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 Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 10, and 13 – 17 were amended by Applicant.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 6, 7, and 20 remain as original.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were cancelled by Applicant.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 06/26/2025 as to claims 1 – 20 are:
withdrawn as to claims 2, 6, 9, 13, and 16;
maintained as to claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20.
A new claim rejection as to new claim 21 per 35 USC 103 is also made below.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 17, 20, and 21 are pending and have been examined.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments as to 35 USC 103 are moot. Remarks 9 – 12. Due to Applicant’s substantial amendments to the claims (see amended claims of 12/9/2025), examiner of necessity needed to use at least one new art combination (and also add an additional citation) not addressed by Applicant to formulate a proper rejection per 35 USC 103. Please refer to 35 USC 103 analysis below.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 09/26/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 12/29/2025, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 20 and 21 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece (US10325464B1) in view of Celikyilmaz (US20150356690A1) and in further view of Isaacson (US20210174426A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 (using claim 8 below as representative):
Trivelpiece discloses:
A customer device configured to run a self-checkout application the customer device associated with a customer in a merchant location, the customer device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: Examiner notes that the recently amended portion of the claims as above (i.e., usage of the “customer device” for photos/ processing) is mapped separately below under Isaacson , that said … (“Accordingly, the present solution facilitates the use of mobile shopping applications, shopping websites and self-checkout solutions in retail establishments that would not be possible due to security tags”, [col. 4: 45 – 48]) and (“In this regard, the controller 210 includes a processor ( or logic circuitry that responds to instructions ) and the memory 208 includes a computer-readable storage medium”, [col. 9: 20 – 22]);
receive a product identifier associated with a product selected from the merchant location and a user transaction account identifier; (“Use a POS to obtain a Universal Product Code (“UPC") and / or an Electronic Product Code (“EPC”) for at least one product to be purchased, where the UPC identifies a type of product and the EPC identifies a particular product 1406”, [Fig. 14 A, element 1406]) and (“The purchase transactions involve the scanning of the UPC or Electronic Product Codes (“EPC”) associated with the product … The security tag protects the product and a secondary tag has a unique product identifier.”, [col. 18: 20 – 25]) and (“After the POS 1304 obtains the object information, payment information is input into the retail transaction application of POS 1304. The payment information can include, but is not limited to, a customer loyalty code, payment card information”, [col. 22: 15 – 19]);
retrieve product data based at least in part on the merchant identifier, the product identifier, and a user profile of the customer device, Examiner notes that the “merchant identifier” aspect of this limitation, which aspect is mentioned several times throughout the mirrored independent claims, is best analyzed in the immediately following Celikyilmaz (secondary) analysis, … (See Fig. 1, element 128, entitled “Retail Store Facility”) and (“Retail store facility 1328 can comprise retail store facility 128 described above in relation to FIG . 1”, [col. 20: 31 – 33]) and (“Use a POS to obtain a Universal Product Code ( “ UPC " ) and / or an Electronic Product Code ( “ EPC ” ) for at least one product to be purchased, where the UPC identifies a type of product and the EPC identifies a particular product”, [Fig. 14A, element 1406]) and (“Communicate the UPC and / or EPC to purchase sub - system to facilitate the retrieval of product information therefrom”, [Fig. 14A, element 1408]) and (“Communicate the UPC and / or EPC to purchase sub - system to facilitate the retrieval of product information therefrom”, [Fig. 14A, element 1410], a “profile” of the product is additionally had;
wherein the product data comprises a product price; (“The object information includes any information that is useful for purchasing the object, such as an object identifier and an object purchase price .”, [col. 21: 34 – 36]);
transmit, by the self-checkout application over a computer network, the transaction data packet to a payment network to retrieve a transaction authorization of the customer-initiated transaction, wherein the payment network is remotely located from the merchant location; and Examiner notes that the above “transaction data packet” portion, mentioned throughout these independent claims, is analyzed in the immediately following Celikyilmaz (secondary) analysis, … (“Fig. 14A, element 1422 “Communicate the UPC(s) and / or EPC(s) to an authorization sub-system to initiate the generation of one or more authorization codes”) and (“The purchase transaction can involve using an authorized payment system, such as a bank Automatic Clearing House (“ACH”) payment system, a credit/debit card authorization system, or a third party system (e.g., PayPal®, SolidTrust Pay® or Google Wallet®).”, [col. 22: 40 – 44]), note that the “payment network” may be remotely located from the merchant location.
transmit, in response to the transaction authorization and while the customer device is positioned proximate to the product, a deactivation signal from the customer device to a security device associated with the product to deactivate the security device, See Fig. 14B, elements 1426 and 1444; Fig. 14B, elements 1432 – 1440; and see also Fig.’s 14A, 14B, and 14C, read together as there indicated, which show the flow of the process from the initial purchase, through authorization, through deactivation of the security tag and see (“The NFC communication may be established by touching components 1372 , 1350 together or bringing them in close proximity”, [col. 22: 3 – 5]). ;
wherein, when activated, the security device is configured to trigger an alarm when the security device is detected by a monitoring device at the merchant location. (“The monitoring system 1334 establishes a surveillance zone (not shown) within which the presence of the security tags 1370 can be detected. The surveillance zone is established at an access point (not shown) for the retail store facility 1328 . If a security tag is carried into the surveillance zone , then an alarm is triggered to indicate a possible unauthorized removal of the object from the retail store facility”, [col. 20: 46 – 53]);
Trivelpiece does not expressly disclose, but Celikyilmaz teaches:
generate a transaction data packet associated with a customer-initiated transaction comprising purchase of the product, wherein the transaction data packet comprises a merchant identifier associated with the merchant location, the product price, and the user transaction account identifier; (“The transaction record (301) typically includes transaction information (431), such as the date and time of the transaction and the amount of the transaction, and merchant identification information (433), such as acquirer bank identification number, card acceptor, terminal ID, merchant address and/or merchant name. The transaction record (301) further includes other information such as account information identifying the consumer account from which the payment is made.”, [027]) and (“Examples of the parameters include the date of transaction, the amount of the transaction, the address of the transaction, etc.”, [046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trivelpiece to incorporate the teachings of Celikyilmaz because Trivelpiece would be more efficient and versatile if it could better detail in its “data packet” the merchant identifiers, the corresponding product price, and the corresponding consumer account information, as done in Celikyilmaz. This very basic transaction information as to the purchase of the product would greatly improve the thoroughness and efficiency of the data packet information, … (“The transaction record (301) typically includes transaction information (431), such as the date and time of the transaction and the amount of the transaction, and merchant identification information (433), such as acquirer bank identification number, card acceptor, terminal ID, merchant address and/or merchant name. The transaction record (301) further includes other information such as account information identifying the consumer account from which the payment is made.”, see [027] of Celikyilmaz).
The combination of Trivelpiece and Celikyilmaz do not expressly disclose, but Isaacson teaches:
wherein the receiving the product identifier comprises: capturing an image of the product using a camera of the customer device; (“The approach disclosed herein combines the capabilities of user's mobile devices with respect to cameras or communication components that can be used to identify products the user desires to purchase, with the simplicity of a browser-based API for communicating payment”, [041]) and (“A camera or other communication component 208 can be used to receive data from the product 302, 306. In another aspect, machine learning could be used to enable the device 204 to simply take a picture of a product without a code and have that data communicated to the store server 218 to identify the product for purchase.”, [076]) and (“The input device 190 can represent one or more different types of input devices, such as a camera for taking still images or video,”, [052]) and (“Thus, when the user scans an item 210 from the store, a communication to the server can be initiated via the browser. No app needs to be accessed or downloaded. The server 218 can present a user interface for confirming a purchase or to identify that item and put it in a virtual shopping cart. After scanning one or more items, the user can be given the option to pay and can use the browser API disclosed herein to provide an easy payment for all the items using a payment server”, [054]) and
processing the captured image of the product using a machine-learning model trained to recognize a product image to determine an identifier; and Examiner notes that, apart from [0028] in the Specification herein where an example of trained machine learning is actually given (i.e., a trademarked product), the training of the machine learning model is disclosed very generally and otherwise non-specifically, … (“A camera or other communication component 208 can be used to receive data from the product 302, 306. In another aspect, machine learning could be used to enable the device 204 to simply take a picture of a product without a code and have that data communicated to the store server 218 to identify the product for purchase.”, [076]) and (“Having trained machine learning algorithm 324 with the training data 322, the system could then receive live data regarding tag motion relative to device motion 326 and make a classification decision regarding a connection associated between the two 328. Thus, the output of the machine learning component 324 would be a determination that a particular tag is connected to or associated with a particular mobile device that is going to process a purchase for the product associated with that tag.”, [082]), the trained (as above) machine learning model is also used to process a smart phone captured image and then for matching / recognizing / identifying the product photographed;
determining the product identifier based on the processing of the captured image using the machine-learning model; Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include that machine learning is used to process the product’s identification via the customer/ user’s smart phone / user device captured image … (“In another aspect, a user could take a picture of the product and text it to a service that would use machine learning to analyze the picture and return a link for accessing a merchant site configured to purchase the product”, [0168]) and (“Various pictures of each product which is available to purchase can be used in a machine learning context to train a machine learning algorithm such that when a user takes a picture of a product, that picture is transmitted to the site via the browser to confirm which product it is.”, [0170]) and (“Users could scan via a code or NFC tag data for each item. Different modes of identifying products could be applied.”, [053]), the product / code is ID’ed / identified via machine learning in combination with user snapping a picture of the product,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trivelpiece to incorporate the teachings of Isaacson because Trivelpiece would be more efficient and versatile if it could allow the processing of data / photos of the product, both via the customer / user’s device, as done in Isaacson. (“The effort made by the individual is minimal in this process and completely eliminates point-of-sale devices and infrastructure.”, see [041] of Isaacson.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17:
The above combination of Trivelpiece, Celikyilmaz and Isaacson disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively:
Trivelpiece further teaches:
wherein the security device comprises at least one of an electromagnetic or magnetic strip, a radio frequency (RFID) security tag, a near field communication (NFC) security tag, a security label, a resonator tag, or a smart security chip, and wherein the customer device is configured to transmit the deactivation signal using at least one of NFC, RFID, or Bluetooth. (“In some scenarios, the tag body may contain a Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID ”) element or label. The RFID element can be interrogated by an RFID reader to obtain RFID data therefrom.”, [col. 1: 44 – 48]) and (“However, it should be understood that the communication device 206 generates and transmits signals (e. g. , RF carrier signals ) to external devices, as well as receives signals (e. g., RF signals) transmitted from external devices.” [col. 8: 29 – 33]).
and Isaacson further teaches:
(“The approach disclosed herein combines the capabilities of user's mobile devices with respect to cameras or communication components that can be used to identify products the user desires to purchase, with the simplicity of a browser-based API for communicating payment”, [041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trivelpiece to incorporate the teachings of Isaacson because Trivelpiece would be more efficient and versatile if it could allow the processing of data / photos of the product, both via the customer / user’s device, as done in Isaacson. (“The effort made by the individual is minimal in this process and completely eliminates point-of-sale devices and infrastructure.”, see [041] of Isaacson.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20:
The above combination of Trivelpiece, Celikyilmaz and Isaacson disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively:
Trivelpiece further discloses:
wherein the transaction authorization comprises a security device deactivation packet, and wherein the deactivation signal is based on the security device deactivation packet. Examiner interprets this limitation to include the meaning that security device deactivation signals may be sent to the product tag post purchase authorization, … see Fig’s 14A – 14C, together, including elements 1436 and 1444, detailing the above.
Regarding new claim 21:
The above combination of Trivelpiece, Celikyilmaz and Isaacson disclose the limitations of claim 15:
Isaacson further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: applying an image recognition algorithm to the image to identify one or more dimensions of the product to identify the product identifier. (“This disclosure notes that the use of an API (or multiple APIs) between the site and the browser can be in both directions. For example, the user buys an item in a shopping cart and a package of information is passed through the API to the website with one or more of an object, a token, payment information, address information, registration information, login in formation, product information, size data, etc. to initiate the whole transaction from the browser API. This is what would happen if the user had left a website but had an item placed in a shopping cart.”, [0134]), as noted throughout this analysis, a photo taken by user device may also contain size data of the produce (i.e., “dimensions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trivelpiece to incorporate the teachings of Isaacson because Trivelpiece would be more efficient and versatile if it could allow the processing of data / photos of the product, both via the customer / user’s device, as done in Isaacson. (“The effort made by the individual is minimal in this process and completely eliminates point-of-sale devices and infrastructure.”, see [041] of Isaacson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to be placed in independent form. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Krause (US20170046707A1) - The disclosure relates to mobile device retail self-checkout with incorporated theft detection system and methods thereof. Aspects of the invention employ asset tracking, mobile phone scanning and self-checkout in a retail environment. Specifically, a mobile device application in communication with a transaction system has to capacity to complete unassisted self-checkouts. Other aspects include providing a transaction system using a mobile device application interfacing therewith. Additionally, the present invention has the capacity to interface with existing anti-theft technologies, such as, RFID or similar RF tagging and reading which can determine thefts and process exceptions of unique items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights