DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 2/23/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is dependent upon itself. It is interpreted as being dependent upon claim 10. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: receiving images of barcodes and interrupting a sale/transaction if the barcodes, or features of the barcodes, match. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including risk management and sales activities. The claims further are covering mental processes, including an observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion (concepts performed in the human mind).
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a computing device, circuitry, memory, executable instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims recite limitations concerning more details of the abstract idea claimed in the independents. These claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barkan (Pub No US 2021/0192157).
Claims 1, 10 and 19. A method performed by a computing device, (para. 13 showing processor and memory) comprising:
receiving, during a sales transaction, a first image of an item comprising a first barcode and a second image comprising a second barcode; and (paras. 40 and 41 showing image with barcode taken twice)
interrupting the sales transaction responsive to:
the first barcode and the second barcode being the same; and (paras. 40 and 41 showing not sending barcode data to POS (see para. 15) if barcodes are the same)
a first feature in the first image associated with the first barcode matching a second feature in the second image associated with the second barcode. (para. 39 showing feature matching in images being implemented as well, for purposes of determining whether to accept the barcode scan)
Claims 8 and 17. Barkan teaches method of claim 1, wherein interrupting the sales transaction is further responsive to more than a threshold number of features in the first image also appearing in the second image. (para. 39 showing threshold number of matching features are detected between frames, and stopping scan transmission to POS)
Claim 10 additionally. A computing device, comprising: processing circuitry and memory comprising instructions executable by the processing circuitry. (para. 13 showing processor and memory)
Claim 19 additionally. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, the computer program product comprising software instructions. (para. 13 showing processor and memory; paragraphs 62 and 63 showing software)
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 2-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Isakov (US 2023/0252532).
Claims 2 and 11. Barkan teaches the method of claim 1. It does not, but Isakov teaches wherein the first feature and the second feature are a stray printing and/or an area of missing ink on the item. (para. 129 printing errors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of specific feature detection in Isakov because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more features to be detected. (para. 139 showing many features being identified.)
Claims 3 and 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the first feature and the second feature are a smudge and/or dust on the item. (para. 39 ink smears are detected)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of specific feature detection in Isakov because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more features to be detected. (para. 139 showing many features being identified.)
Claims 4 and 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the first feature and the second feature are a scratch and/or a dent on the item. (para. 6, scratches)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of item verification by feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of specific feature detection in Isakov because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more features to be detected. (para. 139 showing many features being identified.)
Claims 5 and 14. Barkan teaches method of claim 1, as well as comparing two images and features in said images (see claim 1.). It does not, but Isakov teaches detecting distance from an edge or seam on the item. (para. 31 showing comparison of edges to the correct placement, location)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of item verification by feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of specific feature detection in Isakov because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more features to be detected. (para. 139 showing many features being identified.)
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Gosebruch (US 2006/0011504).
Claims 6 and 15. Barkan teaches the method of claim 1, as well as comparing two images and features in said images (see claim 1.). It does not, but Gosebruch teaches detecting and identifying packages based on their overlapping packaging seams. (para. 43 showing defining a package based on its specific overlapping seam’s properties)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of item verification by feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of specific feature detection in Gosebruch because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for a specific manner for item detection. (para. 43 showing unambiguous package definition.)
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Carey (US 2025/0067660).
Claims 7 and 16. Barkan teaches the method of claim 1, as well as comparing two images and features in said images (see claim 1.). It does not, but Carey teaches identifying transparent packaging with vision systems. (para. 6 showing vision system identifying transparent packaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of item verification by feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of specific feature detection in Carey because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for a specific manner for item detection. (see para. 6)
Claims 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Xiao (US 2023/0245535).
Claims 9, 18 and 20. Barkan teaches the method of claim 1. Barkan teaches interrupting the sales transaction is further responsive to the similarity score exceeding a threshold. (para. 39 showing interrupting the transaction when a threshold number or proportion of matching features are detected)
It does not, but Xiao teaches further comprising:
determining, for each of a plurality of features appearing in both the first item and the second item, a feature type; and (para. 21 showing text, color and shape definitions of features for item verification)
calculating a similarity score based on a weight corresponding to the feature type of each feature. (para. 21 showing weighted score based on said types of features)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of item verification by feature detection in Barkan, with the known technique of weighted scoreing in Xiao because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more accurate item verification (para. 21 showing confidence scoring and selected accuracy.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON N TUTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights