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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 09/05/20205.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20230143479; hereinafter "Hagen") in view of Davis, Bruce L. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160189277; hereinafter "Davis").
As per claim 1, Hagen teaches:
An information processing apparatus that
Hagen teaches a system and method for using sensors to detect items which have been added to a shopping cart. (Hagen: abstract, Figs. 1, 2)
receives, when a user puts a commodity to be purchased in a cart in which and from which a commodity can be put and taken out, a user operation for registration processing of the commodity to be purchased and performs the registration processing of the commodity to be purchased,
Hagen teaches that a user may register items as they place them in the cart by scanning each item before placing the item in the cart. (Hagen: paragraph [0039-40])
the information processing apparatus comprising: a communication interface that receives a detection result of a sensor included in the cart, the sensor detecting an increase or a decrease in number of commodities put in the cart;
Hagen teaches that a sensor in the cart may detect the item being placed in the cart and may compare the detection result from the sensor with the item which has been registered via the scan. (Hagen: paragraphs [0039-40])
a storage device that stores the detection result of the sensor and commodity registration managing information including commodity information based on the registration processing of the commodity to be purchased;
Hagen teaches that a sensor in the cart may detect the item being placed in the cart and may compare the detection result from the sensor with the item which has been registered via the scan. (Hagen: paragraphs [0039-40]) Hagen further teaches that the detection result may be stored in a product data store 120. (Hagen: paragraph [0073-74], Fig. 3)
a memory that stores a program;
Hagen teaches a controller 116 which may comprise a processor and a memory which stores instructions, which, when executed by the processor, perform the functions of the system. (Hagen: paragraph [0047], Fig. 3)
and a processor that executes the program to be configured to
Hagen teaches a controller 116 which may comprise a processor and a memory which stores instructions, which, when executed by the processor, perform the functions of the system. (Hagen: paragraph [0047], Fig. 3)
acquire the detection result of the sensor via the communication interface and cause the storage device to store the detection result,
Hagen teaches that a sensor in the cart may detect the item being placed in the cart and may compare the detection result from the sensor with the item which has been registered via the scan. (Hagen: paragraphs [0039-40])
acquire the commodity registration managing information and cause the storage device to store the commodity registration managing information each time the registration processing of the commodity to be purchased is performed,
Hagen teaches that a user may register items as they place them in the cart by scanning each item before placing the item in the cart. (Hagen: paragraph [0039-40]) Hagen teaches that a sensor in the cart may detect the item being placed in the cart and may compare the detection result from the sensor with the item which has been registered via the scan. (Hagen: paragraphs [0039-40])
determine a user's fraudulent operation regarding putting a commodity in and taking a commodity out of the cart on a basis of the detection result and the commodity registration managing information, and
Hagen teaches that a validation process may take place, wherein a detection may be made as to whether the user placed the proper item (a user's fraudulent operation regarding placing items into and taking items out of a cart) into the cart or not based on a comparison of the item which was scanned and the sensor's detection of the item as it was placed in the cart. (Hagen: paragraph [0107-111], Fig. 4)
With respect to the following limitation:
calculate fraudulent points on a basis of a result of the determination, wherein the processor calculates a first fraudulent point when a time interval between a timing of detection by the sensor and a timing of update of the commodity registration managing information is a first length and a second fraudulent point greater than the first fraudulent point when the time interval is a second length greater than the first length..
Hagen teaches that a validation process may take place, wherein a detection may be made as to whether the user placed the proper item (a user's fraudulent operation regarding placing items into and taking items out of a cart) into the cart or not based on a comparison of the item which was scanned and the sensor's detection of the item as it was placed in the cart. (Hagen: paragraph [0107-111], Fig. 4) Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9) Hagen further teaches that the validation results (on which the calculated overall confidence score for the cart are based) may be calculated on the basis of timings of detection intervals of the sensors. (Hagen: paragraph [0075, 105, 114]) Hagen, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a first fraudulent point based on a first interval and a second fraudulent point based on a second interval.
Davis, however, teaches this element. Davis teaches this element by teaching that an event may be flagged as suspicious (increasing the score of Hagen above zero) only when an amount of time between a detection of the user placing an item in a cart and the detection of the item registered on a mobile device of the user exceeds a predetermined time threshold (first threshold being zero, first increase being zero; and second threshold being 15, 30, or 60 seconds second increase being anything above zero). (Davis: paragraph [0012, 20]) Davis teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Hagen for the benefit of aiding in reducing self-checkout fraud. (Davis: paragraph [0003]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis with the teachings of Hagen to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 2, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a display device that displays a notification to the user,
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
wherein the processor causes the display device to display the notification on a basis of the calculated fraudulent points.
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
As per claim 3, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor determines whether or not a point value of the calculated fraudulent points exceeds a threshold, and causes the display device to display the notification if it is determined that the point value of the fraudulent points exceeds the threshold.
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
As per claim 4, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor obtains an accumulated point value in a certain period of time of the fraudulent points.
Hagen teaches that the total confidence score for the cart may be calculated for a single shopping trip from the time a user pairs their device with a cart to the time at which the user checks out with their goods (a certain period of time). (Hagen: paragraphs [0179-194], Fig. 9)
As per claim 5, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a display device that displays a notification to the user, wherein the processor causes the display device to display the notification on a basis of the obtained accumulated point value of the fraudulent points.
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
As per claim 6, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor determines whether or not the obtained accumulated point value of the fraudulent points exceeds a threshold, and causes the display device to display the notification if it is determined that the obtained accumulated point value of the fraudulent points exceeds the threshold.
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
As per claim 8, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a display device that displays a notification to the user,
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
wherein the processor causes the display device to display the notification on a basis of the calculated fraudulent points.
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
As per claim 9, Hagen in view of Davis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor outputs a notification to the user on a basis of the calculated fraudulent points.
Hagen teaches that a confidence value (fraudulent points) may be determined on the basis of the validations performed, wherein, a notification may be displayed based on whether the confidence value is above or below a set threshold. (Hagen: paragraphs [0107-111, 138, 193], Fig. 9)
As per claim 10, Hagen in view of Davis teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
An information processing method for an information processing apparatus
Hagen teaches a system and method for using sensors to detect items which have been added to a shopping cart. (Hagen: abstract, Figs. 1, 2)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628