CTFR 18/754,050 CTFR 80778 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. 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. Priority The USPTO has retrieved certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed March 23, 2026 , are responsive to the office action mailed December 30, 2025 . Claims 1-14 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13, have been amended and claims 15-18 are new. Claims 1-18 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action. Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobres et al . (Paper No. 20251227; Patent No. US 9,473,747 B2) in view of WU (Paper No. 20251227; Pub. No. US 2019/0228457 A1). The amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection . Response to Arguments Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 , have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobres et al . (Paper No. 20251227; Patent No. US 9,473,747 B2) in view of WU (Paper No. 20251227; Pub. No. US 2019/0228457 A1). The amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection . Applicant's arguments consist of a very broad and prosaic characterization of the claimed subject matter juxtaposed with a very narrow snapshot of the prior art that applicant characterizes as the entirety of the prior art disclosure. Applicant does not cite any claim recitation nor compare any specifically recited limitation with the specific portions of prior art cited as disclosing those limitations. They amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In addition applicant's arguments against the references individually do not show non-obviousness where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobres et al . (Paper No. 20251227; Patent No. US 9,473,747 B2) in view of WU (Paper No. 20251227; Pub. No. US 2019/0228457 A1) and further in view of TSUCHIMOCHI et al . (Pub. No.: US 2017 /0068945 A1) . Kobres teaches a method and store system that includes a checkout apparatus installed near an exit of a store, detects a customer and performs a checkout process using object recognition to determine items to be purchased by the customer. Kobres discloses with regard to Claim 1. A store system comprising: ● a store server (see at least Kobres figs. 4-5): and ● a checkout apparatus installed in a store and configured to perform a checkout process using object recognition to determine items to be purchased by a customer (see at least Kobres abstract “cart check and shelf check cameras monitor additions to carts and removals from shelves along with knowledge of location and what is on a particular shelf are employed to analyze which products are selected for purchase,” c4:7-20 “Rather than attempt to perform raw image recognition "unassisted", the system uses the context of the location, such as planogram information for an associated shelf camera for an associated cart camera, and the change to the "picture" of the items at rest to narrow the list of possible items and further assist with the recognition,” (note that this indicates image recognition is performed with assistance to narrow the list of possibilities, the same operational considerations present in the current claims), c6:50-67 “the recognition of the product taken from the shelf can be based both on the location and the image data substantially reducing the complexity of the image recognition process”), wherein the store server includes: ● a memory (see at least Kobres fig. 4), ● a network interface configured to communicate with the checkout apparatus (see at least Kobres fig.4), a sensor for detecting the customer accessing a particular storage space of a shelf in the store (see at least Kobres abstract “shelf check cameras monitor … removals from shelves along with knowledge of location and what is on a particular shelf,” figs. 5Bc1:25-35 “sensing arrangements, such as RFID sensing, have also been proposed in this context. As an example of a smart shelf arrangement, various arrangements have been addressed where, as an item is removed from a shelf, the removal is sensed”. Please note: a camera is also a sensor.), and a camera for capturing an image of the customer accessing the particular storage space (see at least Kobres figs. 4-5, c2:31-44 “cameras are provided to sufficiently track and monitor customer movements and product selections,” c5:6-22 “the system knows where the customer is at the start, when the customer is holding or manipulating an item … and when the contents of a shelf change, for example. It is also known what possible movements can be made from any particular point so a limited number of handoff cameras need to be checked when any camera detects a customer is leaving its field of view”), and a processor (see at least Kobres c3:20-30); ● acquire item information indicating one or more items displayed in the particular storage space as candidate items for purchase by the customer and generate and store in the memory a candidate list including the item information in association with the customer (see at least Kobres abstract “shelf check cameras monitor additions to carts and removals from shelves along with knowledge of location and what is on a particular shelf are employed to analyze which products are selected for purchase,” c3:35-54 “Memory 485 will preferably store a table of items on the shelf in the field of view of digital imager…. when shelf camera 410sn detects a customer taking an item from the shelf, the software 487 can … attempt to recognize the item from a small number of items associated with that shelf location,” c7:5-26 “Where an item cannot be identified with a sufficient degree of certainty…. Any relevant information, such as the location in the store where the unknown item was selected and a list of possible items matched to the flagged data to speed further review … prior to the customer leaving the store”). Kobres teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) item identification by location, b) image recognition of customer, c) customer selection of items in locations, and d) using item and location data to assist checkout, but does not explicitly disclose upon receipt of a detection signal from the sensor, acquire the image of the customer captured by the camera, and identify the customer based on the image, and in response to a request indicating the customer from the checkout apparatus, control the network interface to transmit the candidate list to the checkout apparatus. Wu also teaches a) item identification by location, b) image recognition of customer, c) customer selection of items in locations, and d) using item and location data to assist checkout, and Wu further discloses ● upon receipt of a detection signal from the sensor, acquire the image of the customer captured by the camera, and identify the customer based on the image (see at least Wu ¶0005 “(S1) identifying a pre-registered customer to acquire an identity information of the customer, the identity information containing face data,” ¶0006 “in case that the identity information of the customer represented by an image containing the customer, which is shot by the forward camera, is the same as the identity information acquired in the step (S1), judging that the position of the customer is consistent with the position of the item,” ¶0007 “(S3), identifying the take-up action or the put-back action specifically comprises: acquiring a plurality of frames of consecutive hand images of the customer in front of the shelf for bearing the item, … from the outside of a predetermined virtual action boundary”); ● in response to a request indicating the customer from the checkout apparatus, control the network interface to transmit the candidate list to the checkout apparatus (see at least Wu abstract “generating a shopping list of the customer after identifying the take-up action or the put-back action, and the item at which the take-up action or the put-back action aims; and performing checkout of the shopping list,” ¶0010 “a checkout device, comprising: a registration module configured to receive identity information inputted by a customer upon registration … a checkout module configured to be connected with the shopping list generation module and configured to perform checkout of the shopping list generated by the shopping list generation module,” ¶0014 “a checkout system, comprising: a client terminal configured to receive identity information inputted by a customer upon registration and send the identity information to a checkout device, and configured to receive a shopping list,” ¶0052 “When the customer selected the items and left the shopping place through the door of the shopping place from inside to outside, the customer is determined to be in a state of leaving the shopping place, and the checkout is performed according to the shopping list of the customer,” ¶0070 “a client terminal for receiving identity information inputted by a customer upon registration and sending the identity information to a checkout device, and receiving a shopping list issued by the checkout device”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA) to modify the method of Kobres to include upon receipt of a signal from the sensor, identify the particular location based on the signal, acquire an image imaged by the camera, and identify the customer based on the image, as taught by Wu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures ( i.e ., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc .). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping. Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Wu in the method of Kobres . Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods. Kobres in view of Wu teaches, a) a checkout apparatus in a store, b) recognizing items based on image and location, c) a list of candidate items for purchase, and d) checkout based on the list, but does not explicitly disclose the checkout apparatus is configured to, when performing the checkout process, perform the object recognition on an image of an item presented by the customer to specify the item from among the candidate items indicated by the item information in the candidate list. TSUCHIMOCHI also teaches a) a checkout apparatus in a store, b) recognizing items based on image and location, c) a list of candidate items for purchase, and d) checkout based on the list, and further discloses ● the checkout apparatus is configured to, when performing the checkout process, perform the object recognition on an image of an item presented by the customer to specify the item from among the candidate items indicated by the item information in the candidate list (see at least abstract “The commodity recognition process unit (6) performs a process for recognizing the commodity for the settlement, in which commodities displayed at positions corresponding to the detected movement trajectory for the customer identified by the settlement customer identification unit (4) are set as candidates,” figs. 5-6, ¶0007 “A POS terminal apparatus according to the present invention includes: … recognition process means for performing a process for recognizing the commodity for the settlement, in which commodities displayed at positions corresponding to the detected movement trajectory for the identified customer are set as candidates,” ¶0040 “The commodity image-pickup unit 130 reads (i.e.,takes) an image (settlement commodity image) of a commodity X for the settlement (settlement commodity), which is received from the settlement customer by the salesclerk. In this way, the POS terminal apparatus 100 performs a process for recognizing the settlement commodity X. … The commodity image-pickup unit 130 is, for example, an image pickup device (camera)”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA) to modify the method of Kobres in view of Wu to include the checkout apparatus is configured to, when performing the checkout process, perform the object recognition on an image of an item presented by the customer to specify the item from among the candidate items indicated by the item information in the candidate list, as taught by TSUCHIMOCHI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures ( i.e ., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc .). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping. Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from TSUCHIMOCHI in the method of Kobres in view of Wu . Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods. Claim 2. The store system according to claim 1, further comprising: ● the sensor that is configured to issue the detection signal when detecting the customer (see at least Wu “identifying a pre-registered customer to acquire an identity information of the customer, the identity information containing face data … tracking the customer whose identity information has been acquired, in a shopping place in real time, and acquiring a position of the customer”). Claim 4. The store system according to claim 2, wherein the sensor is attached to the particular storage space (see at least Kobres figs.1 shelf camera placement, 5C “local shelf cameras”. Please note: as indicated previously Kobres includes cameras in its definition of sensors, as registering a presence in addition to capturing an image.). Claim 5. The store system according to claim 4, wherein ● the memory stores a first table by which a sensor ID of the sensor is associated with the particular storage space (see at least Kobres c3:35-50 “a table of items on the shelf in the field of view of digital imager 491 in addition to a camera identifier associated with the location of shelf camera 410. The table will typically be downloaded from the server 450 which downloads it from planogram data 462 in database 460, and updates data as changes occur in the planogram data”), and ● the processor is configured to acquire the sensor ID from the received detection signal and then search the first table for the particular storage space (see at least Kobres fig. 5B, 3:5-20 “Memory 415 will preferably store a location identifier or a camera identifier associated with the camera location so… server 450 can immediately place digital image data forwarded therefrom in the overall framework in the store of the store system database,” c3:35-50 “As such, when shelf camera 410 detects a customer taking an item from the shelf, the software 487 can control the processor 483 to attempt to recognize the item from a small number of items associated with that shelf location”). Claim 6. The store system according to claim 5, wherein ● the memory stores a second table by which said one or more items are associated with the particular storage space (see at least Kobres c2:50-60 “planogram data associating given store shelves with particular products”), and ● the processor is configured to search the second table for said one or more items displayed in the particular storage space (see at least Kobres c3:35-50 “software 487 can control the processor 483 to attempt to recognize the item from a small number of items associated with that shelf location). Claim 7. The store system according to claim 4, further comprising: ● the camera that is attached to the shelf (see at least Kobres figs.1 shelf camera, 5C, c2:60-67 “an array of cameras including cart cameras … and shelf cameras”). Claim 15. The store system according to claim 1, wherein the checkout apparatus is further configured to, when the item presented by the customer cannot be specified from the candidate items, specify the item from items in the store other than the candidate items (see at least Kobres abstract “store inventory data are preferably also developed from the camera image data,” fig. 5C, c7:5-15 “Where an item cannot be identified with a sufficient degree of certainty, digital image data can be provided by store server 450 to a display 495 which is monitored by a store employee. If the store employee can recognize the item from the digital image data, the store employee can resolve the ambiguity by entering the item data”). Claim 16. The store system according to claim 15, wherein the checkout apparatus is configured to determine that the item presented by the customer cannot be specified from the candidate items if a highest degree of similarity between the image of the item and dictionary information about each of the candidate items is equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value (see at least Kobres fig. 5C, c7:5-15 “Where an item cannot be identified with a sufficient degree of certainty, digital image data can be provided by store server 450 to a display 495 which is monitored by a store employee,” in view of TSUCHIMOCHI ¶0003 “when a degree of similarity between the image of an object taken by the image pickup means and a reference image of each commodity satisfies a condition for determining that the imaged object is one of the commodities corresponding to the reference images,” ¶0055 “when the similarity between them meets a permissible value, the commodity recognition process unit 230 associates the settlement commodity with the name of a commodity corresponding to the reference commodity image”). Pertaining to method claims 8-9, 11-14, and 17-18 Rejection of claims 8-9, 11-14, and 17-18, is based on the same rationale noted above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobres et al . (Paper No. 20251227; Patent No. US 9,473,747 B2) in view of WU (Paper No. 20251227; Pub. No. US 2019/0228457 A1) and further in view of TSUCHIMOCHI et al . (Pub. No.: US 2017 /0068945 A1) as applied to claim s 1-2 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Reid (Pub. No.: US 2015/0039458 A1) . Kobres in view of Wu and further in view of TSUCHIMOCHI teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) item identification by location, b) image recognition of customer, c) customer selection of items in locations, and d) using item and location data to assist checkout, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is an infra-red sensor. Reid also teaches a) item identification by location, b) image recognition of customer, c) customer selection of items in locations, and d) using item and location data to assist checkout, and further discloses, pertaining to Claim 3. The store system according to claim 2, wherein the sensor is an infra-red sensor (see at least Reid ¶0026 “sensor itself can be based on infrared”). Claim 10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the sensor is an infra-red sensor (see at least Reid ¶0026 “sensor itself can be based on infrared”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA) to modify the method of Kobres in view of Wu and further in view of TSUCHIMOCHI to include wherein the sensor is an infra-red sensor, as taught by Reid since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures ( i.e ., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc .). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping. Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Reid in the method of Kobres in view of Wu and further in view of TSUCHIMOCHI . Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ● Walker, Pub. No.: US 2021/0056580 A1: teaches item location identification and customer using camera but doesn't appear to disclose identifying customer by camera image. ● Trandal et al ., Patent No.: US 8,219,558 B1: teaches the use of multiple mobile imaging devices for taking inventory of items, tracking location of the user device and using location to determine an item database/dictionary for use in item recognition. 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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm. 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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. /ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 May 30, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 2 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 3 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 4 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 5 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 6 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 7 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 8 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 9 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 10 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 11 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 12 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 13 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 14 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 15 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 17 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/754,050 Page 18 Art Unit: 3689
Prosecution Insights