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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 08/20/2025.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 08/20/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101” in pages 1-3, that:
“Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea is respectfully traversed. The Office Action’s (OA’s) characterization of the claims as reciting a mental process or a method of organizing human activity misinterprets the scope of the claims and the nature of the invention. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea but instead to a specific technological solution that integrates imaging, object recognition, and media generation to solve technical problems in retail systems. The claims address challenges such as identifying objects in the absence of barcodes or indicia, generating tailored media outputs, and ensuring operational reliability through error detection and correction. These features demonstrate that the claims are rooted in technology and are not abstract … The claims also provide a technological improvement over existing systems. Traditional retail systems rely on barcodes or labels for object identification, which are limited by the need for physical indicia that may be damaged or missing. The present invention overcomes this limitation by enabling object recognition based on physical features such as shape, texture, or graphics. This capability enhances the versatility and robustness of retail systems. Furthermore, the media processing device generates tailored outputs, such as labels or user-specific instructions, which improve the functionality of retail systems and enhance the customer experience. These advancements are rooted in technology and cannot be characterized as abstract ideas or methods of organizing human activity. For example, Claim 9 recites the use of object recognition to identify objects based on physical characteristics and the generation of tailored media outputs based on the identified object. This functionality directly addresses the technical problem of missing or damaged barcodes in retail environments, providing a specific and practical solution. Even if certain aspects of the claims are considered abstract, the claims as a whole are patent-eligible because they integrate these aspects into a practical application. The imaging camera in Claim 1 is not a generic input device but is specifically configured to capture data within a defined field of view for object detection. The processor in Claim 9 is not a generic computing element but is programmed to perform specific tasks, such as object recognition based on physical features and interaction with external databases to retrieve additional data. The media processing device in Claim 5 is not a generic output device but is designed to generate tangible, tailored outputs that are specific to the identified object or user. These elements work together to form a cohesive system that achieves a result not possible with generic computer components alone. The Federal Circuit has consistently found claims patent-eligible where they provide a specific technological solution to a problem rooted in computer or technological fields. For example, in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court found claims directed to automating a specific process (lip synchronization) to be patent-eligible because they improved a technical process. Similarly, the present claims improve the technical process of object recognition and media generation in retail environments, making them patent-eligible.
In conclusion, the claims of the present application are not directed to an abstract idea or a method of organizing human activity. They recite a specific technological solution to challenges in retail systems, integrating imaging, processing, and media generation to improve object recognition, user interaction, and operational reliability. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should therefore be withdrawn, and the claims should be allowed”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the obtaining, failing, performing, communicating, receiving, processing steps, OR obtaining, detecting, determining, communicating, receiving, configuring, communicating, receiving, displaying steps whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “addresses the technical problem of missing or damaged barcodes in retail environments, providing a specific and practical solution” suggested by Applicant. Although Applicant asserts that “provide a specific technological solution to a problem rooted in computer or technological fields” the examiner first notes that performing actions to complete a transaction is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
Furthermore, the recited devices, interfaces, cameras, as this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for performing actions to complete a transaction, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” in pages 3-6, that:
“Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0153786 to Takeno et al. (“Takeno”) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0218350 to Crooks (“Crooks”) … Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0153786 to Takeno et al. (“Takeno”) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0110772 to Herring et al. (“Herring”) further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0251614 to Shinkle II, II et al. (“Shinkle”) … The OA alleges that Claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Takeno and Crooks. Claim 1 recites a system comprising an imaging camera, a processor configured to detect objects or users and identify objects based on physical characteristics such as texture, shape, or graphics, and a media processing device configured to generate media outputs specific to the identified object or user. Contrary to the OA’s assertions, Takeno does not disclose or suggest identifying objects based on physical characteristics in the absence of barcodes or indicia. Takeno is limited to barcode-based object identification and merely describes fallback processes, such as manual data entry or database lookup, when barcodes are missing. These fallback processes are fundamentally different from the claimed invention’s advanced imaging and recognition techniques, which enable the identification of objects based on intrinsic physical features. Takeno does not address the technical problem of identifying objects without barcodes or indicia, nor does it suggest any solution to this problem … Finally, the OA alleges that Claims 10-16 are unpatentable over the combination of Takeno, Shinkle, and Herring. These claims recite generating user-specific services based on routing data, integrated with object recognition and media generation. Herring discloses personalized services such as tailored displays or routing data, but it does not disclose or suggest integrating these services with object recognition and media generation as required by the claims. The claimed invention provides a unified system that uses routing data in conjunction with object identification and media generation to enhance user interaction. Herring’s standalone personalized services do not address the technical challenges solved by the claimed invention, and the OA does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining Herring with Takeno and Shinkle. The proposed combination is based on hindsight and does not reflect the teachings of the prior art. The OA’s reliance on Takeno, Crooks, Goncalves, Shinkle, and Herring is based on an incorrect characterization of the references and an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention as a whole, and the OA does not provide a proper teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in the manner proposed. The claimed invention achieves non-obvious advantages, such as enabling object recognition without barcodes, integrating user identification data with media generation, and providing a unified system for error detection, object recognition, and media generation. These features address specific technical problems in retail systems and provide tangible improvements that would not have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn, and the claims should be allowed”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Takeno teaches commodity recognition apparatus comprises an image interface configured to acquire the image of a commodity photographed by a camera and a processor configured to detect a commodity image from the images acquired via the image interface, see abstract. The CPU 111 analyzes the photographed images stored in the image buffer to detect a commodity image from the photographed images, see [0059], the CPU 111 analyzes the commodity image and attempts to read a barcode, see [0061], see the CPU 111 analyzes the commodity image and attempts to read a barcode, see [0062], If no barcode is read from a commodity image the CPU 111 executes a commodity recognition processing, see [0063], by the CPU 111 extracts the appearance feature amount of a commodity from the commodity image detected in the processing (which reads on the claimed subject matter of “in response to failing to obtain a presence of a decodable indicia (Takeno’s barcode satisfies the claimed subject matter as the current specification of this application teaches that on paragraph [0053] “object indicia data (e.g., a barcode, QR code, or other decodable indicia) is determined from the object identification data”) for the object; perform an object identification process (Takeno’s extracting the appearance feature amount of a commodity from the commodity image or a commodity recognition of Takeno) to determine object identification data” (Takeno’s teaching of reading commodity ID, that read from retrieved memory file, based on appearance feature extracted from the commodity image as the, see [0064]). Takeno’s system further include a receipt printer 24, see [0029].
Regrading claim 1 specifically:
In addition, Crooks teaches product characteristics that detected in images, and method 300 includes receiving 302 product identification input, a weight, and an image of an item present on a scale surface of a non-point of sale weigh station device and processing 304 at least one of the weight and the image in view of the product identification input according to at least one validation process to obtain a validation result. In such embodiments, when the validation result indicates validation success, the method 300 includes outputting 306 data to be printed on a scanable label to be affixed to the item, see [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include the media processing device (i.e., display and/or printer), as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regrading claim 10 specifically:
Herring teaching method and system to trigger one or more events during an interaction of a person with an item and within an environment having a plurality of items. Herring system and method where field of view information is determined for the person within the environment, the field of view information is analyzed to identify one or more first items that are included within the person's field of view, see [0106-0107], which reads on the subject matter of claim 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include person and /or item identification technology, as taught by Herring, where this would be performed in order to provide a person with an adaptive personal experience within the sensor-based environment using field of view and behavior information for the person. See Herring, [0002].
Furthermore, Shinkle teaches a menu display that is a display panel (LCD, plasma, etc.) or screen on which a menu is displayed or projected. The menu display lists items and options available for order. The content presented on the menu display may be controlled by one or more of the store server, a POS terminal, the SST, a computing device coupled to or integrated within the menu display, or other computing device. In some embodiments, the menu display may be manipulated to present menu options and items tailored to one or more customers that may be known to be present. Customer presence may be known by customer interaction at a POS terminal, the SST, input received from a mobile device, or other input received from or with regard to the customer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include displaying processed data such as item ID, photo, and other details tailored to one or more customers that may be known to be present, as taught by Shinkle, where this would be performed in order to simplify the customer experience. See Shinkle [0002]. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above arguments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such generic placeholder claim limitations, and coupled functional language, are:
Claim 1:
A generic placeholder of “media processing device” for the following function of “process media for the object”. Further, the generic placeholder “device” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the device invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “media processing device” corresponds to “a printer as the media processing device”, see the specification, page 13-lines 23-24. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 6:
A generic placeholder of “media processing device” for the following function of “process the media for the object, the media including the object indicia data and the user identification data”. Further, the generic placeholder “device” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the device invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “media processing device” corresponds to “a printer as the media processing device”, see the specification, page 13-lines 23-24. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 10-16 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
a) The independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea. This idea is described by the steps of
obtain image data captured and detect a presence of an object in the image data;
in response to failing to obtain a presence of a decodable indicia for the object;
perform an object identification process from the image data to determine object identification data;
communicate the object identification data with a request for object indicia data corresponding to the object identification data, and
in response to receiving the object indicia data, communicate a media processing instruction, process media for the object, the media including the object indicia data, in response to receiving the media processing instruction
b) The independent claim 10 recite the abstract idea. This idea is described by the steps of
obtain image data captured and corresponding to the FOV,
detect a presence of a user in the image data and determine user data identifying the user and/or detect a presence of an object in the image data and
determine object data identifying the object, determine, from the user data and/or from the object data, routing data, and
communicate the routing data; and
in response to receiving the routing data, determine an object specific data service and/or a user specific data service;
configure the object specific data service and/or the user specific data service based on the routing data; and
communicate the configured object specific data service and/or the configured user specific data service;
in response to receiving the configured object specific data service and/or the configured user specific data service, displaying the configured object specific data service and/or the configured user specific data service
The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to collect image data, recognize information, analyze the data, display results. The claims are merely directed to provide customized services and information. The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to 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), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
In addition, these claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to provide customized services and information. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity: Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQé2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: an imaging camera having a field of view (FOV); a media processing device; a housing having a display and positioning the imaging camera; and a processor, an object identification module,
Claim 10: a mountable user interface device comprising: an imaging camera having a field of view (FOV); a housing having a display, the housing positioning the imaging camera to extend the FOV in front of the display; processor(s), external computing system communicatively coupled to the mountable user interface device via the communication network,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 10 therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 10 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 2: processor,
Claim 3: processor, display, camera,
Claim 4: computing system or a point-of-sale computing system,
Claim 6: camera, media processing device,
Claim 7: media processing device,
Claims 8-9: processor,
Claim 11: external computing system,
Claim 12: processor,
Claim 13: processor,
Claims 15-16: processor, camera,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of receiving input information and presenting received information, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-16, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0153786 to Takeno et al. (“Takeno”) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0218350 to Crooks (“Crooks”).
Regarding claim 1. Takeno discloses a system comprising:
an imaging camera having a field of view (FOV) (Takeno, [0022]; “a commodity recognition apparatus comprises an image interface configured to acquire the image of a commodity photographed by a camera”);
a media processing device; a housing having a display and positioning the imaging camera (Takeno, [0032]; “A camera 14 is included in the housing 1A”); and a processor configured to; (Takeno, as seen in Fig. 1; [0022]; “a display configured to display candidate commodities recognized according to the commodity image acquired via the image interface; a memory configured to hold information of the candidate commodities recognized according to the commodity image; and a processor)
obtain image data captured from the imaging camera and detect a presence of an object in the image data; (Takeno, Fig. 6; “[0058]; “The CPU 111 acquires the images (frame images) photographed by the camera 14 through the image interface 114 (ACT ST6), [0050-0051]; “With the image detection function, a commodity image is detected from commodity images taken by the camera 14 … a barcode is read from the commodity image detected using the image detection function … the appearance feature amount of a commodity the image of which is detected using the image detection function is extracted from the commodity”)
in response to failing to obtain a presence of a decodable indicia for the object; (Takeno, Fig. 6; [0059-0063]; “The CPU 111 analyzes the photographed images stored in the image buffer to detect a commodity image from the photographed images (ACT ST7: image detection function) … CPU 111 confirms whether or not a barcode is read from a commodity image (ACT ST11) … If no barcode is read from a commodity image in ACT ST11 (NO in ACT ST11) or the barcode cannot be decoded in ACT ST13 (NO in ACT ST13)”)
perform an object identification process from the image data to determine object identification data; (Takeno, Fig. 6; “[0063-0064]; “If no barcode is read from a commodity image in ACT ST11 (NO in ACT ST11) or the barcode cannot be decoded in ACT ST13 (NO in ACT ST13), the CPU 111 executes a commodity recognition processing (ACT ST16) … the CPU 111 reads the data record (commodity ID, commodity name, reference images 0-N and feature amount data 0-N) of a commodity from the recognition dictionary file 500 (ACT ST33)”)
communicate the object identification data (Takeno, [0064]; “commodity ID”) to an object identification module with a request for object indicia data corresponding to the object identification data, (Takeno, [0079-0080]; “The CPU 111 outputs the commodity ID of the commodity to the POS terminal 2 (i.e. the claimed object identification module) through the connection interface 116 (ACT ST48: output function) … Every time receives a commodity ID from the commodity recognition apparatus 1, the CPU 211 of the POS terminal 2 retrieves (i.e., the claimed request) the commodity master file to acquire commodity information, such as the commodity name and the unit price (i.e., the claimed object indicia data), of the commodity recognized using the commodity ID”)
in response to receiving the object indicia data from the object identification module, communicate a media processing instruction to the media processing device communicatively coupled to the processor, (Takeno, [0080]; “the CPU 211 sends the data of the commodity name, the unit price, the quantity and the amount to the commodity recognition apparatus 1 through the connection interface 217 … The CPU 111 of the commodity recognition apparatus 1 displays the commodity name, the unit price, the quantity and the amount received from the POS terminal 2 in the detail area 701 of the registration screen 700 displayed on the panel display section 12a as well as on the display 13 for customer”)
Takeno substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Takeno fails to explicitly disclose the “the media processing device is configured to process media for the object, the media including the object indicia data, in response to receiving the media processing instruction from the processor”. However, Crooks teaches:
wherein the media processing device is configured to process media for the object, the media including the object indicia data, in response to receiving the media processing instruction from the processor. (Crooks, [0025]; “Information presented by the one or more displays 102 includes information relevant in a retail context and with regard to operation of the weigh station 100, such as … product information … a price per unit … a price for the item may be determined and a label printed to be affixed to the item for scanning at a checkout terminal”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include the media processing device is configured to process media for the object, the media including the object indicia data, in response to receiving the media processing instruction from the processor, as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract.
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Takeno substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Takeno fails to explicitly disclose the “display instructions for applying the media to the object”. However, Crooks teaches
display instructions for applying the media to the object. (Crooks, [0025]; “Information presented by the one or more displays 102 includes … such as instructive prompts to … to affix a printed label to the product”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include display instructions for applying the media to the object, as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract.
Regarding claim 5. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the object indicia data includes (see claim 1 rejection supra)
Takeno substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Takeno fails to explicitly disclose the “a decodable indicia corresponding to the object identification data and (i) a picture of a representative object corresponding to the object identification data, (ii) user readable information corresponding to the object identification data, (iii) user readable operating instructions corresponding to the object identification data, (iv) machine readable information corresponding to the object identification data, and/or (v) machine readable operating instructions corresponding to the object identification data”. However, Crooks teaches:
a decodable indicia corresponding to the object identification data and
(i) a picture of a representative object corresponding to the object identification data,
(ii) user readable information corresponding to the object identification data,
(iii) user readable operating instructions corresponding to the object identification data, (iv) machine readable information corresponding to the object identification data, and/or (v) machine readable operating instructions corresponding to the object identification data. (Crooks, [0034]; “The printed barcode affixed to the produce bag is then scanned and need not be weighed. A POS terminal 208 controller retrieves the price, weight, and fraud detection analysis results from the produce barcode or from the database 206”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include a decodable indicia corresponding to the object identification data and (i) a picture of a representative object corresponding to the object identification data, (ii) user readable information corresponding to the object identification data, (iii) user readable operating instructions corresponding to the object identification data, (iv) machine readable information corresponding to the object identification data, and/or (v) machine readable operating instructions corresponding to the object identification data, as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract.
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 1, wherein
Takeno substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Takeno fails to explicitly disclose the “the media processing device is a printer”. However, Crooks teaches:
the media processing device is a printer. (Crooks, [0021]; “the weigh station 100 may take quite a different form in some embodiments, such as by being a computing device (e.g., a Raspberry Pi board or other small computer) with a scale, an imaging device, and a label printer coupled thereto”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include the media processing device is a printer, as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract.
Regarding claim 8. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to
Takeno substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Takeno fails to explicitly disclose the “examine the image data for a presence of the decodable indicia on the object”. However, Crooks teaches:
examine the image data for a presence of the decodable indicia on the object. (Crooks, [0032]; “a price for the item may be determined and a label printed to be affixed to the item for scanning at a checkout terminal”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to include examine the image data for a presence of the decodable indicia on the object, as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract.
Regarding claim 9. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a user input of the decodable indicia on the object. (Takeno, [0054]; “a screen for the reuse of the candidate commodity is displayed on the touch panel 12 based on the read candidate commodity information. With the reuse function, a commodity is corrected or added based on the data input through the screen”)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Crooks further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0059589 to Goncalves et al. (“Goncalves”).
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Takeno substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Takeno fails to explicitly disclose the “display an indication on display for confirmation of placement of the media on the object”. However, Crooks teaches:
display an indication on display for confirmation of placement of the media on the object; (Crooks, [0025]; “Information presented by the one or more displays 102 includes … such as instructive prompts to … to affix a printed label to the product”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to display an indication on display for confirmation of placement of the media on the object, as taught by Crooks, where this would be performed in order to identify possible fraud. See Crooks, abstract.
The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “obtain subsequent image data captured from the imaging camera and detect, in the subsequent image data, a presence of the media on the object; and in response to failing to detect a presence of the media on the object, generating a failed object scan indication”. However, Goncalves teaches:
obtain subsequent image data captured from the imaging camera (Goncalves, [0075]; “cameras or imagers (1010), (1010′) to acquire images of the items to be transacted, e.g. purchased, are provided for each line. FIG. 4 shows cameras or imagers (1010), (1010′) as part of image acquisition modules (1100), (1100′), one for each lane”) and detect, in the subsequent image data, a presence of the media on the object; and (Goncalves, [0062]; “the exception analysis module (108) aggregates information from … visual recognitions (101, 110) on the other side to determine whether some sort of retail fraud (such as scan passing, sweethearting, or UPC substitution fraud) or accidental retail loss has occurred
in response to failing to detect a presence of the media on the object, generating a failed object scan indication. (Goncalves, [0062]; “When an exception (fraud/loss) is detected, such exception can either be alerted immediately or in real-time, via an alert module (114), or at a scheduled interval via a reporting module (115)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to obtain subsequent image data captured from the imaging camera and detect, in the subsequent image data, a presence of the media on the object; and in response to failing to detect a presence of the media on the object, generating a failed object scan indication, as taught by Goncalves, where this would be performed in order to prevent cashier fraud (e.g., collusion, sweethearting, scan passing), customer fraud (e.g., UPC substitution), and accidental loss during retail checkout. See Goncalves [0002].
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks further in view of Goncalves disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “communicate the failed object scan indication to a supervisor computing system or a point-of-sale computing system”. However, Goncalves teaches:
communicate the failed object scan indication to a supervisor computing system or a point-of-sale computing system. (Goncalves, [0107]; “The cashier can be alerted as soon as UPC fraud or scan passing is detected according to one or more of the following options: i) generate an auditory or visual alert executed on bi-optic (flat-bed scanner) and/or POS (cash register); or ii) suspend the transaction, e.g., lock up the bi-optic scanner and/or POS until exception is corrected by the cashier and/or a manager. The alert and/or lock-up can include the display of the image of the detected item on the POS display or other display device”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Takeno to communicate the failed object scan indication to a supervisor computing system or a point-of-sale computing system, as taught by Goncalves, where this would be performed in order to prevent cashier fraud (e.g., collusion, sweethearting, scan passing), customer fraud (e.g., UPC substitution), and accidental loss during retail checkout. See Goncalves [0002].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Crooks further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0251614 to Shinkle II, II et al. (“Shinkle”).
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
The combination of Takeno in view of Crooks substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “detect in the image data captured from the imaging camera a user identification data; and include with the media processing instruction to the media processing device the user identification data, wherein the media processing device is configured to process the media for the object, the media including the object indicia data and the user identification data”. However, Shinkle teaches:
detect in the image data captured from the imaging camera a user identification data; and (Shinkle, [0019-0020]; “detecting the customer enters the store such as through use of beacon devices. e.g., Bluetooth® or WI-FI® beacon device(s), and a mobile device app, presentment of a loyalty card to a reader device (e.g., barcode, magnetic stripe, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, etc.), manual entry of customer data at a kiosk or Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal, and the like … the customer, once identified, may be presented, by a kiosk, mobile device app, or by a POS terminal clerk”)
include with the media processing instruction to the media processing device the user identification data, (Shinkle, [0020]; “The printer, either via thermal printing, inkjet printing, laser printing, or some combination thereof, will print visually and variably printed identifiable tags on a label/package combination … data utilized and printed on a label or package may include price”, [0014]; “one or more of a customer name, customer image, custom image, and item image may be added to the label”)
wherein the media processing device is configured to process the media for the object, the media including the object indicia data and the user identification data. (Shinkle, [0035]; “a custom ordered product label that is printed on both sides of a substrate. In some embodiments, the substrate of FIG. 2A may be printed on both sides simultaneously, e.g., as a wide substrate with one or more glue elements on the back for affixing to an item”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before th