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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s initially filed application dated 8/02/2023, claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2015/209627 A1 to Tyco (“Tyco”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0075602 A1 to Wike (“Wike”)
In regards to claims 1, 10, and 14-15, Tyco discloses the following limitations:
A self-checkout system in a retail environment, the self-checkout system comprising: a security tag attached to a product; and (see at least Tyco ¶¶ 0002-0009 and 0029)
a kiosk comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to: verify, via communications with a server device, payment for the product using an electronic device; and unlock, (see at least Tyco ¶¶ 0037-0038 and 0067-0068)
Tyco does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
A pad for placement of security tags and products, unlock via the pad the security tag
The Examiner provides Wike to teach the following limitations:
A pad for placement of security tags and products, unlock via the pad the security tag (Wike teaches kiosk/self-checkout station that provides for a set aside shelf or pad for items to have tags deactivated. See at least Wike ¶¶ 0046-0047)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Tyco the teachings of Wike since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 2 and 11, Tyco discloses the following limitations:
wherein the pad is configured to energize the security tag to cause the security tag to harvest energy and unlock from the product. (see at least Tyco ¶ 0041)
In regards to claim 3 and 16, Tyco discloses the following limitations:
wherein to unlock the security tag from the product, the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, to the security tag, a command including an identifier of the security tag and/or the product, the command causing the security tag to unlock when energized by the pad. (see at least Tyco ¶¶ 0040-0044)
In regards to claim 4-5, 12, and 20, Tyco discloses verifying payment for the items and transmitting a command to the EAS to deactivate the security tags, see above citations, however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the kiosk further comprises: a first transmitter configured to detect the security tag placed on the pad; and a second transmitter configured to transmit and receive the communications verifying the payment for the product in response to the first transmitter detecting the security tag. wherein the first transmitter is further configured to transmit a command to the pad to unlock the security tag in response to receipt of the communications verifying the payment for the product.
The Examiner provides Wike to teach the following limitations:
wherein the kiosk further comprises: a first transmitter configured to detect the security tag placed on the pad; and a second transmitter configured to transmit and receive the communications verifying the payment for the product in response to the first transmitter detecting the security tag. wherein the first transmitter is further configured to transmit a command to the pad to unlock the security tag in response to receipt of the communications verifying the payment for the product. (Wike teaches detecting the security tag and deactivating the tag and the pad being in communication with the POS. see at least Wike ¶¶ 0017, 0036, and 0057)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Tyco the teachings of Wike since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 6-7, Tyco discloses the following limitations:
further comprising the electronic device configured to: scan the security tag attached to the product; receive payment for the product; and indicate receipt of payment for the product to the server device. wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive payment for the product via an electronic device. (see at least Tyco ¶ 0038)
In regards to claim 9, 13, and 17, Tyco discloses the following limitations:
wherein the security tag is a first security tag, the product is a first product, the communications are first communications, and the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that a second security tag attached to a second product and a third security tag attached a third product have been placed on the pad; verify, via second communications with the server device, payment for the second product and non-payment for the third product; transmit, to a second security tag attached to the second product in response to the second communications, a command including an identifier of the second security tag and/or the second product; and energize the second security tag and the third security tag, the energizing causing the second security tag to harvest energy and unlock from the second product and causing the third security tag to harvest energy and remain locked to the third product. (see at least Tyco ¶ 0029)
In regards to claims 18-19, Tyco discloses the following limitations:
wherein energizing the security tag in response to verification of the payment for the product associated with the security tag comprises energizing the security tag via the electronic device. wherein energizing the security tag in response to verification of the payment for the product associated with the security tag comprises energizing the security tag via a kiosk device. (see at least Tyco ¶ 0038)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2015/209627 A1 to Tyco (“Tyco”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0075602 A1 to Wike (“Wike”) in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 8, Tyco does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising a catch bin for receiving the security tag after the security tag has been unlocked from the product.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to keep a bin/basket/bucket/drawer etc at a POS to hold commonly collected items. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Tyco the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627