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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 line 16 recites “a venue.” This renders the claim indefinite as “a venue” has already been recited prior to this in claim 10, thereby providing insufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 line 30 recites “scanning of the item.” This renders the claim indefinite as “the scanning of the item” was already recited prior to this at line 27-28. The claim scope is unclear because it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the previous scanning of the item, or a different and new scanning of the item. The examiner recommends amending claim 10 line 30 to recite “responsive to detecting the scanning of the item. . . .” if that is what is intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 10, 12-18 relate to system/machine claims. Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claim 10 recites the following abstract idea:
Capture first image data via the first imaging assembly (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), 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); The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp., where the act of associating data with other data can be done in the human mind, and/or on pen and paper)
associate (for the act of associating data with other data, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) a person with an item acquired within a predefined zone of a venue by analyzing the first image-data to identify at least one attribute of the person and at least one attribute of the item without identifying an identity of the person (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), 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); The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp., where the act of associating data with other data can be done in the human mind, and/or on pen and paper);
capture second image data via the second imaging assembly (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), 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); The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp., where the act of associating data with other data can be done in the human mind, and/or on pen and paper);
detect the person at the point-of-sale (POS) station of the venue by capturing second image-data and analyzing the second image-data to identify the at least one attribute of the person (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) 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); for the act of capturing image with assembly, see additional element analysis below; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.);
responsive to the detecting scanning of the item prior to a payment step of the checkout transaction disassociating the person with the item (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and (B), monitoring a checkout transaction is fundamental economic practice; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing interval licensing, where updating a database based on received data is abstract idea.); and
responsive to the item not being scanned prior to the payment step of the checkout transaction, determine an instance of a potential shrink event (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and (B) monitoring a checkout transaction is fundamental economic practice).
When these abstract idea limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination (e.g. as a whole), they are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 10 recites the additional limitations of,
a first imaging assembly including imagers such as cameras to capture images of zone of venue (as shown in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification at e.g. [0030] Fig. 3 as standard camera);
a second imaging assembly;
a server connected to the first imager and second imager;
storing instructions on a memory accessible by the server that when executed, perform the abstract idea found above.
These additional limitations are not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application as the additional limitations are recited with a broad level of specificity and act as tools to implement the abstract idea. For the first and second assemblies, or cameras, the examiner refers to Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality as shown in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. For the server connected to the assemblies, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). For the instructions stored in memory that when implemented cause the processor to perform the abstract idea, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instructions to “apply” an exception. In the associate limitation, the first assembly is utilized to capture an image, where this falls under the “apply it” rationale. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the detect limitation, for the capturing limitation, see MPEP 2106.04(c)(d)(III) In particular, the court determined that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account” nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” Id. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the exception is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination (e.g. as a whole), these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea with practical application, and therefore claim 10 is found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B - The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?”) (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
The examiner does not find that claim 10 recites significantly more. The examiner refers to the findings above from Step 2A, Prong 2, regarding the additional elements. These findings of the additional elements are equally applied to Step 2B. Further, the examiner must determine if any of the additional elements are more than well understood, routine, and conventional activities (WURC) previously known in the industry. The examiner finds the additional elements to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. In particular, Applicant’s originally-filed Specification at e.g. [0030] indicates the off-the-shelf nature of the imaging assembly, as it uses standard camera(s) and the like. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In other words, the transmitting of data between the assembly and the processor that executes instructions and the server, these are generally considered to be WURC limitation as shown in Symantec. The claimed limitations also involve record keeping, keeping an electronic log of the transaction data, where this is also found to be WURC limitation. Scanning/detecting data such as through the use of a general purpose barcode reader is found to be WURC activity. Based on these findings, the examiner does not find the additional limitations to include more than WURC limitations. When viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner does not find claim 10 to recite significantly more.
Dependent claims –Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) of not performing an action in response to an event (algorithm), where the specifics of how the preventing is performed is not recited or disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in order to address the technical solution to a technological problem. See Applicant’s Spec at [0041] where the preventing includes sending an alert to associate. Claim 13 recites abstract idea under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) referring to Intellectual Ventures case. Claims 14-15 recite a tool used in “apply it” manner to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 16 recites more abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv). Claim 17 recites more abstract idea relating to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Claim 18 recites more abstract idea of manipulating data. Accordingly, claims 10, 12-18 are found to be directed to abstract idea.
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.
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) 10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0165733 to Kundu et al. (“Kundu”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,049,170 to Francis et al. (“Francis”).
Claims 10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0165733 to Kundu et al. (“Kundu”).
With regard to claim 10, Kundu discloses the claimed system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first imaging assembly fixed at a first position within a venue, the first imaging assembly configured to capture images via a first field of view that extends over at least a portion of a predefined zone located physically within the venue (see e.g. Fig. 1, video source 195-1, see where each fixed ceiling camera has an angle of view that covers a predefined zone in the retail environment 100, where in the Fig. 7 shown to the left, each camera has a different field of view, and the field of views are overlapping as shown by the overlapping lines from the field of view illustration.);
a second imaging assembly fixed at a second position within the venue different from the first position and associated with a point-of-sale (POS) station having a barcode reader, the second imaging assembly configured to capture images via a second field of view different from the first field of view that extends at least partially over (i) an item scanning region of the POS station and (ii) a POS-user region of the POS station (see e.g. [0038], [0027] The auxiliary sensor data can be used individually or in conjunction with other transaction information such as video data including images of activity (such as placing of an item in a shopping cart, movement of an item to an or of a checkout station, etc.) and a log of transaction data (such as transaction data produced by a scanner device)(emphasis added); [0054] receive video data, the video data capturing images of a checkout transaction in which an operator passes retail items from an input region to an output region of a checkout station disposed in a retail environment (emphasis added); [0167] Checkout station 710 can include video source 195 to capture images of the checkout transaction in transaction area 701.);
a server communicatively connected to the first imaging assembly and the second imaging assembly (see e.g. [0051] [0053]); and
computing instructions stored on a memory accessible by the server, and that when executed by one or more processors communicatively connected to the server, cause the one or more processors to (see e.g. [0051] [0053] [0103] processor automatically implements instructions):
capture first image-data via the first imaging assembly (see e.g. [0024] The camera system provides video coverage of the shelves, stocking areas, floor, and other travel zones of a retail store, and one or more data feeds providing a record of items inventoried and purchased.);
associate a person with an item acquired within a predefined zone of a venue analyzing the first image-data to identify at least one attribute of the person and at least one attribute of the item (see e.g. [0033] [0073] Video sources 195 can be placed at any suitable locations in the retail environment 100 to monitor one or more customers. For example, in one embodiment, the retail environment 100 includes multiple video sources 195 disposed in the ceiling of a retail building to obtain a top view of a user's actions and a respective item carrier apparatus as they move about the retail environment 100. Each video monitoring system (such as video source or image capturing device) can monitor a different region of the retail environment 100. For example, video source 195-1 can be configured to monitor a first region of the retail environment 100, video source 195-2 can be configured to monitor a second region of the retail environment 100, and so on; [0029] The video data captures images of a customer in a shopping area placing a set of retail items into an item carrier apparatus. The computer processing hardware additionally receives a log of transaction data itemizing presence of at least a portion of the retail items handled by the customer and placed in the item carrier apparatus; The examiner finds that the claimed “at least one attribute of the person” is satisfied in Kundo, as the video camera(s) takes images of 1) an operator 108-1 that handles items and places items into item carrier apparatus (e.g. [0092]) and 2) the items themselves (e.g. [0092]). As shown in e.g. [0092] this information is associated together - “The analyzer resource 140 receives a log of transaction data 122-D itemizing presence of at least a portion of the retail items 120 handled by the operator 108-1 and placed in the item carrier apparatus 150.” Further see [0075] “A video camera in the item scanner device can be configured to produce images of retail items present in the item carrier apparatus 150 or produce images of the items being placed in the item carrier apparatus 150, produce images of the operators movements, actions, etc.”; [0076]; [0080]; as for specific attributes of the operator, see [0118] [0126] [0190-191] moving of arm in a vicinity is detected) without identifying an identity of the person (see e.g. [0172] “This process may involve the operator 108-1 providing a unique operator identity to the transaction terminal.” The use of “may” in [0172] indicates that the system does not have to involve where the operator provides unique operator identity, and in that instance, there is no requirement to identify identity of user and just label them as that person with that cart, for instance) and to identify at least one attribute of the item (e.g. [0174]);
capture second image-data via the second imaging assembly (e.g. [0027] video data including images of activity (such as placing of an item in a shopping cart, movement of an item to an or of a checkout station, etc.));
detect the person at the POS station by analyzing the second image-data to identify the at least one attribute of the person without identifying the identity of the person (see e.g. [0044] where the first data and the second data are aggregated and analyzed, and the data relating to the particular user/customer action is identified; [0088-90]; [0038] analyzes the video data [from e.g Fig. 7, video cameras 195 affixed throughout retail environment] to identify video events such as events indicative of item presence, handling of items by an operator, etc; there is no requirement in identifying the identity of the user/customer; [0116] different sensor hardware includes “video sources 195” among various other sensors; ), and comparing the analyzed second-image data with the analyzed first-image data (see e.g. Kundu [0036] the first and second video image data, along with other sensor data, can be combined/aggregated and analyzed, and a comparison of the aggregated value to a threshold value occurs. Kundu does not disclose “comparing the analyzed second image-data with the analyzed first image-data.” See Francis at e.g. col. 7 ln. 29-39 “As each user moves around in the autonomous store, user tracking component 232 continues analyzing images 106 to track the user's location 304 within the autonomous store. For example, user tracking component 232 matches crops of the user in images 106 to descriptor 302 and estimates the user's location 304 based on the tracking cameras from which the crops were taken. User tracking component 232 optionally refines the user's location 304 using “tracklets” that model paths traversed by the customers over short periods of time (e.g., a certain number of camera frames).”, Francis at col. 8, ln. 15-25, “Interaction tracking component 234 may match the user's crops, key points, and/or tracklets in images 108 of the interaction from a shelf camera to additional images 106 of the user and/or interaction from one or more tracking cameras with views that overlap with those of the shelf camera. Because the tracking cameras have a better perspective of the user's appearance than the shelf camera, interaction tracking component 234 may then identify the user using descriptor 302 generated from crops of the user in the tracking camera views.”);
responsive to the detecting the person at the POS station, detect, by the barcode reader, whether the item is scanned during a checkout transaction, the scanning of the item decoding an indicia of the item and adding the item to a transaction log (see e.g. [0054] adding item to transaction log [0088-91]; [0031], [0035] [0038] etc. scanner device, see [0079] scanning and decoding barcode indicia); and
responsive to detecting scanning of the item prior to a payment step of the checkout transaction, dissociating the person with the item (Kundu does not appear to disclose this limitation. See Francis at e.g. col. 3, ln. 55-65, “Like tracking cameras 102.sub.1-M, shelf cameras 104.sub.1-N may include stereo depth cameras that collect both visual and depth information from the shelves and corresponding items. Images 108.sub.1-N and depth data from shelf cameras 104.sub.1-N are received by cluster 112 via load balancer 110 and analyzed to detect actions like removal of an item from a shelf and/or placement of an item onto a shelf. In turn, the actions are associated with customers based on the customers' tracked locations and/or identities and used to update virtual shopping carts for the customers, as described in further detail below.” (emphasis added to show the collection of images, and the placement of item from user cart back to shelf); Francis at col. 8 ln. 45-60, “Interaction tracking component 234 then updates the user's virtual shopping cart 312 to reflect the user's interaction with the identified item. More specifically, interaction tracking component 234 adds the item to virtual shopping cart 312 when the interaction is identified as removal of the item from a shelf. Conversely, interaction tracking component 234 removes the item from the user's virtual shopping cart when the interaction is identified as placement of the item onto a shelf. Thus, as the user browses or shops in the autonomous store, user tracking component 232 may update the user's location 304 (e.g., as crops, key points, and/or tracklets in camera views in which the user appears), and interaction tracking component 234 may update virtual shopping cart 312 based on the user's interactions 308 with items 310 in the autonomous store.” Where this is prior to the payment as shown in Francis at e.g. col. 4 ln. 20-27);
responsive to the item not being scanned prior to a payment step of the checkout transaction, determine an instance of a potential shrink event (see e.g. [0022-23, 27 addressing theft, “then it is known that there are one or more items placed into the item carrier apparatus that have not been properly accounted for or scanned by the customer.”; see e.g. Fig. 10, 1035
PNG
media_image2.png
97
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the autonomous store tracking art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kundu’s retail environment tracking system with Francis’ checkout flows for autonomous retail stores including such matching/comparing of images of the user, and the dissociating the item(s) from the user virtual cart in response to the system sensing/capturing item identification data of an item that was previously in the cart, and then placed from the user’s cart to the shelf, being sensed in the process, and then removed from the user’s cart, where the benefit is that the item is automatically disassociated with the user when the system senses that the item has been returned to the shelf, thereby interpreting that as an indication that the user no longer wishes to purchase the item. This is convenient to the user as it automatically removes from the cart an item that was inadvertently added. This is convenient to the retail store management, as they do not need to utilize an employee for this task of disassociating an item from the user’s virtual cart and list of items to purchase, as shown in Francis, throughout.
With regard to claim 12, Kundu further discloses responsive to the item not being scanned prior to the payment step of the checkout transaction, preventing the payment step of the checkout transaction from being completed (see e.g. Fig. 9, 930).
With regard to claim 13, Kundu further discloses responsive to the item not being scanned prior to the payment step of the checkout transaction, presenting a message associated with the item on a user-interface of the POS (see e.g. [0024] attendant override messages; [0122] generate an alert message).
With regard to claim 14, Kundu further discloses where the second imaging assembly is comprised of a polychromatic image sensor associated with a barcode reader of the POS station (see e.g. [0019] [0169]).
With regard to claim 15, Kundu further discloses where the polychromatic image sensor is positioned within the barcode reader and has a field of view that extends at least partially over (i) a product scanning region of the POS station and (ii) a POS-user region of the POS station (see e.g. [0006-7]).
With regard to claim 17, Kundu further discloses where the associating the person with the item acquired within the predefined zone of the venue further includes:
detecting an entry of the person into the predefined zone (see e,g, Fig. 1, video source 195-1 when user is within field of view, it is detected by video source; Fig. 9 910);
identifying, via the first image-data, entry-items associated with the person, the entry- items being items brought into the predefined zone by the person (e.g. Fig. 9, 915);
detecting an exit of the person from the predefined zone (Fig. 9, 920, 930);
identifying, via the first image-data, exit-items associated with the person, the exit-items being items brought out of the predefined zone by the person (e.g. Fig. 9, 925, 930); and
identifying the item acquired within the predefined zone of the venue based on a comparison between the entry-items and the exit-items (see e.g. Fig. 9, 930).
With regard to claim 18, Kundu further discloses:
responsive to detecting the person disposing of the item prior to the payment step of the checkout transaction, disassociating the person with the item (see e.g. [0026] where the customer can put items into cart and/or remove items from the cart, where this has the impact of adding or removing the item from the video log).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu, Francis, in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0012396 to Puerini et al. (“Puerini”).
With regard to claim 16, Kundu is silent regarding where at least one attribute of the person includes facial data, and wherein the associating the person with the item acquired within the predefined zone of the venue further includes associating the facial data with the at least one attribute of the item. Puerini teaches at e.g. [0038] [0052] [0090] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art to include the ability to use facial recognition to identify the user in the store that is interacting with the items so that associations can be made between the user and the user experience, as shown in Puerini. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kundu with the ability to not only identify the cart of the user, but to identify the user via facial recognition, as shown in Puerini, where this is performed in order to create necessary associations between the user and the user experience.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has reviewed the arguments presented by Applicant in the Remarks 03/17/2026. The examiner does not find the arguments persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite eligible subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. At a high level, the claims recite abstract idea performed by broadly recited general purpose computers. Further, many of the actions taken by the additional elements are found to be WURC according to Federal Circuit findings.
For the prior art rejections, the examiner has brought in a secondary reference to Francis to teach the added limitations. The arguments are therefore moot as this reference was not referred to by the examiner prior to this NFOA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627