DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 01/15/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 06/30/2020.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0139617 to Goodwin, III (“Goodwin”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0116274 to Hind et al. (“Hind”).
PNG
media_image1.png
447
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Goodwin discloses the claimed POS system (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, self-service POS checkout terminal) having an object scanning area (see e.g. Fig. 2, [0026] bar code reader 46, reading area in front of scanner) and a bagging area (see e.g. Fig 2; [0035] Self-checkout counter 12 additionally includes counter 48, camera 56, and produce scale 58. Counter 48 includes working surfaces 50, which provide space for arranging or bagging purchased items. As such, working surfaces 50 include bag well 52.), the POS system comprising:
an optical scanner configured to detect barcodes associated with objects (see Fig. 2, bar code reader 46; [0026]);
a radio frequency identification (RFID) transceiver arrangement configured to interrogate RFID tags, wherein the RFID transceiver arrangement is configured to have a signal range that extends (i) over at least a portion of the object scanning area, and (ii) over at least a portion of the bagging area (see e.g. [0024] including antenna placement near/in the bag well; Figs. 1-2, Label interrogator 32 may be located in several locations, depending upon the configuration of self-service checkout counter 12 and any corresponding security precautions.);
a user interface apparatus (see e.g. Fig. 2, display 22; [0016]); and
a controller operatively connected to the optical scanner, the RFID transceiver arrangement, and the user interface apparatus (see e.g. Fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured to:
detect that the optical scanner has decoded a barcode associated with an object (see e.g. [0050]);
activate the RFID transceiver arrangement (see e.g. [0041]);
responsive to detecting a plurality of RFID tags in the at least the portion of the object scanning area, identify an object association of the plurality of RFID tags (see e.g. [0042] as the item passes through the area(s), the RFID tags detected; see also [0030] where after detected, then the system identifies “an object association of the plurality of RFID tags” (such that that identified object associated is the identified “table of item identification” in [0030]);
cause a comparison of each of the object association of each of the plurality of RFID tags to at least one of (i) the object and (ii) the barcode associated with the object, wherein for each of the plurality of RFID tags having a match between the object association and the at least one of (i) the object and (ii) the barcode associated with the object (see e.g. [0030] the system is capable of comparing the object associations (e.g. the table of items identifications) with the object (e.g. the unique signature of the object); [0031] if match, then stored the item identifications; for the barcode limitations, [0050] Transaction software 36 may also process barcoded produce or other items using bar code reader 46 and verify processing in the manner of step 84 for RFID labelled items.), controller is configured to write, via the RFID transceiver arrangement, a data string to the each of the plurality of RFID tags having the match (Goodwin does not disclose the write-to-tag instruction; the data string in Goodwin is written to memory 40 which may include ROM);
conduct a detection operation wherein the detection operation attempts to detect, via the RFID transceiver arrangement, at least one RFID tag located within the at least the portion of the bagging area (see e.g. [0024] including antenna placement near/in the bag well; Figs. 1-2, Label interrogator 32 may be located in several locations, depending upon the configuration of self-service checkout counter 12 and any corresponding security precautions.);
the POS display presents transaction/item information to the user during/after these steps (see e.g. [0019] [0040] In step 72, transaction software displays instructions to a customer using display 22 and waits for a response from the customer indicating that all labelled items have been placed on working surfaces 50, for example, all in bags 54. The customer enters the response using input device 20.);
responsive to detecting multiple RFID tags within the at least the portion of the bagging area, causing the user interface apparatus to perform a third operation (see e.g. [0019] first operation is, if single item, then display will display info associated with single item, see [0051] where the displayed total amount due, and such relates to a single item as that is all that is desired to be purchased; when multiple items, the display will perform third operation of displaying the info associated with each of the many items such as [0051] the total amount due for the tallied items).
As found above, Goodwin does not disclose the write-to-tag limitation(s), and when the extra data string written to tag is not found, then performing a second operation.
Hind teaches at e.g. [0029] [0031] [0036] [0060-61] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art to include the ability to write-to-tag instruction, as Hind expressly teaches:
[0029] This tag 100 may be written to or read from by subjecting it to a radio-frequency signal. The integrated circuit 110 reads the radio-frequency signal from the antenna 120 and interprets the signal as a command to read or write data to or from memory located on the integrated circuit.
[0031] RFID tags provide a ready form of identification or marking of an object. Identification information can be written to an RFID tag, where it becomes readable by any compatible reader. The kinds of information that may be stored in an RFID tag are essentially all of the same kinds of information that may be stored in a computer or other data processing system. Thus, an RFID tag identifying an item of merchandise, for instance, may include such information as the name of the product, price information, a serial number, a UPC (Universal Product Code), or any other data a merchant or manufacturer may choose to include.
[0036] In the second frame 325, the customer 300 brings the product 310 to a point-of-sale terminal 315. The attending cashier 320 scans the product 310 with a tag reader/writer 330. The tag reader/writer 330 reads a product identification code (such as a UPC) and an inventory tracking code from the tag attached to the product 310. The point-of-sale terminal 315 then adds the product 310 to the customer's 300 order and overwrites the tracking information with the tag reader/writer 330 so as to signify that the product 310 has been purchased. (emphasis added).
[0049]; [0053]; [0058];
[0060] FIG. 10 is a flowchart representation of the process the theft-detection portion of a preferred embodiment of the invention would follow in detecting theft or fraud. First the tracking number 406 (in FIG. 4A) is read from the RFID tag on a tagged item of merchandise (step 1000). This would normally occur using reader 350 placed before the exit 360 of a store (see FIG. 3). If the tracking number 406 has been given a short length (step 1010), this means that the item has had its tracking number overwritten (most likely because the item has been purchased). But if it has not, the item has not been purchased, and theft is detected (step 1020).
[0061] If the tracking number 406 has been given a short length (step 1010), then the tracking number 406 is compared with either store records or against the value stored in an RFID tag affixed to the customer's receipt, or both (step 1030). If they do not match, then the tagged item has had its tag tampered with, and store personnel are notified (step 1040).
As for the limitation relating to the second operation, see Hind at e.g. [0060] where when the data written to the tag is not found (most likely because it has not been purchased), then the second operation is theft detection.
In other words, Hinds teaches the write-to-tag limitation at e.g. [0031] Fig. 4A, and when the write-to-tag data (i.e. the modified/shortened tracking number of Hind) is not found, then a second operation occurs such as determining that theft is in progress, [0060] and Fig. 10. See also [0061] If they do not match, then the tagged item has had its tag tampered with, and store personnel are notified (step 1040).
When combined with Goodwin’s POS system with display 22 and terminal system, as shown above, Hind’s system that upon such second operation sounds an alarm at the user interface apparatus (see Hind at [0008]; [0037] “a theft alarm 370 is sounded”), this is an obvious modification to the kiosk of Goodwin to include the sounded alarm, or even display some sort of alarm/alert/different color to indicate theft in progress (Hind, Fig. 10, 1020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POS art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goodwin’s POS system to include the write-to-tag feature, and in response to finding the data has not been written to the tag, causing a second operation such as sounding an alarm (or the like) at the user interface apparatus, as shown in Hind. The obvious benefit to this combination is THEFT DETECTION and notification, that the system can be better protected to detect and monitor when a theft is occurring based on the write-to-tag functionality and data string, and provide such a UI alert to the user based on the presence or not of such added data string to the RFID tag itself. See Hind, [0008, 37]. When used with Goodwin, an obvious modification would be to not only have an oral alarm (as shown in Hind), but to also have something displayed on a screen (as otherwise taught by Goodwin, Fig. 2, element 22, DISPLAY SREEN at POS terminal). Again, the clear motivation being that this helps identify theft of items from the retail/POS terminal of Goodwin, Fig. 2 above.
With regard to claim 2, The rationale is the same as claim 1. See Goodwin/Hind combination. The same process is implemented on each item that has an RFID tag, and if the write-to-tag process is not implemented, likely a purchase did not occur, and then the item will be detected as a potential THEFT and an alarm will sound/be displayed, as shown in claim 1.
With regard to claim 3, Goodwin further teaches where the first sub-operation includes a notification (see e.g. [0051] the transaction is completed, various notifications such as receipt of the transaction) requesting at least one of (i) that an item be re-scanned and (ii) that a quantity be adjusted (the data that the notification is communicating is non-functional descriptive material, and not granted patentable weight).
With regard to claim 4, Goodwin/Hind further teaches where the second sub-operation includes a notification (see Hind above, teaching of alarm sound/to be displayed, when combined with Goodwin; see motivation above) requesting at least one of (i) that an item be removed from the bagging area and (ii) that an item be added to a transaction log (the data that the notification is communicating is non-functional descriptive material, and not granted patentable weight).
With regard to claim 5, see Hinds at [0037] In the third frame 335, when the customer 300 leaves the store with the customer's 310 tagged items of merchandise 340, RFID readers 350 placed in front of the exit 360 scan the tagged items 340 to ensure that they have been paid for. If the customer's items 340 were not paid for (in other words, if they retain their original tracking numbers), a theft alarm 370 is sounded. This same combination was made in claim 1. See claim 1 combination and motivation.
With regard to claim 6, see Goodwin at referred to in claim 1, where it appears that all are matches, and therefore this does not occur. The examiner notes that if this determination was made, the same obviousness rationale, Goodwin with Hind, would be used for the same reason of communicating more data that is known at various times to the tag so that determinations can be made based on that data, allowing better predictions and corresponding actions.
With regard to claim 7, see the combination of Goodwin and Hinds above. The mere act of write-to-tag process is to write data to the tag, and when that data is presented/read, that could be considered to be an “alert”.
With regard to claim 8, see Goodwin at referred to in claim 1, where it appears that all are matches, and therefore this does not occur. The examiner notes that if this determination was made, the same obviousness rationale, Goodwin with Hind, would be used for the same reason of communicating more data that is known at various times to the tag so that determinations can be made based on that data, allowing better predictions and corresponding actions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments provided.
As for the prior art arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the following at Remarks, 1/15/26, page 1,
PNG
media_image2.png
133
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner has addressed this above in the claim rejection. As found above, the claimed “each of the object associated of each of the plurality of RFID tags” is taught by Goodwin “a table of item identification” (where the items can have RFID attached thereto, as shown in Goodwin at e.g. [0006], indicating that the object association is associated with the RFID tagged items). This identified set of object associations is then compared with the object such as the “unique signature” that represents the object, is compared with the object associations of the items. See where this is a “at least one of” limitation.
The examiner has addressed the argument that the third operation is not taught by the references above. The examiner does not find this persuasive.
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