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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/6/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/6/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 1-2 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the present claims address a technical problem rooted in the limitations of conventional systems for identifying visually similar items by integrating machine vision, user input, and location tracking to dynamically and accurately identify items and generate appropriate response signals. The Applicant argues that the claims go beyond merely comparing product identities and user locations, and the claims involve dynamic determination of whether a user visited a location associated with a selected item category and the generation of response signals based on the determination. Arguments are made that the additional elements of the claims, such as the processors, memory, machine vision components, and user interfaces have a specific interplay integrated with the claimed invention to solve the problem of distinguishing visually similar items. The machine vision component is not a generic camera, but is configured to capture and analyze vision data to identify items or categories of items. On pages 2-3 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the additional elements provide significantly more than the abstract idea as the specific combination of elements work together in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. The response signals are argued to not be abstract outputs, but to be tied to the operation of a specific technical system that interacts with the user and the environment, such that errors are detected and corrected in real time. The interface is also argued to more than generic displaying of information, such as by receiving input indicating an item category.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identification of items that are visually similar and generate appropriate response signals (providing item-identifying data or alert of a mismatch) are not inherently technical activities, and are abstract concepts of checkout procedures and fraud security. The use of the machine vision, user input, and location tracking also do not provide a technical solution as these elements are merely applied to the claims to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but merely serve to provide information for the abstract idea. The technology of any of these elements are not disclosed with any specificity or particularity, and the claims do not provide any technical improvement to any of these elements. The machine vision is merely any indicia reader, such as to scan barcodes or capture any image data. The specification does not provide any detail to any particularity of the machine vision devices, merely disclosing that it is a component of an indicia reader (specification: [0017]) or including one or more image sensors (specification: [0045]). Specification paragraph [0047] describes the imaging sensor can be any CCD or CMOS imager. As such, it is evident that the machine vision is any generic imaging device, and is not a particular device. The location tracking also is not any particular device, but an assembly of cameras to capture image data of where the user visited within the store, the cameras being disclosed very generally, the specification only disclosing that they capture image data as any camera does (specification: [0063]). The analyzing of the data does not impart any particularity to the machine vision. It merely represents analyzing information, which is not a technical endeavor. Any particular technical methods of tracking a location of a user are not disclosed, changed, or improved in the specification and claims. As such, the recited additional elements are generic components that are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide information to perform the abstract idea, and only serve to provide a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the generic nature of the devices and their utility of merely gathering data show that the only specific interplay is within the abstract idea itself, and the distinguishing of visually similar items is an abstract process merely using the information gathered from generic devices, and the distinguishing is not performed through an improved ability of a computer or particular sensor. The non-conventional and non-generic combination of elements is only within the abstract idea itself. As discussed above, the response signals also do not represent any technical matter, the signals merely being to pass the item identification information or to alert an employee of an incorrect identification, which are part of the abstract idea. The input of information to a user interface does not provide significantly more than a generic interface, the input can be provided through any generic device including input fields, keyboard, dropdown menus, etc. The additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea as they merely gather data for the implementation of the abstract idea, and seek to automate the manual monitoring of users within the retail environment.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/6/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Notably, on pages 3-4 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that neither of the references, alone or in combination, disclose the features of the claims. Applicant argues that Slaughter does not disclose tracking user movements of verifying item selections based on locations within a space, and is directed to providing feedback when there is a mismatch between user input and machine vision identification. It is argued that Steiner does not disclose integrating the tracking of movement with machine vision or user input for item identification, and does not teach a first or second response signal based on the determination of whether the user visited a location associated with a selected category. On page 5, arguments are made that the references address distinct problems and would not be obvious to combine them to achieve the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Slaughter and Steiner were combined to combine the aspects of machine vision with the movement tracking in verifying that the shopper is acquiring the items as identified by the user. While Steiner does not teach the item category, Steiner does teach where the items that are verified by location are from a list of pre-ordered items (Steiner: [0032-0033]), which are items the user would have had to input to the system, and Slaughter does disclose the input of item identification and category (Slaughter: [0054]). While Slaughter is directed to verifying item identification at a POS system, and Steiner is directed to verifying item retrieval to a pre-order, both references are directed to verifying the items identified by the customer are the items as retrieved by the customer to provide notification when there is not a match. Steiner teaches the verifying of the shopper location with the item location as identified by category in Slaughter. In combination, the references teach a system of determining a list of products as identified by the user that can be verified in a variety of ways, including the locations of the shopper. Motivation to combine these references would be to verify the customer retrieved the correct items and should or should not be audited, which is by the locations the customer has visited (Steiner: [0017]), as Slaughter also discloses the problem of items that do not have identifying marks, and cannot be identified solely by vision, and the shopper may be a nefarious actor attempting to identify a cheaper item (Slaughter: [0012-0013]).
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been maintained below.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 13-24 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-24 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking Claim 13 as representative, claim 12 sets forth the following limitations of reciting the abstract idea of comparing product identities to user locations associated with the identified product locations:
receive item-identification data, the item-identification data being based on at least one of vision data or a user-provided data capture by a user;
receive input from a user indicating an item category for the item resulting in a selected category;
determine, based at least in part on the item-identification data and the selected category, at least one of:
(i) the user visited a location with the space associated with the items in the selected category; or
(ii) the user did not visit the location within the space associated with the items in the selected category;
responsive to determine (i), generating a first response signal associated with the item;
responsive to determining (ii), generating a second response signal associated with the item including an alert signal associated with an item mismatch.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for comparing product identities to user locations associated with the identified product locations. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to providing a response to a user based on whether the user input item is associated with a location the user visited, which is an advertising and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 13 recites additional elements, such as:
one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions;
a machine vision component;
a user interface;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 13 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite processors and memory, these elements are recited at a very high level of generality. Specification paragraph [0077] discloses the processors and any logic circuit, including microprocessors, controllers, DSPs, ASICs, FPGAs, etc. Specification paragraph [0078] discloses storage mediums as any of a hard disk drive, a digital versatile disc, flash memory, RAM, etc. It is evident that these components are any generic component, and are merely leveraged to implement the abstract idea on a computing device, and merely provide a general link to a computing environment. The machine vision component is merely disclosed as a component of an indicia reader (specification paragraph [0017]). There is no further description to the machine vision component. As such, it is evident that the element is any generic component that captures image data, and also only provides a general link to a computing environment. The user interface is not disclosed with any sort of particularity, except to display various information throughout the specification. The additional elements are not particular devices, but merely provide the abstract idea a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 13 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 13, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 13 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 13 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 13 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 13 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 13 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 13.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 13, such as by further defining the algorithm of comparing product identities to user locations associated with the identified product locations, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-12 and 14-24 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 13. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., an indicia reader (claim 4)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-12 and 14-24 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-12 and 14-24 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 13. Thus, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Slaughter (US 20230095037 A1) in view of Steiner (US 20200311788 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Slaughter discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a processor, item-identification data, the item-identification data being based on at least one of vision data captured by a machine vision or a user-provided data captured by a user interface; (Slaughter: [0027] – “determines whether the computer vision system confirms the received identification of the item. For example, the POS system can capture an image of the item and transmit this image to the computer vision system. The ML model in the computer vision system can then process the image and classify or identify the item. For example, the ML model can predict that the item is a banana based on an image captured by the camera”).
receiving, at the processor and via the user interface, input from a user indicating an item category for the item resulting in a selected category; (Slaughter: [0026] – “receives the shopper's identification of the item. In one embodiment, the POS system may include a touchscreen or other input/output (I/O) device that the shopper can use to input the item identification”; Slaugher: [0054] – “pressing the button 810A can bring up a different GUI where the shopper can select a category of produce which then brings up other GUIs corresponding to those categories”).
Slaughter does not disclose a method comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the item-identification data and the selected category, at least one of:
(i) the user visited a location with the space associated with the items in the selected category; or
(ii) the user did not visit the location within the space associated with the items in the selected category;
responsive to determine (i), generating, by the processor, a first response signal associated with the item;
responsive to determining (ii), generating, by the processor, a second response signal associated with the item including an alert signal associated with an item mismatch.
Notably, however, Slaughter does discloses displaying a message on the screen if the input of the user and the vision data do not match (Slaughter: [0033]).
To that accord, Steiner does teach a method comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the item-identification data and the selected category, at least one of: (i) the user visited a location with the space associated with the items in the selected category; or (ii) the user did not visit the location within the space associated with the items in the selected category; (Steiner: [0033] – “determining the location of the customer in the store when the customer retrieved the product from the shelves (box 82). That location is then compared to one or more pre-defined locations for the items in the on-line order (box 84). If the customer's determined location does not match one of the predefined locations, computer server 20 verifies that the product retrieved by the customer is not one of the items in the on-line order (box 86) and decides to audit the customer (box 88). If, however, the customer's determined location does match one of the predefined locations, computer server 20 verifies that the product retrieved by the customer is one of the items in the on-line order (box 90) and decides not to audit the customer”).
responsive to determine (i), generating, by the processor, a first response signal associated with the item; (Steiner: [0032] – “if the determined location matches at least one of the known locations associated with the items ordered on-line to within the predefined distance threshold (box 72), the decision is made to not audit the customer. In this case, computer server 20 generates one or more control messages that cause the customer's mobile device 30 to display the map 40 routing the customer to the store exit”).
responsive to determining (ii), generating, by the processor, a second response signal associated with the item including an alert signal associated with an item mismatch. (Steiner: [0032] – “if the determined location does not match any of the known locations associated with the ordered items to within a predefined distance threshold (box 72), the decision is made to audit the customer. In this case, computer server 20 generates one or more control messages to control the customer's mobile device 30 to route the customer to audit station 48 and/or checkout lane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Slaughter disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the matching of locations of identified items with the visited locations of the customer as taught by Steiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to verify the picked items with the order (Steiner: [0017]).
Regarding Claim 4: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Slaughter further discloses wherein the machine vision component is a component of an indicia reader. (Slaughter: [0018] – “the scanners are barcode or QR code scanners, but can be any scanners that detect identifying marks on an item”).
Regarding Claim 5: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Slaughter further discloses wherein the method further includes, providing, via the user interface, an option allowing the user to change the item category from the selected category to the non-selected category. (Slaughter: claim 3 – “wherein a first button of the one or more buttons in the GUI enables the selected identification to be changed to match the identity of the item determined by the computer vision system”; Slaughter: [0054] – “pressing the button 810A can bring up a different GUI where the shopper can select a category of produce which then brings up other GUIs corresponding to those categories”).
Slaughter does not explicitly teach wherein the determining the at least one of further includes (iii) the user visited another location within the space associated with items in a non-selected category; Notably, however, Slaughter does disclose displaying a message on the screen if the input of the user and the vision data do not match (Slaughter: [0033]).
To that accord, Steiner does teach wherein the determining the at least one of further includes (iii) the user visited another location within the space associated with items in a non-selected category; (Steiner: [0033] – “If the customer's determined location does not match one of the predefined locations, computer server 20 verifies that the product retrieved by the customer is not one of the items in the on-line order”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Slaughter disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the user visiting a location with item of a non-selected category as taught by Steiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to verify the picked items with the order (Steiner: [0017]).
Regarding Claim 6: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Slaughter does not explicitly teach wherein the determining the at least one of (i) or (ii) is further based at least in part on the identifying characteristic associated with the user. Notably, however, maintaining a checkout list for the particular shopper (Slaughter: [0041]).
To that accord, Steiner does teach wherein the determining the at least one of (i) or (ii) is further based at least in part on the identifying characteristic associated with the user. (Steiner: [0029] – “The identification can, in some embodiments, be based on other information associated with the customer as well as on the results of the image analysis. By way of example only, many stores provide their customers with “loyalty cards.” Such cards allow customers to receive discounts on selected products, but can also encode information about the customer that is also stored in DB 18. In some embodiments, the so-called baseline images can also be associated with the loyalty card information stored in DB 18. Thus, computer server 20 can retrieve the loyalty information for a given customer as part of the image analysis process and use that information to determine the identity of the customer as well as to match the customer to the correct on-line order”; Steiner: [0031] – “Regardless of how the customer is identified, computer server 20 links the customer entering the store to the list of items ordered on-line. Computer server 20 then generates a map 40 of the store, determines a route R for the customer to follow through the store when retrieving the ordered items, and sends information representing the map 40 to mobile device 30 via transceiver 16, as well as one or more control messages that control mobile device 30 to output the map 40 to its display (box 67). Then cameras 14 and computer server 20 track the customer's movements as the user follows route R through the store to retrieve the items ordered on-line (box 68)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Slaughter disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the tracking based on identifying characteristics associated with the user as taught by Steiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to link the customer entering the store with products of an order (Steiner: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 7: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Slaughter does not explicitly teach capturing positional data associated with the identifying characteristic during at least some duration that the user is present within the space. Notably, however, Slaughter does disclose maintaining a checkout list for the particular shopper (Slaughter: [0041]).
To that accord, Steiner does teach capturing positional data associated with the identifying characteristic during at least some duration that the user is present within the space. (Steiner: [0030] – “determines an identity of the customer based in part on the images captured by cameras 14. In addition, however, identification of the customer can also be based on information about the customer and/or sent by the customer's mobile device 30 once the communications link has been established. Such information includes, but is in no way limited to, the IMSI of mobile device 30 and a unique “loyalty ID” assigned by the store to the customer upon registering his/her loyalty card with the store. In each case, this additional information can be stored in DB 18 and associated with the baseline images of the customer”; Steiner: [0031] – “cameras 14 and computer server 20 track the customer's movements as the user follows route R through the store to retrieve the items ordered on-line”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Slaughter disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the capturing positional data with the identifying characteristic at least some duration as taught by Steiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to link the customer entering the store with products of an order (Steiner: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 9: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Slaughter does not explicitly teach wherein the identifying characteristics associated with the user includes at least one of a visual feature associated with the user, an identifier associated with an item carrier operated by the user, or a mobile device profile associated with the user. Notably, however, Slaughter does disclose maintaining a checkout list for the particular shopper (Slaughter: [0041]).
To that accord, Steiner does teach wherein the identifying characteristics associated with the user includes at least one of a visual feature associated with the user, an identifier associated with an item carrier operated by the user, or a mobile device profile associated with the user. Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. (Steiner: [0030] – “computer server 20 still determines an identity of the customer based in part on the images captured by cameras 14. In addition, however, identification of the customer can also be based on information about the customer and/or sent by the customer's mobile device 30 once the communications link has been established”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Slaughter disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the identifying characteristics of the user with at least one of a visual feature or a mobile device profile as taught by Steiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to link the customer entering the store with products of an order (Steiner: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 10: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Slaughter further discloses wherein the first response signal includes transmission of item-identifying data to a host. (Slaughter: [0028] – “then the POS system determines there was a match. In that case, the method 200 proceeds to block 215 where the POS system adds the item to the checkout list of the shopper”).
Regarding Claim 11: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Slaughter further discloses wherein the alert signal includes a prevention of the transmission of the item-identifying data to the host until a release trigger is received at the processor. (Slaughter: [0042] – “the POS system may pause the checkout process and prevent the shopper from adding additional items to the checkout list or cart until the current transaction is reviewed by the store employee”).
Regarding Claim 12: Slaughter in view of Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Slaughter does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
(iv) the user removed an item from the location within the space associated with a selected category;
(v) the user reached for an item in the location within the space associated with the selected category; or
(vi) the user reached for an item in the location within the space associated with a selected category;
wherein generating the first response signal or the second response signal is responsive to the determination of (iv), (v), or (vi).
Notably, however, Notably, however, Slaughter does discloses displaying a message on the screen if the input of the user and the vision data do not match (Slaughter: [0033]).
To that accord, Steiner does teach a method comprising:
(iv) the user removed an item from the location within the space associated with a selected category; (v) the user did not remove an item from the location within the space associated with the selected category; or (vi) the user reached for an item in the location within the space associated with a selected category; Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. (Steiner: [0033] – “determining the location of the customer in the store when the customer retrieved the product from the shelves (box 82). That location is then compared to one or more pre-defined locations for the items in the on-line order (box 84). If the customer's determined location does not match one of the predefined locations, computer server 20 verifies that the product retrieved by the customer is not one of the items in the on-line order (box 86) and decides to audit the customer (box 88). If, however, the customer's determined location does match one of the predefined locations, computer server 20 verifies that the product retrieved by the customer is one of the items in the on-line order (box 90) and decides not to audit the customer”).
wherein generating the first response signal or the second response signal is responsive to the determination of (iv), (v), or (vi). Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. (Steiner: [0032] – “if the determined location does not match any of the known locations associated with the ordered items to within a predefined distance threshold (box 72), the decision is made to audit the customer. In this case, computer server 20 generates one or more control messages to control the customer's mobile device 30 to route the customer to audit station 48 and/or checkout lane 50 (box 74). However, if the determined location matches at least one of the known locations associated with the items ordered on-line to within the predefined distance threshold (box 72), the decision is made to not audit the customer. In this case, computer server 20 generates one or more control messages that cause the customer's mobile device 30 to display the map 40 routing the customer to the store exit 44, and bypassing both the audit station 48 and the checkout lane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Slaughter disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the user removing an item from a location associated with the item and generating a response signal as taught by Steiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to verify the picked items with the order (Steiner: [0017]).
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 21: Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 22: Claim 22 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 23: Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 24: Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 12. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12 above.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Slaughter (US 20230095037 A1) and Steiner (US 20200311788 A1), in view of Charpentier (US 20160283602 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Slaughter and Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving the input from the user indicating the item category for the item resulting in the selected category includes selecting the item category from a plurality of categories, each of the plurality of categories being associated with a same genus and a different species of the item. Notably, however, Slaughter does disclose identifying an item, and the item items that have similar characteristics, but are different, such as a type of apple, organic or non-organic, etc. (Slaughter: [0020-0021]).
To that accord, Charpentier does teach wherein the receiving the input from the user indicating the item category for the item resulting in the selected category includes selecting the item category from a plurality of categories, each of the plurality of categories being associated with a same genus and a different species of the item. (Charpentier: [0034] – “the checkout terminal can receive a selection of a selected item from the plurality of visually similar items. In some examples, the selection can be received as input at an input device coupled to the checkout terminal. In some examples, the plurality of visually similar items can include at least one item having a designation of certified-organic and at least one item lacking a designation of certified-organic. In some examples, the plurality of visually similar items can include different varieties of a single species of produce”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Slaughter and Steiner disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the selecting of a category of a same genus and different species as taught by Charpentier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the correct variation of the item is keyed in at the terminal and at the correct price point (Charpentier: [0001]).
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Slaughter (US 20230095037 A1) and Steiner (US 20200311788 A1), in view of Hamzic (US 20190147614 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Slaughter and Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving the input from the user indicating the item category for the item resulting in the selected category includes selecting the item category from a plurality of categories, each of the plurality of categories being associated with a same appearance and a different chemical composition of the item. Notably, however, Slaughter does disclose identifying an item, and the item items that have similar characteristics, but are different, such as a type of apple, organic or non-organic, etc. (Slaughter: [0020-0021]).
To that accord, Hamzic does teach wherein the receiving the input from the user indicating the item category for the item resulting in the selected category includes selecting the item category from a plurality of categories, each of the plurality of categories being associated with a same appearance and a different chemical composition of the item. (Hamzic: [0014] – “Near-infrared spectroscopy sensors could also be used type to detect chemical composition of objects in the sensor area. The model database may for example comprise data related to the near-infrared spectroscopy waves, or sub database related to near-infrared spectroscopy waves. This can be used, for example, in the detection of different beverages such as coffee or water”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Slaughter and Steiner disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the selecting a category of a same appearance and a different chemical composition as taught by Hamzic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to take increase accuracy of identification by taking into account features of the product in addition to the appearance (Hamzic: [0011]).
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Slaughter (US 20230095037 A1) and Steiner (US 20200311788 A1), in view of Nurminen (US 20210398197 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: The combination of Slaughter and Steiner discloses the limitations of claim 7 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises:
determining the identifying characteristic associated with the user prior to the user being within interactable proximity with the indicia reader;
subsequent to determining the identifying characteristic and before the user being within interactable proximity with the indicia reader, capturing the positional data associated with the identifying characteristic.
Notably, however, Steiner does disclose tracking the customer’s movement as soon as they enter the store (Steiner: [0030-0031]).
To that accord, Nurminen does teach wherein the method comprises:
determining the identifying characteristic associated with the user prior to the user being within interactable proximity with the indicia reader; (Nurminen: [0054] – “automatically identify the mobile terminal carried by the shopper as the shopper enters the store and to initiate the process described below in conjunction with FIG. 4 in response to identification of the mobile terminal. Alternatively, the positioning system 24 of another example embodiment may be tracking the location of the of shopper even before the shopper arrives at the store”; Nurminen: [0061] – “the shopper is proximate a terminal 18, such as a terminal of the store, that includes or is associated with scales configured to weigh the respective product, at which the respective product is to be identified. In this regard, the terminal may be a point of sale terminal”). In summary, the mobile terminal is identified before or as the shopper enters the store, such that the identification is made before the shopper is proximate to a point of sale terminal.
subsequent to determining the identifying characteristic and before the user being within interactable proximity with the indicia reader, capturing the positional data associated with the identifying characteristic. (Nurminen: [0054] – ““automatically identify the mobile terminal carried by the shopper as the shopper enters the store and to initiate the process described below in conjunction with FIG. 4 in response to identification of the mobile terminal. Alternatively, the positioning system 24 of another example embodiment may be tracking the location of the of shopper even before the shopper arrives at the store”; Nurminen: [0055] – “determining one or more locations of the shopper throughout the store, such as at different times along the route 16 of the shopper as depicted by way of example in FIG. 1. The locations of the shopper may be determined utilizing any one or more of the positioning techniques; Nurminen: [0061] – “the shopper is proximate a terminal 18, such as a terminal of the store, that includes or is associated with scales configured to weigh the respective product, at which the respective product is to be identified. In this regard, the terminal may be a point of sale terminal”). In summary, the mobile terminal is identified before or as the shopper enters the store and the shopper location is tracked throughout the store, such that the identification and tracking is performed before the shopper is proximate to a point of sale terminal.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Slaughter and Steiner disclosing a method of checkout at a store by verifying item identities with the identifying of the user prior to being within the indicia reader and capturing the positional data as taught by Nurminen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to properly identify and price the products even if they do not have an identifying code (Nurminen: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/18/2026