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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11922783.
Instant Application Claim 2
Patent claim 7
2. (NEW) A method, comprising:obtaining first images from a first integrated camera of a terminal, wherein the first integrated camera is integrated into a first top corner of a touch screen surface and focused on an item staging area of the terminal during a transaction;
a touch-screen surface configured to receive touch inputs during a transaction, a first camera integrated into a first top corner of the touch-screen surface,
first images of a bagging area captured by the first camera during the transaction,
obtaining second images from a second integrated camera of the terminal, wherein the second integrated camera is integrated into a second top corner of the touch screen surface and focused on a bagging area of the terminal during the transaction;
a touch-screen surface configured to receive touch inputs during a transaction,
a second camera integrated into a second top corner of the touch-screen surface,
second images of a staging area captured by the second camera during the second transaction
and evaluating the first images and the second images in connection with the terminal processing the transaction and comparing transaction details produced by the terminal in view of the evaluating to determine whether an audit is needed for the transaction.
track a last known location for each item using the first images and the second images, and to audit the transaction for discrepancies based on the item information and the last known location of each item.
Regarding claim 2, as can be seen in the chart above, patented claim 7 discloses all the subject matter of pending claim 2.
Claim 4 is rejected based on the patented claim 7 which discloses identifying items for the transaction depicted in the first images and the second images (“process item information items for the transaction”).
Claim 5 is rejected based on the patented claim 7 which discloses maintaining last known locations based on the first and second images (“track a last known location for each item using the first images and the scond images”).
Claim 12 is rejected based on the patented claim 7 which discloses indexing the first and second images based on the security event during the evaluating (“store first images…during the transaction…second images…and the touch inputs”).
Instant application Claim 14
Patent claim 7
14.. (NEW) A method, comprising:obtaining first images and second images from two cameras integrated into corners of a touch-screen display, wherein the first camera configured to capture the first images of a staging area of a terminal and the second camera configured to capture the second images of a bagging area of the terminal;
7. A terminal, comprising: a touch display peripheral device that comprises a touch-screen surface configured to receive touch inputs during a transaction, a first camera integrated into a first top corner of the touch-screen surface, a second camera integrated into a second top corner of the touch-screen surface
identifying transaction details produced by the terminal as items are processed at the terminal for a transaction;
a processor configured to process item information for items for the transaction using the touch inputs and other inputs of other peripheral devices of the terminal,
maintaining last known locations for each of the items based on evaluation of the first images and the second images;
track a last known location for each item using the first images and the second images,
and interrupting the transaction for an audit when the last known locations for each of the items indicate one or more discrepancies with the transaction details.
and to audit the transaction for discrepancies based on the item information and the last known location of each item.
Regarding claim 14, as can be seen in the chart above, patented claim 7 discloses all the subject matter of pending claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, patented claim 9 (incorporating patented claim 7 per above) discloses claim 18.
Claims 19 and 20 mirror claim 14 and 18 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 6-11, 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11922783 in view of Goncalves (US 7909248 B1).
Regarding claim 3, patented claim 7 discloses the first and second corners are on a display associated with a touch screen surface. Patented claim 7 doesn’t explicitly mention that the corners are opposite. However in analogous art, Goncalves discloses rectangular displays with two opposite top corners (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by using a rectangular touch screen. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 6, patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses maintaining a list of processed item identifiers for each processed item that is processed by the terminal (fig. 7 702). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 7, patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses wherein evaluating further includes interrupting and suspending the transaction based on differences between the evaluating and the list of processed item identifiers (column 6 30-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 8, patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses wherein interrupting and suspending further includes raising an alert to a security system or a device operated by designated personnel based on differences (column 6 30-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claims 9-11, patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
9. (NEW) The method of claim 2, wherein evaluating further includes providing the first images, the second images, and the transaction details a
10. (NEW) The method of claim 9, wherein providing further includes comparing the security score to a threshold and raising the alert when the security score exceeds the threshold (column 6 30-40).
11. (NEW) The method of claim 9, wherein providing further includes identifying a security action based on the security score and processing the security action (column 6 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
The patented claim as modified fails to disclose determining the alert level using machine learning. However the examiner takes official notice that it is common knowledge to determine patterns between inputs and outputs using machine learning. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that machine learning could be used to set the alert level in order to provide enhanced security on an as needed basis.
Regarding claim 15, the patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
wherein identifying further includes assigning item identifiers for certain first items depicted in the first images based on scanned item codes provided in the transaction details (fig. 4 402). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 16, the patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
wherein identifying further includes determining whether the certain first items match other items depicted in the second images (fig. 4 408). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 17, the patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
wherein interrupting further includes causing the audit when certain other items besides the certain items are detected during the transaction. (fig. 4 408 No branch). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11922783 in view of Kundu (US 20060243798 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the patented claim 7 fails to disclose and Kundu discloses:
wherein indexing further includes providing access to video comprising the first images and the second images via an interface (fig. 1 328 sent to reviewer 330). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Kundu by flagging suspicious transactions for review. The motivation for the combination is to detect suspicious activity (paragraph 14).
Claims 2-12, 14-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11462083 in view of Evans (US 20170123454 A1) and Goncalves (US 7909248 B1).
Instant Application Claim 2
Patent claim 1
2. (NEW) A method, comprising:obtaining first images from a first integrated camera of a terminal, wherein the first integrated camera is integrated into a first top corner of a touch screen surface and focused on an item staging area of the terminal during a transaction;
receiving images from a camera that is integrated into a display
obtaining second images from a second integrated camera of the terminal, wherein the second integrated camera is integrated into a second top corner of the touch screen surface and focused on a bagging area of the terminal during the transaction;
a second camera that is integrated into an opposing side of the display from a side associated with the camera;
and evaluating the first images and the second images in connection with the terminal processing the transaction and comparing transaction details produced by the terminal in view of the evaluating to determine whether an audit is needed for the transaction.
comparing the items identified from the images and the second images along with the last known location against the list interrupting and suspending the transaction based on differences detected in the comparing; and raising an alert to a security system or a device operated by designated personnel based on the differences; and auditing the transaction based on the images and the transaction details.
Regarding claim 2, patented claim 1 fails to disclose and Evans cameras integrated into corners of touch screen (paragraph 44-45). It would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Evans by placing items in the corners of a touch screen display. The motivation for the combination is simple substitution of one element for another to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Patented claim 1 differs from the claimed invention in how the cameras are mounted. Evans discloses cameras in corners of a touch display. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of this disclosure could have placed cameras in the display corners.
Patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose the cameras capturing bagging and staging areas. However in an analogous art, Goncalves discloses capturing images of items on a path from staging to bagging area (column 5 25-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by using the first and second cameras to capture images of the items moving from the staging area to the bagging area and using the image data in association with UPC scan data to audit transactions. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as above. Combination made with Evans suggests cameras can be in any corner.
Regarding claim 4, the patented claim 1 further discloses wherein obtaining the first and second images further includes identifying items for the transaction depicted in the first images and the second images (“items identified from the images and the second images”).
Regarding claim 5, the patented claim 1 further discloses: wherein identifying further includes maintaining last known locations for the items based on the first images and the second images (“assigning a last known location for each of the items based on which of the camera and the second camera captured”).
Regarding claim 6, the patented claim 1 further discloses wherein obtaining the first images and the second images further include maintaining a list of processed item identifiers for each processed item that is processed by the terminal (“:maintaining a list of processed item identifiers for each processed item that is processed by the terminal;”)
Regarding claim 7, the patented claim 1 further discloses wherein evaluating further includes interrupting and suspending the transaction based on differences detected between the evaluating and the list of processed item identifiers (“interrupting and suspending the transaction based on differences detected in the comparing”).
Regarding claim 8, the patented claim 1 further discloses wherein interrupting and suspending further includes raising an alert to a security system or a device operated by designated personnel based on the differences (“raising an alert to a security system or a device operated by designated personnel based on the differences”)
Claims 9-12 are rejected based on claims 2-5 respectively.
Instant Application Claim 14
Patent claim 1
14.. (NEW) A method, comprising:obtaining first images and second images from two cameras integrated into corners of a touch-screen display, wherein the first camera configured to capture the first images of a staging area of a terminal and the second camera configured to capture the second images of a bagging area of the terminal;
receiving images from a camera that is integrated into a display, wherein receiving further includes:receiving further includes receiving second images from a second camera that is integrated into an opposing side of the display from a side associated with the camera;
identifying transaction details produced by the terminal as items are processed at the terminal for a transaction;
independently processing a transaction on a terminal and producing transaction details,wherein independently processing further includes:maintaining a list of processed item identifiers for each processed item that is processed by the terminal;
maintaining last known locations for each of the items based on evaluation of the first images and the second images;
assigning a last known location for each of the items based on which of the camera and the second camera captured and provided a last known image having that item
and interrupting the transaction for an audit when the last known locations for each of the items indicate one or more discrepancies with the transaction details.
interrupting and suspending the transaction based on differences detected in the comparing, andraising an alert to a security system or a device operated by designated personnel based on the differences; and auditing the transaction based on the images and the transaction details.
Regarding claim 14, patented claim 1 corresponds to claim 14 as shown above, but fails to disclose and Evans discloses cameras integrated into corners of touch screen (paragraph 44-45). It would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Evans by placing items in the corners of a touch screen display. The motivation for the combination is simple substitution of one element for another to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Patented claim 1 differs from the claimed invention in how the cameras are mounted. Evans discloses cameras in corners of a touch display. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of this disclosure could have placed cameras in the display corners.
Patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose the cameras capturing bagging and staging areas. However in an analogous art, Goncalves discloses capturing images of items on a path from staging to bagging area (column 5 25-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by using the first and second cameras to capture images of the items moving from the staging area to the bagging area and using the image data in association with UPC scan data to audit transactions. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 15, the patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
wherein identifying further includes assigning item identifiers for certain first items depicted in the first images based on scanned item codes provided in the transaction details (fig. 4 402). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 16, the patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
wherein identifying further includes determining whether the certain first items match other items depicted in the second images (fig. 4 408). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 17, the patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose and Goncalves discloses:
wherein interrupting further includes causing the audit when certain other items besides the certain items are detected during the transaction. (fig. 4 408 No branch). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim by tracking UPC and comparing with items recognized in images. The motivation for the combination is to discourage illegal activity (column 1 35-42).
Regarding claim 18, patented claim 1 further discloses the terminal is a POS terminal (“independently processing a transaction on a terminal”).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 14 and 18.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11462083 in view of Evans (US 20170123454 A1) and Goncalves (US 7909248 B1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kundu (US 20060243798 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose and Kundu discloses:
wherein indexing further includes providing access to video comprising the first images and the second images via an interface (fig. 1 328 sent to reviewer 330). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Kundu by flagging suspicious transactions for review. The motivation for the combination is to detect suspicious activity (paragraph 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herwig (US 20090039164 A1) discloses image recognition in checkout verification. Edwards (US 20120158529 A1) discloses item verification in self checkout systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ryan 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627