DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Claims on 08/13/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 09/03/2021.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0015242 A1 White (hereinafter White) in view of US 2011/0127333 A1 Veksland et al. (hereinafter Veksland), US 2016/0188942 A1 Good et al. (hereinafter Good) and in further view of US 2016/0203455 A1 Hicks et al. (hereinafter Hicks).
Regarding claim 1, White teaches a transaction apparatus (White Abstract, checking out machine for merchandise), comprising:
a touch display (White [0010] the display screen may be a touch screen; Fig. 1, element 16);
a frame-based element that comprises at least two integrated cameras (White [0019] the POS station includes scanners and a camera; [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 23, surrounded by housing and bonnet; Fig. 4B, element 44 is an additional camera within the housing); and
a vertical scanner (White [0022] the system include vertical scanners; Fig. 1, element 24);
wherein the touch display is located above, below, or both above and below a top portion of the frame-based element (White [0011] the entire POS includes a display screen; Fig. 1, the display screen (16) is above the frame of the scanner and camera elements (14));
wherein the vertical scanner is located above a bottom portion of the frame-based element (White [0022] the vertical scanner in located vertically next to the flat portion of the bottom of the frame; Fig. 1, element 24 is vertical and above the bottom portion 23 or the frame);
wherein the images are adapted to be processed during the transaction for item recognition and item verification of the items within the scan area (White [0028] the recognition model may identify the object, and use a verification model to confirm the item in the scan area); wherein the frame-based element further comprises a light emitting diode (LED) strip that provides light to the scan area during the transaction (White [0024] the image quality may be improved by using a light source using an LED illumination device; not shown in the figures, a light source is coupled to a camera, and therefore, when there are three different cameras, there can be three different lights, and the purpose of the light source was to improve the quality of captured images).
White fails to explicitly disclose where the frame-based element is positioned to ensure the at least two integrated cameras capture images of a scan area where items are placed for a transaction, each camera separately capturing a particular image of the scan area at a different angle and different perspective from remaining cameras; and a light emitting diode (LED) strip that provides lighted guidance to direct an operators attention to the scan area during the transaction; wherein the touch display includes an integrated card reader in a bottom of the touch display, which is above and may partially overhang into the scan area, provides payment function to an operator to readily pay for the transaction.
Veksland is in the field of object identification reader (Veksland Abstract, camera and scanner to identify objects) and teaches wherein the frame-based element is positioned to ensure the at least two integrated cameras capture a scan area where items are placed for a transaction, each camera capturing an image of the scan area at a different angle and different perspective from remaining cameras (Veksland [0059] the reader includes multiple cameras, shown in Fig. 1, as element C(n), and the array of camera may be tilted or angled to get different views of the scanning area; Fig. 1, scanning area shown imaging field (DIF), with multiple cameras (C1-6)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multicamera image identification, of White, with the multiple cameras angled within the same scan area, as taught by Veksland. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimized imaging of a scan zone to accurately identify an item with little to no errors (Veksland [0012] multicamera scanning volume to optimize effective identify).
Good is in the field of a point of sale device (Good Abstract, point of sale device) and teaches a light emitting diode (LED) strip that provides lighted guidance to direct an operators attention to the scan area during the transaction (Good Fig. 1, element 52 are LED lights to indicate to a user, the light are in the frame surrounding the scan area; [0031] the lights are meant to be indicators for the user of the scan device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lights surrounding the scan area of White with the direction of Good. The motivation for doing so would be to communicate between the device and the user without the need for additional support (Good [0031] the indicators communicate with the user).
Hicks is in the field of a POS system (Hicks Abstract, POS system for sales transactions) and teaches wherein the touch display includes an integrated card reader in a bottom of the touch display, which is above and may partially overhang into the scan area, provides payment function to an operator to readily pay for the transaction (Hicks [0019] the housing assembly includes a touch screen user interface; [0023] the housing assembly of a POS docking station allows for connection to a payment card processing device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch display of White with the integrated card reader taught by Hicks. The motivation for doing so would be to combine retail systems that include POS terminals and wireless scan guns, without the need for an expensive remodel of the current system (Hicks [0014] the legacy system may be updated without the need for expensive re-purchasing of new items, but may be outfitted with the system that include touch display and integrate payment).
Regarding claim 2, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the frame-based element is angled over the scan area or perpendicular to the scan area (White [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 23, surrounded by housing and bonnet; the two cameras are perpendicular and surround the scan area).
Regarding claim 3, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1 further comprising, a base adjacent to a bottom of the vertical scanner, wherein the base defines the scan area (White [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 24, scanner is vertical and adjacent to the bottom section; both surrounded by housing and bonnet; the two cameras are perpendicular and surround the scan area).
Regarding claim 4, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 3, wherein the base is a horizontal scanner (White [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 23, contains a second barcode reader, which may scan and use cameras to identify the object, it is on the bottom of the scanned area).
Regarding claim 5, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 4, wherein the horizontal scanner includes an integrated weigh scale (White [0011] the bottom of the scan area includes a scale; Fig. 1, element 28, scale on bottom of area).
Regarding claim 6, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 4, further comprising, a bioptic scanner wherein the bioptic scanner comprises the vertical scanner and the horizontal scanner (White [0010-0011] the scanner includes a horizontal and vertical scanner creating a bi-optic scanner).
Regarding claim 8, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1. White fails to explicitly disclose wherein the touch display is adjustable upward and downward relative to the top portion of the frame-based element. Hicks teaches wherein the touch display is adjustable upward and downward relative to the top portion of the frame-based element (Hicks [0080] the system has a bottom portion and top portion that is connected with a rotational mechanism, that allows the top to tilt and rotate; Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal of White with the adjustable frame teaches of Hicks. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the device to move toward or away from a user for proper viewing angles for the particular user (Hicks [0080] rotating for best user orientation).
Regarding claim 9, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1. White fails to explicitly disclose wherein the frame-based element comprises four sides, each side including a separate one of the at least two integrated cameras, wherein the at least two integrated cameras comprise four cameras. Good teaches wherein the frame-based element comprises four sides, each side including a separate one of the at least two integrated cameras, wherein the at least two integrated cameras comprise four cameras (Good [0040] the POS system comprises multiple camera on each side, each camera able to scan multiple directions; Fig. 4A showcases the many lines of sight to identify objects). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple cameras of White with the integrated cameras on each side of the frame as taught by Good. The motivation for doing so would be to adequately cover the scan area to identify objects (Good [0039] the sensors are arranged at different angles to adequately cover the scanning space).
Regarding claim 10, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1. White fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transaction apparatus is adapted to be affixed to a wall. Hicks teaches wherein the transaction apparatus is adapted to be affixed to a wall (Hicks [0017] the base is a mount that may be affixed to a surface; the type of surface whether a tabletop or wall, would not change the ability for the device to be attached to something stationary). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction apparatus of White with the ability to affix the apparatus to a wall as taught by Hicks. The motivation for doing so would be to secure the device to increase the security and stability (Hicks [0017] mounting the device will prevent theft and increase stability when swiping cards).
Regarding claim 11, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transaction apparatus is adapted to rest on a horizontal surface (White Fig. 1, entire transaction device on horizontal surface).
Regarding claim 12, modified White teaches the transaction apparatus of claim 1. White fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transaction apparatus is portable and adapted to be moved from one surface to another surface. Hicks teaches wherein the transaction apparatus is portable and adapted to be moved from one surface to another surface (Hicks [0013] the portable scanner and POS device may move around the store, but also be attached to a fixed base; [0051] a base may be fixed, but then device may be portable and only docked when charging is needed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal of White with the portability of Hicks. The motivation for doing so would be to allow scanning and payment of items to occur anywhere within the store, allowing for checkout processing to be processed timely without creating lines (Hicks [0054] establish communication within the portable device anywhere within the store).
Claim 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Hicks and in further view of US 2019/0188435 A1 Davis et al. (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 14, White teaches a transaction terminal (White Abstract, checking out machine for merchandise), comprising:
a processor (White [0025] processor used to connect devices of the checkout terminal);
a touch display (White [0010] the display screen may be a touch screen; Fig. 1, element 16);
a vertical scanner (White [0022] the system include vertical scanners; Fig. 1, element 24);
a card reader (White [0025] the checkout terminal includes a credit/debit reader; Fig. 1, element 18) ; and
a framed element with at least two integrated cameras focused on a scan area (White [0019] the POS station includes scanners and a camera; [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 23, surrounded by housing and bonnet; Fig. 4B, element 44 is an additional camera within the housing);
wherein the vertical scanner is integrated inside of a bottom portion of the framed element and a back portion of the scan area (White [0022] the vertical scanner in located vertically next to the flat portion of the bottom of the frame; Fig. 1, element 24 is vertical and above the bottom portion 23 or the frame);
wherein the processor is adapted to execute instructions to obtain images of items placed in the scan area during a transaction and to use the images to perform item recognition on the items during the transaction (White [0028] the recognition model may identify the object, and use a verification model to confirm the item in the scan area);
wherein the processor is adapted to execute instruction to identify a scanned item code for a scanned item .
White fails to explicitly disclose wherein the touch display is adjustable upward and downward from a top portion of the framed element; wherein the card reader is integrated into a bottom or a side portion of the touch display; and wherein the processor is further adapted to identify when an item is at least partially covered by a hand of an operator and raise an alert to an attendant to audit transaction items; wherein the processor is adapted to execute instruction to identify a scanned item code for a scanned item that does not match an identified item code for the scanned item based on the item recognition, and if a discrepancy is detected, the processor raises an alert to provide assistance to a customer before the transaction is permitted to complete.
Hicks teaches wherein the touch display is adjustable upward and downward from a top portion of the framed element (Hicks [0080] the system has a bottom portion and top portion that is connected with a rotational mechanism, that allows the top to tilt and rotate; Fig. 10); wherein the card reader is integrated into a bottom or a side portion of the touch display (Hicks [0019] the housing assembly includes a touch screen user interface; [0023] the housing assembly of a POS docking station allows for connection to a payment card processing device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch display of White with the integrated card reader and moveability taught by Hicks. The motivation for doing so would be to combine retail systems that include POS terminals and wireless scan guns, without the need for an expensive remodel of the current system, with the benefit of added viewability by the user (Hicks [0014] the legacy system may be updated without the need for expensive re-purchasing of new items, but may be outfitted with the system that include touch display and integrate payment; [0080] rotating for best user orientation).
Davis is in the field of identifying objects (Davis Abstract, retail store item identification) and teaches wherein the processor is further adapted to identify when an item is at least partially covered by a hand of an operator and raise an alert to an attendant to audit transaction items (Davis [0198-0201, the item to be scanned may be partially occluded, Fig. 26 shows image of partially obscured item, whether obscured by an item of a hand, the identification of an obstruction and alert are taught in Davis; [0427] the scanning occurs and creates an audible alert when identified, and creates a different alert when an error occurs; [0264]); wherein the processor is adapted to execute instruction to identify a scanned item code for a scanned item that does not match an identified item code for the scanned item based on the item recognition, and if a discrepancy is detected, the processor raises an alert to provide assistance to a customer before the transaction is permitted to complete (Davis [0427] the scanning occurs and creates an audible alert when identified, and creates a different alert when an error occurs; [0504] the identification is accomplished by using the closest match of an image, when under the threshold there is no match; [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction terminal of White with the alert teaching of Davis. The motivation for doing so would be to identify when a possible error in identification occurs, and send an alert to store employee, or notification to a user to check the latest transaction for fast correction, creating a more optimized process (Davis [0121] a mismatch leads to an alert).
Regarding claim 15, modified White teaches the transaction terminal of claim 14, wherein the framed element is angled from a top portion of the vertical scanner over the scan area or wherein the framed element is perpendicular to the scan area (White [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 23, surrounded by housing and bonnet; the two cameras are perpendicular and surround the scan area).
Regarding claim 16, modified White teaches the transaction terminal of claim 14, further comprising, a base, wherein the base is adjacent to a bottom and front portion of the vertical scanner, and wherein the base defines the scan area (White [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 24, scanner is vertical and adjacent to the bottom section; both surrounded by housing and bonnet; the two cameras are perpendicular and surround the scan area).
Regarding claim 17, modified White teaches the transaction terminal of claim 16, wherein the base is a horizontal scanner or a combined horizontal scanner and weigh scale (White [0011] the bottom of the scan area includes a scale; Fig. 1, element 28, scale on bottom of area).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Veksland in further view of Davis.
Regarding claim 19, White teaches a method, comprising:
scanning first item codes from a scan area by a scanner that is adjacent to the scan area during a transaction (White [0022] the system include vertical scanners; Fig. 1, element 24);
obtaining multiple images from multiple cameras of each of a plurality of items, the multiple cameras integrated into a framed element (White [0019] the POS station includes scanners and a camera; [0022] the “scanner” may be camera based scanners; Fig. 1, element 23, surrounded by housing and bonnet; Fig. 4B, element 44 is an additional camera within the housing);
performing item recognition on the multiple images for each item and assigning second item codes to each of the plurality of items (White [0028] the recognition model may identify the object, and use a verification model to confirm the item in the scan area);
wherein the plurality of items include at least a subset of items on a weigh scale (White [0025] the checkout register has a weight scale), and
comparing the first item codes against the second item codes (White [0028] the identification is compared and given a confidence score to complete identification); and
processing the transaction based on the first item codes and the second item codes (White [0009-0011] once the items are identified and transaction may be completed with a charge to a credit card).
White fails to explicitly disclose multiple cameras located in the scan area during the transaction and focused on the scan area; and determining whether to issue an alert based on the comparing; and wherein when a particular item of the subset of items is occluded by one or more other items of the subset of items, detecting the particular occluded item by: summing respective weights of detected items of the subset of items to obtain a detected weight; determining a total weight reported by the weigh scale; and
determining that the total weight exceeds the detected weight; raising an alert when a particular item barcode recorded by a scanner does not comport with a certain item code recorded during item recognition, disregarding the particular item barcode, using the certain item code, and providing a notice in transaction interface screens that notifies an operator that the particular item barcode was incorrect and a correct item barcode is the certain item code.
Veksland teaches multiple cameras located in the scan area during the transaction and focused on the scan area (Veksland [0059] the reader includes multiple cameras, shown in Fig. 1, as element C(n), and the array of camera may be tilted or angled to get different views of the scanning area; Fig. 1, scanning area shown imaging field (DIF), with multiple cameras (C1-6)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multicamera image identification of White with the multiple cameras angled within the same scan area as taught by Veksland. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimized imaging of a scan zone to accurately identify an item with little to no errors (Veksland [0012] multicamera scanning volume to optimize effective identify).
Davis teaches wherein when a particular item of the subset of items is occluded by one or more other items of the subset of items (Davis [0283] the entire weight of the items is determined, and the items and their expected weights are compared, and if they do no match, then the is either too many items in the pile, or something was double scanned), detecting the particular occluded item by:
summing respective weights of detected items of the subset of items to obtain a detected weight (Davis [0283] the entire weight of the items is determined, and the items and their expected weights are compared, and if they do no match, then the is either too many items in the pile, or something was double scanned);
determining a total weight reported by the weigh scale (Davis [0283] the entire weight of the items is determined, and the items and their expected weights are compared, and if they do no match, then the is either too many items in the pile, or something was double scanned); and
determining that the total weight exceeds the detected weight (Davis [0283] the entire weight of the items is determined, and the items and their expected weights are compared, and if they do no match, then the is either too many items in the pile, or something was double scanned) and determining whether to issue an alert based on the comparing (Davis [0427] the scanning occurs and creates an audible alert when identified, and creates a different alert when an error occurs; [0504] the identification is accomplished by using the closest match of an image, when under the threshold there is no match; [0121]); raising an alert when a particular item barcode recorded by a scanner does not comport with a certain item code recorded during item recognition, disregarding the particular item barcode, using the certain item code, and providing a notice in transaction interface screens that notifies an operator that the particular item barcode was incorrect and a correct item barcode is the certain item code (Davis [0427] the scanning occurs and creates an audible alert when identified, and creates a different alert when an error occurs; [0504] the identification is accomplished by using the closest match of an image, when under the threshold there is no match; [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction terminal of White with the non match weight comparison teaching of Davis. The motivation for doing so would be to identify when a possible error in identification occurs, and send an alert to store employee, or notification to a user to check the latest transaction for fast correction, creating a more optimized process (Davis [0121] a mismatch leads to an alert).
Regarding claim 20, modified White teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising, processing the method when the plurality of items are placed in the scan area (White [0028] the recognition model may identify the object, and use a verification model to confirm the item in the scan area).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 103
Regarding claims 1-6, 9, and 11.
White and Veksland are both in the art of identifying object in a checkout lane. White showcases that items may be identified using a barcode scanner, and that is also has the ability to include cameras for identification purposes, but not specifically for the identification of items to be purchased. Therefore, when Veksland teaches that the checkout area may be monitored by cameras to identify object, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the items may be identified via barcode or camera, and that a system taught in White which already includes cameras to identify people, could also be used to identify products.
The amended claim language “the touch display…” was not previously cited to Hicks because it was not previously in the claim. The new rejection, based on the amendment now include reference to Hicks to teach the touch display.
Examiner takes the position that when an LED strip “provides lighted guidance to direct an operators attention to the scan area” can be interpreted as a light, which would put an operator on alert that there need to be attention put to the scan area. Therefore, when Good has a LED light indicate that the scanning status is an error, it would indicate to the operator that the scan area needs their attention.
Good identifies objects to be purchased, and Veksland is more detailed on the technology used to identify the specific objects. The “different fields” are still intertwined, in that Good is about identifying object during a checkout process and Veksland is specifically about identifying object, and therefore have similar problems and solutions that may be interchanged.
Regarding 7-8, 10 and 12, the claims do not depend from an allowable claim, and remain rejected under 103.
These dependent claims do not depend from allowable claims, and remain rejected.
Regarding claims 14-18, claim 14 has been amended to include the obscuring of items and alerting a user, which is not found in White or Hicks. However, the amended claim language is found in new reference Davis. The combination would have been obvious because all of the art is based on checkout registers, and the ability for them to scan items and alert users in different ways/ Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 103.
White, Hicks and Davis all have elements of retail store identification of products. Examiner when discussing the obvious and motivation to combine, is that the references are all able to teach a plurality of different identification schemes, which include barcode scanners and cameras, and that the desired route of identification would be easily exchanged based on known identification schemes in the retail space.
Examiner notes that the processor is used to identify a scanned item that does not match an identified item code, and when a non match is detected there is an alert for assistance. Therefore when Davis teaches that there is an audible alert when the item is not recognized, is reads on the claim because it is able to identify when the scanned item is below a threshold to meet a matching criteria, and therefore is a non-match alert for assistance.
References are able to teach user interface feedback, whether through audio or visual alerts, and the system all include processors, which are used to implement programming, and therefore, when multiple processors connect the elements are integrated. The claims fail to provide any specific connection between the elements that go beyond what each elements is capable of doing, or why information obtains by one element could not be sent to a different element.
Under 103 it is allowed to combine references, and therefore each individual reference may have approaches to different aspects of the system as a whole, as details about payment compared to identification can be found in different references, and those prior references may have different problems and solutions, but in the instant claims, there is both a payment system and identification systems, which are found in the retail arts, and would be known to people of ordinary skill in the art to seek other areas with similar needs.
Regarding claims 19-20, adds a claim amendment about how it is weighed and compared, which is not taught in White of Vekland. However, it is found in Davis, and therefore the claim remains rejected with new citation to teach the amended claim language. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 103.
Examiner notes that the processor is used to identify a scanned item that does not match an identified item code, and when a non match is detected there is an alert for assistance. Therefore when Davis teaches that there is an audible alert when the item is not recognized, is reads on the claim because it is able to identify when the scanned item is below a threshold to meet a matching criteria, and therefore is a non-match alert for assistance.
References are able to teach user interface feedback, whether through audio or visual alerts, and the system all include processors, which are used to implement programming, and therefore, when multiple processors connect the elements are integrated. The claims fail to provide any specific connection between the elements that go beyond what each elements is capable of doing, or why information obtains by one element could not be sent to a different element.
White, Hicks and Davis all have elements of retail store identification of products. Examiner when discussing the obvious and motivation to combine, is that the references are all able to teach a plurality of different identification schemes, which include barcode scanners and cameras, and that the desired route of identification would be easily exchanged based on known identification schemes in the retail space.
Davis is used to teach the detailed claim language about weight, but Davis also include camera identification, see [0068-71] and Fig. 3A. Examiner did not cite to every overlapping elements that are found in both White and Davis because Davis is being used as a secondary reference to specifically discuss the weight sensor elements, and was shown to be in the same field as White by its identification of products in a retail space. Therefore, it is not necessary that Davis each every element of the claims, because this is a 103 combination of references to teach the elements.
Davis identifies objects to be purchased, and Veksland is more detailed on the technology used to identify the specific objects. The “different fields” are still intertwined, in that Davis is about identifying object during a checkout process and Veksland is specifically about identifying object, and therefore have similar problems and solutions that may be interchanged.
White and Veksland are both in the art of identifying object in a checkout lane. White showcases that items may be identified using a barcode scanner, and that is also has the ability to include cameras for identification purposes, but not specifically for the identification of items to be purchased. Therefore, when Veksland teaches that the checkout area may be monitored by cameras to identify object, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the items may be identified via barcode or camera, and that a system taught in White which already includes cameras to identify people, could also be used to identify products. It is not hindsight when one reference has both cameras and barcodes, and the second reference has just cameras, and the argument is that the original POS would be able to continue to use the cameras available, or add additional cameras to complete the purpose already found in it, which is to identify objects. The reference is able to teach that there are cameras, and that one of the goals is to identify object, it would have been obvious that the identification may be done by other means that are also readily known by people skilled in the art to identify objects in a retail location.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0075168 A1 Amundsen et al. teaches a checkout system (Abstract); US 10,963,657 B2 Rodriguez et al. teaches camera identification of objects (Abstract); US 11,756,389 B2 Debucean et al. teaches a POS terminal with non-scan sensors (Abstract); US 11,348,066 B2 Galluzzo et al. teaches a logistics facility (Abstract); US 5,123,494 A Schneider teaches comparing weights for theft (Abstract).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM 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 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627