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 .
Response to Arguments
112 rejections are withdrawn based on the filed amendments.
102/103 arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (US 20210272086 A1) in view of Kallaku (US 20210407131 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Buibas discloses:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for operating an unmanned store comprising one or more cabinets, and executable by a digital store platform (abstract), the method comprising:
- identifying a consumer upon entry into the unmanned store (fig. 5, tags 541, 542)
- assigning an individual ID to the consumer (paragraph 228);
- monitoring and tracking the customer in the unmanned store based on the individual ID (fig. 9, fig. 23, fig. 70);
- detecting proximity of the consumer to a cabinet in the unmanned store based on the individual ID (paragraph 34, abstract);
- unlocking the cabinet when the consumer is in proximity of the cabinet (paragraph 34, abstract);
- identifying item(s) removed from the cabinet by the consumer (abstract);
- calculating a total number of the items removed from the cabinet by the consumer (paragraph 61);
- locking the cabinet when the consumer leaves the proximity of the cabinet (abstract locks automatically when sensors detect that the user has retracted from the case.); and
- charging the consumer for the total number of items removed from the cabinet when the consumer exits the unmanned store or indicates that purchasing has ended (abstract, paragraph 220).
Buibas discloses taking payment after a consumer leaves the unmanned store (abstract, paragraph 220), but fails to disclose the individual ID being deleted after. However Kallaku discloses deleting customer records after they leave the store (paragraph 151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Buibas by deleting customer records after they leave the store. The motivation for the combination is use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Buibas and Kallaku both relate to tracking interactions in a store. Kallaku discloses deleting records. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of this disclosure would have recognized that information could be deleted after a transaction is complete thereby reducing system load and increasing privacy.
Regarding claim 2, Buibas discloses:
2. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one cabinet comprises temperature and/or humidity control (paragraph 210).
Regarding claim 5, Buibas discloses:
5. (Currently amended) the method according to claim 1, wherein the digital store platform (107, 207) assigns the individual ID based on a mobile application (paragraph 35 mobile wallet).
Regarding claim 6, Buibas discloses:
6. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital store platform (107, 207) assigns an individual ID to the consumber based on a credit/debit card or a smart card (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 7, Buibas discloses:
7. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital store platform assigns (107, 207) the individual ID to the consumer using multiple image-based sensoring (and template matching) (paragraph 18, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Buibas discloses:
8. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital store platform assigns the individual ID to the consumer using Bluetooth and/or RFID (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 10, Buibas discloses:
10. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein identifying the consumer is automatic, purchasing is automated, and charging comprises an automated payment transaction from a back account, smart card, or other online monetary exchange system (abstract, paragraph 270).
Regarding claim 12, Buibas discloses wherein:
The unmanned store comprises store electronics comprising a consumer identification unit (fig. 5), a consumer monitoring and tracking unit (fig. 98), a consumer charging unit (fig. 2), and a store facility management unit (abstract unlock), and
The digital store platform comprises at least one computer comprising a display, a processor, a memory and/or data transmission equipment (paragraph 213, 214, paragraph 19),
Wherein the digital store platform is configured to control the store electronics (paragraph 92 transmit unlock command).
Regarding claim 14, Buibas discloses:
One or more sensors adapted to:
1) identify a consumer (fig. 21 person z23949)
2) identify proximity of a consumer with a digitally assigned ID relative to a cabinet; and/or (paragraph 92, paragraph 268)
3) identify items removed from and/or returned to the cabinet (paragraph 268, fig. 21).
Regarding claim 15, Buibas discloses wherein at least one cabinet comprises an electronic lock adapted for remote control by the digital store platform (paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 16, Buibas discloses: wherein the store facility management unit comprises one or more of: a cabinet monitoring and controlling device, one or more cabinet proximity sensors, an electronic lock an environmental temperature monitoring and controlling device, and an environmental moisture monitoring and control device (paragraph 92 electronic lock).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (US 20210272086 A1) in view of Kallaku (US 20210407131 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yu (US 20210319420 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Buibas as modified fails to disclose and Yu discloses:
Assigning any one or more of individual shopping bags, shopping baskets and/or shopping carts with a respective individual ID for monitoring and tracking (paragraph 29)
wherein the respective individual ID is embodied as an ID tag (paragraph 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Buibas by linking a shopping cart to a user’s shopping. The motivation for the combination is improved transaction recognition and loss prevention (paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (US 20210272086 A1) in view of Kallaku (US 20210407131 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bhutani (US 20220245985 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Buibas discloses:
9. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein identifying the consumer comprises a strong identification by facial recognition of the consumer (paragraph 94 facial recognition). Buibas fails to discose and Bhutani discloses a QR code arranged in the cabinet (paragraph 90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize QR codes to facilitate item release. The motivation for the combination is secure provisioning of products (paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (US 20210272086 A1) in view of Kallaku (US 20210407131 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Smith (US 20200387881 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Buibas discloses purchases made from one or more cabinets in an unmanned store (see above), but fails to disclose and Smith discloses 11. (Currently amended) updating a store item database based on purchases made (paragraph 31-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Buibas as modified by tracking inventory based on detected sales. The motivation for the combination is improved inventory management (paragraphs 29-33).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (US 20210272086 A1) in view of Kallaku (US 20210407131 A1) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of Herald (US 10430789 B1)
Regarding claim 13, Buibas discloses: the system according to claim 12, wherein the digital store platform is further configured to:
1) assign an individual ID to the consumer (fig. 1 paragraph 217).
2) enable data transmission between the system and each consumer that is digitally assigned in individual ID using at least one of UHF, NFC, RFID, BLE, WIFI, WLAN and infrared light (paragraph 35, paragraph 452);
3) enable real-time data transmission between any one or more of the consumer identification unit, the consumer monitoring and tracking unit, the consumer charging unit, and the store facility management unit and at least one inventory database (fig. 97 consumer identified, monitored, facility is managed and fig. 2 consumer charged).
Buibas fails to explicitly disclose and Herald discloses encrypting data and data transmission using private keys, public keys, symmetric keys, message authentication codes, and/or digital signature (abstract, column 9 10-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply encryption to data and data transmission such as public/private key encryption as taught by Herald. The motivation for the combination is data security (abstract, column 1 20-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Glaser (US 20180240180 A1) discloses an autonomous shopping system.
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 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