DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Appeal Brief filed on June 5, 2025.
This case has been re-opened.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 and 18-23 nave been cancelled.
Claims 12-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell (US2021/0199488 A1) in view of Yanagi (US 11,380,098 B2).
Claim 12
O’ Donnell discloses the following limitations:
A system for use with a point of sale (POS) terminal that is operable to execute a transaction associated with a purchase of an object, the system comprising: (see at least abstract).
a weigh platter having a first surface extending in a first transverse plane; (see at least figure 4).
a scale configured to measure a weight of the object when placed on the first surface; (see at least figures 4 and 15).
an off-platter detection assembly configured to detect an off-platter condition based on at least one of (i) a portion of the object resting on a second surface off the weigh platter and (ii) at least some portion of the object extending beyond a perimeter of the weigh platter; (see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0057).
a user interface configured to capture user input associated with the object; (see at least paragraph 0049-the POS system has a weighting function that requires the operator to key in a code for an item, such as a fresh produce that is sold by weight).
a processor in communication with the scale and the off-platter detection assembly; and (see at least abstract, figure 4 and paragraph 0049).
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to analyze the user input associated with the object captured by the user interface to identify at least one parameter related to the object; (see at least paragraph 0049).
generate an alert responsive to (i) the off-platter detection assembly detecting the off-platter condition and (ii) a secondary condition, based on identifying the at least one parameter related to the object, being met. (see at least paragraphs 0044-0045 and 0049; Examiner notes that key in a code for an item such as fresh produce that is sold by weight, placing items on the scale, and/or a weight change is not detected can be considered “a secondary condition”. Examiner notes that the weigh scale perimeter monitoring system is activated to produce LED light/alert when the scale is activated (i.e., a secondary condition) and the off -scale condition is detected (i.e., the first condition); paragraph 0069 discloses that when sensing overhanging and other encroachment condition the system may respond with a weight and some extra appended data).
O’Donnell discloses that when first condition (off platter condition) and second condition (detecting the item on the scale) occurs, an alert is generated. Alert generation requires both conditions to be met. Therefore, it is not explicitly disclosed but it is made obvious that an alert is not generated, when either condition is not met. O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the following limitation as claimed:
and abstain from generating an alert responsive to: (i) the off-platter detection assembly detecting the off-platter condition and (ii) the secondary condition not being met
However, Yanagi in at least column 26 lines 45-60 discloses a system that prevents an alert from being issued erroneously. The system abstains from generating an alert when detecting misalignment (first condition) but the secondary condition is not met (predetermined period or longer). The combination of references evidence that generation/abstention of alerts dependent on conditions is not an inventive concept. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in O’Donnell and Yanagi in order to prevent an alert to be issued erroneously (Yanagi column 26 lines 50-55). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 13
Furthermore O’ Donnell discloses the following limitations:
wherein the secondary condition is based on identifying that the object is a produce object (see at least paragraph 0049).
Claim 14
Furthermore O’ Donnell discloses the following limitations:
wherein the secondary condition is based on identifying that the object is associated with a price value above a threshold price value (see at least paragraph 0077).
Claim 15
Furthermore O’ Donnell discloses the following limitations:
wherein the secondary condition is based on identifying that the object is priced based on weight (see at least paragraph 0049).
Claim 16
Furthermore, O’ Donnell discloses the following limitations:
wherein the alert is further responsive to: a measurement by the scale of a stable weight for a time period greater than a threshold time period (see at least paragraph 0049).
Claim 17
Furthermore, O’ Donnell discloses the following limitations:
wherein the alert is further responsive to: a measurement by the scale of a weight greater than a threshold weight (see at least paragraph 0069).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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 at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627