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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations of verifying, associating, generating, and performing (as set forth in claim 1). These limitations fall under the grouping of organized human activity (fundamental economic transaction as it pertains to checking out customers) and/ or mental steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of verifying as similar to those concepts held abstract by the courts (claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the instant limitation is receiving data and comparing it to output a result. The associating limitations is mental step (performed by a generic computer), and the limitations of acquiring frames is routine data capture necessary for the abstract mental step of comparing the motion to the claimed rule (inward or outward determination). The generation of the shopping is abstract steps which fall under mental (done with aid of pen/ paper) and/or a fundamental economic transaction. The performing of the checkout is merely the abstract idea of collecting data and then performing a purchase which is part of the abstract idea itself. The steps are performed using generic computer components and thus applying them to the environment does not yield a practical application. Re claim 2, limitations, the acquiring is routine data capture I order to make th4e shopping list. Re claim 3, target detection is interpreted as looking at acquired frames which falls under mental steps of comparing to a rule as discussed above, to make the shopping list. Claim 5 is math/ mental steps of specific types of comparisons/ rules, which still is abstract data comparison. Claims 5-6 introduce smore generic computer components performing as expected. Claims 7-12 are rejected for similar reasons as they are drawn to abstract steps of modeling/ comparison of specific types of acquired data, that full under mental/ math steps, performed by generic computer components. Re the limitations regarding specific learning/ models, the Examiner note that AI models are interpreted as mathematical steps that are performed using generic computer components (tools) applied to that environment, and thus is merely using the modeling/ training to apply the abstract idea.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11562614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious expedients.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites “A checkout method… verifying... associating… generating… performing…” wherein claim 1 of the ‘614 Patent recites “A checkout method… verifying... .associating... generating… performing…”, claim 2 of the instant Application recites “acquiring… inward… outward… boundary…” wherein claim 2 of the ‘614 Patent recites “acquiring… inward… outward… boundary…”, claim 3 of the instant Application recites “… performing target detection… acquiring… using the…”, wherein claim 1 of the ‘614 Patent recites “… performing target detection… acquiring… using the…”, claim 4 of the instant Application recites “acquiring… using…” wherein claim 1 of the ‘614 Patent recites “acquiring… using…”, claim 7 of the instant Application recites “…device… case... shelf... cameras... closure… registration module... association module… shopping list generation module… checkout module…”, wherein claim 3 of the ‘614 Patent recites “…device… case... shelf... cameras... closure… registration module... association module… shopping list generation module… checkout module…”, claim 8 of the instant Application recites “… action identification unit… item identification unit… shopping list generation unit… “ wherein claim 3 of the ‘614 Patent recites “… action identification unit… item identification unit… shopping list generation unit… “, claim 9 of the instant Application recites “… target detection subunit… first classification subunit… confirmation subunit.. result determination subunit…”, whereas claim 3 of the ‘614 Patent teaches “… target detection subunit… first classification subunit… confirmation subunit... result determination subunit…”, claim 10 of the instant Application recites “… judgement unit… second classification subunit…” whereas claim 3 of the ‘614 Patent recites “… judgement unit… second classification subunit…”, claim 11 of the instant Application recites “camera… processor… memory... generate… perform…” , wherein claim 7 of the ‘614 Patent recites “camera… processor… memory... generate… perform…”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US 20140316916) in view of Kambara et al. (US 20190172039).
A checkout method comprising the steps of:
verifying whether a received unlocking request is sent by a pre-registered customer (paragraph [0098]+, and if so, issuing an unlocking instruction for opening an accommodating case in which a shelf for bearing an item is arranged (50);
associating the customer with a take-up action or a put-back action pertaining to an item using a camera associated with the accommodating case and trained on the shelf, the camera positioned and adapted to acquire a plurality of frames of consecutive hand images of the customer take-up or put-back the item in front of the shelf, identifying the take-up action or the put-back action based on action analysis of the plurality of frames of consecutive hand images containing the item, and identifying the item through pre-trained classification models;
generating a shopping list of the customer after identifying the take-up action or the put-back action and the item at which the take-up action or the put-back action pertains (54+); and
performing checkout of the shopping list (54+).
Hay teaches cameras and hand movement for each tray/ bay (paragraph [0196]+ and claim 73+ and the removal or placement of items (paragraph [0155]+) but is sient to explicitly reciting the specific limitations of the associating, including using models.
Kambara et al. teaches (paragraph [0249]+ and [0214]+) a camera based object recognizing unit that detects objects such as the hand entering and captures images so a to detect objects being removed or placed back and also uses models to determine the candidates.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for accuracy in determining items taken/ returned.
Re claim 2, paragraph [0155]+ teaches video cameras recording hand movement of the users and placement and removal of items. This is interpreted to read on the plurality of frames including inward and outward motions associated with put back and take up actions. Though silent to identifying the motions as put back rot rake up, it would have been obvious to do so as part of the surveillance for security and accuracy of tracking.
Re claims 3-4, paragraph [0015]+ and [0021]+ and claim 3 teaches cameras of an image recognition system detecting item removal by comparing photographs. The use of a certain number of cameras for images is an obvious expedient based on system constraints, security, accuracy, etc. Hay teaches image recognition but is silent to linear regression model constructed by convolution neural network. The Examiner notes that the use of such modeling is an obvious expedient for accuracy of item recognition and one would have been motivated to try such a system to for a well-known object recognition system with learning, for accuracy, using the items in the case, as they are the items that are being identified. The use of cameras for recited images is an obvious expedient for capturing images to be used for analysis. The Examiner notes that images are typically rectangular, thus obviating rectangular images as a routine and conventional way to capture fields of interest and that the result of the image recognition process determines an identified item classification result.
Re claims 5-6, Hay teaches inputting identity information (paragraph [0025] +). Paragraph [0098]+ teaches a member is a person who preregisters with the company and has a code or card. Paragraph [0142]+ and 64 tehaces displaying the customers virtual shopping cart. This information is interpreted as being sent to a checkout device in order to process the checkout transaction.
Re claim 7, the limtaitosn have been discussed above but does not explicitly teach “modules”. Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that such “modules” can be interpreted as the various software components of the system which performs the functions.
Re claims 8-9, the limtaitosn have been discussed above, wherein modules are interpreted to read on software and associated functionality for the recited processed.
Re claims 11-12, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the method has a computer and associated memory (FIG. 4+).
Conclusion
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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 2876