DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on June 7, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing device configured to” in claims 12, “the processing device is further configured to” in claims 19-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 21, the claims describe a method and system for monitoring a scanning session on a checkout environment which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction-sales). The limitations on detecting a start of a scanning session, monitoring an environment, determining that a user left, determining that the scanning session is incomplete and triggering an alert could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a decoding device, a memory and a processing device, nothing in the claims precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of “detecting”, “monitoring”, “determining” and “triggering” recite functions directed to sales activities and commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claims modified by adding generic computer elements would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's customer monitoring in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the detecting, monitoring, determining and triggering steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components and the processing steps. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12-16, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Takeno (US 2022/0180343 A1).
Claim 1
Takeno discloses the following limitations:
A method, comprising:
detecting a start of a scanning session at an indicia decoding device; (see at least paragraph 0018-item scanning process and 0032-start of commodity registration process).
monitoring an environment of the indicia decoding device during the scanning session; (see at least paragraph 0031-the camera 28 captures images of an area in which the user performs the commodity registration process).
determining that a user or object has left a vicinity of the indicia decoding device; (see at least abstract and paragraph 0084-the processor detects whether a person has left the work region based on the image from the camera).
determining that the scanning session is incomplete; and responsive to determining that the scanning session is incomplete, triggering an alert associated with the incomplete scanning session (see at least abstract and paragraph 0084-output an alert if it is detected that the person left the work region after performance of the registration process is started but before the payment process is completed; paragraph 0085-notify others that a user who started the commodity registration process has departed without completing or even starting the payment process).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Takeno discloses the following limitations:
wherein the determining that the scanning session is incomplete includes waiting a predetermined time for a printer to send a signal indicative of a completion event and determining that the scanning session is complete responsive to receiving the signal indicative of the completion event. (see at least paragraphs 0125 and 0130).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Takeno discloses the following limitations:
wherein the determining that the scanning session is incomplete includes tracking user actions to determine whether a completion motion or sequence of motions has taken place and determining that the scanning session is complete responsive to detecting the completion motion or sequence of motions. (see at least paragraph 0106).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Takeno discloses the following limitations:
wherein the determining that the scanning session is incomplete includes monitoring a user terminal associated with the indicia decoding device. (see at least abstract and paragraph 0084).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Takeno discloses the following limitations:
wherein the monitoring includes employing camera-based machine vision to identify a user in the vicinity of the indicia decoding device. (see at least abstract and paragraph 0031).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Takeno discloses the following limitations:
further comprising waiting a predetermined period of time after the determination that the payment event is incomplete before performing the triggering.(see at least paragraph 0068 and 0125-0126).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10-11, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno (US 2022/0180343 A1) in view of Brakob (US 2023/0056327 A1).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Brakob discloses the following limitations:
wherein the monitoring includes employing a weight-sensitive apparatus to identify that a user is adjacent to the indicia decoding device. (see at least paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Brakob and Takeno in order to provide technology for identifying theft events or other suspicious activity that may occur during the checkout process (Brakob paragraph 0009). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 7
Furthermore, Brakob discloses the following limitations:
wherein the monitoring includes employing a weight-sensitive apparatus to identify that one or more items are in a bagging area associated with the indicia decoding device. (see at least paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Brakob and Takeno in order to provide technology for identifying theft events or other suspicious activity that may occur during the checkout process (Brakob paragraph 0009). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 8
Furthermore, Brakob discloses the following limitations:
wherein the monitoring includes employing RFID, radar, lidar, or sonar to produce model of the environment of the indicia decoding device.(see at least paragraphs 0107-0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Brakob and Takeno in order to provide technology for identifying theft events or other suspicious activity that may occur during the checkout process (Brakob paragraph 0009). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 10
Brakob in at least paragraphs 0135-0136 discloses transmitting an alert after the determination of a suspicious activity associated with a scanning event. Brakob does not explicitly discloses the following limitations:
further comprising temporarily locking the indicia decoding device in an inoperable state, responsive to the alert.
However, since Brakob alerts after the determination of a suspicious activity associated with a scanning event, the lacking limitation is not explicitly disclosed but would have been obvious in view of the teachings in Brakob. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Brakob and Takeno in order to provide technology for identifying theft events or other suspicious activity that may occur during the checkout process (Brakob paragraph 0009). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 11
Brakob in at least paragraphs 0135-0136 discloses transmitting an alert after the determination of a suspicious activity associated with a scanning event. Brakob does not explicitly discloses the following limitations:
further comprising resetting, the indicia decoding device in an inoperable state, responsive to the alert.
However, since Brakob alerts after the determination of a suspicious activity associated with a scanning event, the lacking limitation is not explicitly disclosed but would have been obvious in view of the teachings in Brakob. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Brakob and Takeno in order to provide technology for identifying theft events or other suspicious activity that may occur during the checkout process (Brakob paragraph 0009). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
As per claims 12-21, claims 12-21 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-11 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Khojastepour (US 2021/0248879 A1) discloses a self-checkout system comprising retail technology for customer monitoring.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627