US 6522772).
Re claim 1, Conzola et al. teaches:
Determining that an intangible transaction has occurred, storing a record of an item associated with the customer and transaction, determining they customer is attempting to leave the store without the item and alerting the customer (abstract+).
Conzola et al. is silent to monitoring a customer shopping to detect the transaction.
Morrison et al. teaches such limitations (col 5, lines 15+ wherein a facial recognition device is used as part of a transaction, hence determining a transaction occurrence/ physical interaction using video monitoring).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for monitoring/ security purposes. The Examiner has interpreted that an intangible transaction is when a customer express an intent to purchase an item but does not immediately physically interact with the item, wherein physically interact can be interpreted as consumption, completed purchase, usage, etc. and therefore is met by a transaction as set forth above. Thus, the customer buying the item by showing/ expressing an intent to purchase an item but they have not yet used or consumed the item, for example, reads on such limitations. To further clarify, the cashier putting the item into the bag with a purchase, is read on the user not physically interacting with the item as the users are not immediately interacting with the item.
Re the limitations of detecting that an intangible transactions has occurring comprises monitoring via an order processing system records created by employees, the Examiner notes that such limitations are read on by the cashier of Conzola which performs the transaction and/ or via Morrison which teaches completing of the transaction, as recording the financial transaction is well known and conventional in the art for record keeping purposes/ security.
Re the newly added limitation of the intangible transaction is a transaction in which the customer expresses an intent to purchase an item but does not involve the customer physically interacting with the item, again, the Examiner notes that an intent to purchase the item can be seen as the customer being at the cashier/ checkout for the transaction. The recitation of “intent” does not prohibit actual purchasing from being made, as intent can lead to purchasing and does not have to exclude it. Not having the customer physically interact with the item, as discussed above, can be interpreted as the customer not using/ consuming/ opening the item/ item packaging. For example, the customer may physically interact with the item when they arrive home, and thus the transaction at the cashier/ register/ store does not involve the customer physically interacting with the item as they are not opening or using or consuming it (until they are home). Physically interacting has not been recited to preclude the purchasing of the item, which is not interpreted as physically interacting with the item, as the purchaser is using/ consuming/ wearing the item, merely purchasing it. Even further, when items/ products are in boxes/ packaging, the mere purchase of the includes an intent to purchase, but it is not interpreted by the Examiner as interacting with the item, which is done post purchase, such as wearing, consuming, opening packaging and using the item, etc. The claims do not preclude such an interpretation as they do not recite intent without purchasing and do not recite what physical interaction is limited to.
To further clarify, a purchase of an item, such as a packaged item (or unpackaged), is interpreted as a transaction in which the customer expresses an intent to purchase (and can still indeed purchase it and purchasing an item can still be interpreted as a intangible transaction) but does not physically interact with the item, because “physically interact” is broadly recited and physically interacting can be interpreted as opening the packaging to actually get to the item itself, using the item itself, or consuming the item (eating). The Examiner has interpreted that a customer buying an item at checkout does not have to read on “physically interacting” with the item, absent a recitation regarding the Applicant never having touched the item until after the transaction is completed at which point the customer is physically provided the item, and thus interaction occurs before scanning or processing of the package for purchase, for example.
Thus, for purposes of Examination, a purchase of an item (packaged or even unpackaged) at a checkout can read on an intangible transaction because the Examiner can interpret the “physical interaction” as consuming, opening packaging, eating, using, wearing, etc. the item, which is not required to occur at the time of purchase. Buying an item reads on an intent to purchase. Buying the item itself (and not eating/ consuming/ opening packaging/ wearing the item/ or physically using it for its intended purpose, which occur traditionally post purchase) reads on the intangible transaction. If the Applicant wishes an intangible transaction to read on a customer purchasing an item without ever having touched the item or its packaging/ container, then such limitations should be positively recited such as detecting that a user has not touched an item/ item packaging prior to the purchase of the item being processed by the store.
Re claim 2, as discussed above, Morrison et al. occurs at a self-checkout area.
Re claim 3, the alert is provided to the customer/ employee as taught by Conzola et al. above.
Re claim 4, Morrison et al. teaches facial recognition as discussed above.
Re claims 8-10 and 14-16 the limitations have been discussed above re claims 1, 3, 4, and 1, 3, 4, respectively.
Claims 7, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conzola et al./ Morrison et al., as discussed above, in view of Durham et al. (US 20130181054).
Re claims 7, 13, and 19 the teachings of Conzola et al./ Morrison et al. have been discussed above but are silent to receiving an opt in indication from the customer to be personally identified and detecting the identified customer has entered.
Durham et al. in paragraph [0005]+ teaches membership cards for entry and purchases, interpreted as opting in and an individual identifying themselves prior to entry.
Prior to the effective fling date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conzola et al./ Morrison et al., as discussed above, in view of Yamada (US 20190303946).
Re claims 5, 11, and 17 the teachings of Conzola et al./ Morrison et al. have been discussed above but are silent to deleting data when the customer leaves.
Yamada teaches such limitations (paragraph [0131]).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for data integrity/ privacy concerns.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that the independent claims do not specifically define “intangible transaction” to preclude the interpretation provided by the Examiner above, such as a credit card transaction or merely buying the item but not using or consuming the item, using the item, wearing the item, opening the packaging, etc. for example, or even the cashier putting the item into the bag with a purchase, or the customer not yet using/ consuming the item/ opening/ wearing for example.
To further clarify, a purchase of an item, such as a packaged item (or unpackaged), is interpreted as a transaction in which the customer expresses an intent to purchase (and can still indeed purchase it and still be interpreted as a intangible transaction) but does not physically interact with the item, because “physically interact” is broadly recited and physically interacting can be interpreted as opening the packaging to actually get to the item itself, using the item itself, wearing, or consuming the item (eating). The Examiner has interpreted that a customer buying an item at checkout does not have to read on “physically interacting” with the item, absent a recitation regarding the Applicant never having touched the item until after the transaction is completed at which point the customer is physically provided the item, for example.
Thus, for purposes of Examination, a purchase of an item (packaged or even unpackaged) at a checkout can read on an intangible transaction because the Examiner can interpret the “physical interaction” as occurring such as consuming, opening packaging, eating, using, wearing, etc. the item, which is not required to occur at the time of purchase. Buying an item reads on an intent to purchase (the actual buying does not preclude reading on an intent, as the buying demonstrates the intent). Buying the item itself (and not eating/ consuming/ opening packaging/ wearing the item/ or physically using it for its intended purpose, which occur traditionally post purchase) reads on the intangible transaction.
If the Applicant wishes an intangible transaction to read on a customer purchasing an item without ever having touched the item or its packaging/ container before the item is processed by the store for the checkout/ purchase, then such limitations should be positively recited. However, the Examiner notes that even in traditional item purchases, a user is not required to touch an item. Employees may load large items, or heavy items, or other items onto a customer’s cart/ checkout belt either to assist a customer or to be helpful. Thus, in such instances, a customer has not touched the item, and it would be scanned by a barcode scanner at checkout. This is a traditional type of purchase and also reads on an intangible transaction.
Even further, the Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional that at a checkout, employees may physically grab gift cards or other small items at checkout that a customer wants and scan them and put them in a bag to complete a purchase transaction for a user. Even further, for high priced items, it is well known and conventional to only bring a purchase slip to the checkout, wherein the actual item is obtained after checkout from a different location in the store. This also reads on an intangible transaction. Such example are also well known and common and would also read on an intangible transaction. Thus, the Examiner suggest clarifying exactly what an intangible transaction means in the claim limitations, to prohibit such traditional transactions from reading on intangible transactions.
Finally, it is unclear to the Examiner how the person who actually touches/ interacts with the item defines the claims. For instances where 2 or more people are shopping together and the purchaser never touches items but the second person (helper or family member) is the one who loads the cart and loads the items on the belt for purchase, how does this impact the claim, as detecting left items still remains an issue, regardless of who last touched the items in a transaction.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains the 101 as it is seen as a mental process/ fundamental economic practice (organized human activity) with only routine computer components. To further clarify, the claims fall under the mental process/ organized human activity categories. The abstract idea has both mental steps and organized human activity (as it pertains to business transactions). While an audio/ video monitoring device may not be mental in of itself, the underlying abstract idea is monitoring, which is mental/ part of the organized human activity. Accordingly, the generic computerization of the abstract idea by such elements does not pull the claims out of the mental process/ organized human activity grouping.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 20070129888 to Rosenberg teaches reminders to users based on their position such as when they leave and enter stores).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached on 5712722404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2887