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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 11/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Landers, Jr. et al. (US 2019/0096198) (hereinafter referred to as Landers), previously cited by the examiner.
Re claims 1, and 2: Landers discloses a kiosk (300) comprising:
a processor (see para. [0040]);
a main body (fig. 3);
a first camera (317) and a second camera (320) both mounted to the main body (fig. 3, the first camera and the second camera each being in communication with the processor (see para. [0040]);
the first camera (317) being configured to detect and authenticate a user by capturing biometric data of the user for use by the processor to authenticate the user and to associate the authenticated user to a user account (paras. [0026]-[0027], [0042]); and
the second camera (320) being configured to detect at least one user selected product (paras. [0022], [0025], [0027], [0040]-[0041]);
wherein the processor uses machine learning to compare at least one entry in a preexisting database of images of products to the data and images collected by the second camera to identify the at least one user selected product (paras. [0022], [0025], [0027], [0040]-[0041]);
wherein the processor generates a list of products detected by the second camera (paras. [0027] describes the POS system producing a receipt);
wherein the first camera is a biometrics camera (paras. [0026], [0042]).
Re claim 5, Landers further discloses wherein the kiosk further includes a display screen (para. [0018]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Ostrowski et al. (US 2005/0189411) (hereinafter referred to as Ostrowski). The teachings of Landers have been discussed above.
Re claim 3: Landers discloses wherein the processor is further configured to charge the user account of the authenticated user for at least one product in the generated list of products fails to specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to charge the user for at least one product in the generated list of products (para. [0027]). Landers fails to specifically teach either the first camera or the second camera detects the user walking away and charging the user account based on detection.
Buibas discloses an automated checkout system including a processor configured to charge a user for at least one product in a generated list of products when a camera detects the user exiting the store (col. 12, lines 46-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Landers and Buibas in order to provide an alternative means of expediting a point-of-sale checkout process, thus improving customers checkout experience.
Re claims 6-8: Landers shows wherein the second camera (320) is configured to view a user shopping basket (343), but fails to specifically teach wherein the kiosk further includes a third camera that is pointed to view the contents of a user’s shopping cart, wherein the third camera is in communication with the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to cause at least one a visual and audible notification to be generated when an item is left in the user cart.
Ostrowski discloses a checkout system including one or more visual sensors positioned to view the contents of a user’s shopping cart; and a processing unit, wherein the one or more visual sensors are in communication with the processor, and wherein the processor is configured to cause at least one a visual and audible notification to be generated when an item is left in the user cart (paras. [0037], [0039]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Landers and Ostrowski in order to prevent a customer from leaving a retail establishment without paying for all items in his/her cart.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landersin view of Buibas et al. (US 10,282,720) (hereinafter referred to as Buibas). The teachings of Landers have been discussed above.
Landers fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to apply a biometrics focused mask to an image output of the first camera to determine a focus point of the image and to apply a machine learning model to the masked image to authenticate the user; and wherein the processor, using the biometrics focused mask, is configured to retrieve depth data from the image where the focus point is located and to mask out background information outside of the retrieved depth data.
Buibas discloses a system that incorporates a background substraction or motion filter algorithm, masking out the background from the foreground for images.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Landers and Buibas in order to improve the image quality to expedite the process of identifying a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daily (US 2008/0211671)
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 APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm.
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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights