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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 06/10/2021 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending in the instant application. Claims 11-20 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. No claims have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record, and said arguments have been found to be unpersuasive. Applicant asserts that the applied prior art, alone and in combination, fails to teach or suggest “a retail, customer-centric workflow in which a return-station scanner reads a customer identification together with an item and initiates the return analysis. Neither reference discloses a processor configured to retrieve customer data from a stored customer profile keyed to the scanned customer identification. Neither reference discloses applying customer-specific return thresholds to generate and display a return action at the return terminal user interface. Nor does the Office Action identify a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the disparate teachings of Scott and Hammond to arrive at the claimed systems/methods.” (see page 12 of Applicant’s response).
The examiner submits that the applied prior art reference Hammond et al discloses systems and methods for processing merchandise returns, wherein items may be scanned for return using the scanner 325 (see at least paragraph [0104] to Hammond et al, wherein the customer’s driver’s license may be used as part of the return transaction process and wherein the system may take into account prior merchandise returns and purchase history of the customer along with other customer data to create a risk assessment associated with the return request (see at least paragraph [0046] to Hammond et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosure of Hammond et al teaches wherein there is information associated with a customer identifier, and wherein said information includes past purchase and return history, as cited in the aforementioned paragraphs The examiner submits that the applied prior art reference Hammond et al does not explicitly recite wherein the items that are being returned are equipment, but it is clear that the applied prior art reference Scott teaches the tracking and monitoring of equipment. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both references Scott and Hammond et al disclose wherein item information may be associated with a user identifying information, such as a driver’s license to track the return of items associated with the user, wherein the user in Hammond et al is a customer, and the user in Scott is an employee or contractor who is using a tool (specifically, a spray tool as disclosed by Scott). It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of the applied prior art of record, at minimum, obviates the language of the applied prior art of record. For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims is hereby maintained and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Scott (US 2017/0259288) in view of Hammond et al (US 2016/0148209).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art reference Scott discloses a system for preventing losses comprising: a scannable, identifiable item having an item profile associated therewith, wherein said item profile contains item data pertaining to said scannable, identifiable item (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott), a customer ID having a customer profile associated therewith (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott), wherein said customer profile contains customer data pertaining to a customer associated with said customer profile, a scanning device configured to scan said scannable, identifiable item and said customer ID, wherein said scanning device scans said scannable(see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott), identifiable item in a way such that said item profile associated with said scannable, identifiable item is determined, wherein said scanning device scans said customer ID in a way such that said customer profile associated with said customer ID is determined (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott), a computing entity having a user interface and operably connected to said scanning device, wherein said computing entity is configured to receive said item data and said customer data from said item profile and said customer profile (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott), Hammond discloses a system and method for processing merchandise returns, wherein said user interface allows a user to generate a return action for said customer (see at least paragraph [0015] to Hammond et al), a processor operably connected to said computing entity, and said scanning device a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, wherein said non-transitory computer-readable medium contains instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by said processor (see at least paragraph [0014] to Hammond et al, cause said processor to perform operations comprising: determining said item profile based on said scannable, identifiable item scanned by said scanning device (see at least paragraph [0104] to Hammond et al), determining said customer profile based on said customer ID scanned by said scanning device, receiving retrieving said customer data associated with said customer profile from said scanning device (see at least paragraphs [0106]-[0107] to Hammond et al, wherein the POR device scans identification cards), receiving retrieving said item data associated with said item profile (see at least paragraph [0104] to Hammond et al, wherein the item data is provided in association the scanned item), generating a return action based on said customer data and said item data (see at least paragraph [0131] to Hammond et al), wherein said return action is one of allowed or not allowed based on return thresholds (see at least paragraph [0138] to Hammond et al) optimized to indicate when a return of said scannable, identifiable item is fraudulent (see at least paragraphs [0111]-[0112] to Hammond et al), displaying said return action to said user within said user interface (see at least paragraphs [0134]-[0135] to Hammond et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for monitoring and improving operation of spray tools, as disclosed by Scott and the system and method for processing merchandise returns, as taught by Hammond et al, in order to reduce profit loss associated with fraudulent returns could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a database operably connected to said processor, wherein said database is configured to store said customer profile, and said item profile from a plurality of stores within a geographic region, wherein said database stores a purchase/return history of said customer with said customer profile, wherein said purchase/return history is obtained from point of sale system operably connected to the processor (see at least paragraphs [0148-0149] to Hammond et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising permission levels, that can change threshold values of said return values (see at least paragraph [0029] to Scott “operational settings of spray tools”).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising groups having said permission levels, wherein said customer profile is associated with said groups in a way such that said system generates said return action based on said return thresholds of said groups (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott “he monitored or tracked data also may include operator information about the operator using the tool, e.g., operator name, identification number or other unique identifier, age, years of experience, years of employment, professional certifications, professional training, educational degrees, or other operator information. The operator information may be input by the operator and/or retrieved from a database based on an input operator identifier, e.g., by typing in the operator identifier, using a scanner or reader for scanning the operator identifier (e.g., bar code, radio frequency identification [RFID] tag, smart tag, etc.), or any combination thereof. For example, the operator identifier may be disposed on an employee identification card, a driver's license, or the like. Upon inputting the operator's identification, all other operator information may be correlated to the operation of the tool by the particular operator”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the system of claim 3, further comprising permission levels, a user ID having a user profile associated therewith, wherein said user profile contains user data pertaining to a user associated with said user profile, and a piece of equipment having an equipment profile associated therewith, wherein said equipment profile contains equipment data pertaining to said piece of equipment(see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott “the operator information may be input by the operator and/or retrieved from a database based on an input operator identifier, e.g., by typing in the operator identifier, using a scanner or reader for scanning the operator identifier (e.g., bar code, radio frequency identification [RFID] tag, smart tag, etc.), or any combination thereof. For example, the operator identifier may be disposed on an employee identification card, a driver's license, or the like. Upon inputting the operator's identification, all other operator information may be correlated to the operation of the tool by the particular operator. The monitored or tracked data also may include information about a target object (e.g., a component to be worked upon), such as a part number, model number, specifications, or other unique identifier. The target object data may be input by the operator and/or retrieved from a database based on an input identifier, e.g., by typing in the identifier, scanning the identifier (e.g., bar code, radio frequency identification [RFID] tag, smart tag, etc.), or any combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the system of claim 5, further comprising additional instructions, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform additional operations comprising: determining said equipment profile based on said piece of equipment scanned by said scanning device, Determining said user profile based on said user ID scanned by said scanning device, Determining whether said equipment data of said equipment profile is associated with said user profile, associating said equipment data of said equipment profile with said user profiles when said piece of equipment is not already associated with said user profiles, and dissociating said equipment data with said user profiles when said piece of equipment is already associated with said user profiles (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott “the operator information may be input by the operator and/or retrieved from a database based on an input operator identifier, e.g., by typing in the operator identifier, using a scanner or reader for scanning the operator identifier (e.g., bar code, radio frequency identification [RFID] tag, smart tag, etc.), or any combination thereof. For example, the operator identifier may be disposed on an employee identification card, a driver's license, or the like. Upon inputting the operator's identification, all other operator information may be correlated to the operation of the tool by the particular operator. The monitored or tracked data also may include information about a target object (e.g., a component to be worked upon), such as a part number, model number, specifications, or other unique identifier. The target object data may be input by the operator and/or retrieved from a database based on an input identifier, e.g., by typing in the identifier, scanning the identifier (e.g., bar code, radio frequency identification [RFID] tag, smart tag, etc.), or any combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising an operations timer of said user interface, wherein said operations timer comprises a plurality of user actions, wherein said plurality of user actions are assigned to at least one user system, wherein indicia of said operations timer indicate an urgency level of said operations timer, wherein said urgency level is determined via a plurality of urgency parameters and an urgency threshold(see at least paragraph [0044] to Scott “the operator receives an indication from the output 66 signaling that the spray tool 38 is too close to the object 40 but is unable to correctly position the spray tool 38 within a preset time, then the process communication system 10 may take control actions to address that problem(e.g., disable the spray tool 38 and associated equipment). By further example, if the operator receives an indication from the output 66 signaling that the spray tool 38 has an unacceptable flow rate (e.g., air, liquid, or powder) but is unable to correct the problem within a preset time, then the process communication system 10 may take control actions to address that problem (e.g., automatically adjust the flow rates if possible, or disable the spray tool 38 and associated equipment)”).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the system of claim 7, further comprising said non-transitory computer-readable medium contains additional instructions, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform additional operations comprising: determining a value for each urgency parameter of said plurality of urgency parameters for a specific user action of said plurality of user actions, totaling said value for each said urgency parameter of said plurality of urgency parameters to create a total urgency parameter points for each said specific user action of said plurality of user actions, comparing said total urgency parameter points for each said specific user action to said urgency threshold that is specific to each said specific user action in order to determine said urgency level for each said specific user action of said plurality of user actions, updating said urgency level for each said specific user action of said plurality of user actions based on changes in said value for each said urgency parameter of said plurality of urgency parameters, and resetting said operations timer when said specific user action of said plurality of user actions is completed by said user (see at least paragraph [0033] to Scott “operational usage of the spray tool 38 (e.g., specific operator using the tool, tool settings during use, duration of usage time, timestamp of specific times of use, frequency of use, and/or number of actuations of controls such as triggers, buttons, or switches), or any combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the system of claim 8, wherein said plurality of urgency parameters comprise at least one of overdue task, task type, time of day, and time of year (see at least paragraph [0033] to Scott).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the system of claim 8, wherein said operations timer comprises at least one of a restocking timer, maintenance timer, management timer, and vendor timer (see at least paragraph [0019] to Scott “operational usage of the tool (e.g., specific operator using the tool, tool settings during use, duration of usage time, timestamp of specific times of use”).
Claims 21-30 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
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.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627