DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 1/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 9, amendments to claims 1, 11, 19 and 20, and addition of claim 21 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-8, and 10-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The 101 rejections are overcome due to the incorporation of previously noted eligible matter of now cancelled claim 9 into the independent claims. As pointed out in the remarks, Packwood does not teach analyzing a single image from an imager for both barcode and item features; then new grounds not necessitated by amendment are brought, new art is cited to teach the limitations in questions, and this action is non-final, as it would not be proper to make final.
Packwood’s teachings regarding “low-fidelity or “deficient” image data are related to overcoming the lack of successful automated image analysis related to such data. Paragraphs 47-49 teach methods of overcoming failure to identify features in image data with low fidelity, low-resolution due to movement, or distortion. Therefore, Itagaki’s inherent environmental instability is part of the problem solved in Packwood, and is accounted for in Packwood’s system. As such, Packwood does not teach away from mounting the imager on a shopping cart.
Packwood teaches claim 21’s updating second feature data, in at least paragraphs 51, 52 and 55, showing linking item code and image data, and updating image data in database for reference by system model, including acquiring updated data from the central datastore/external device. Packwood teaches a local and remote database and data gathering system for linking item codes and product image features, and updating said database with new image features for the purposes of identifying items in a retail setting. This teaching reads on the claims of at least claim 21’s limitation of acquire updated feature data from the external device and updating the local memory with new data. See also paragraphs 69 -73 of Packwood. It does not explicitly teach the model including feature reference data. Trajkovic is newly cited to teach this.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packwood (US 2023/0177391) in view of Ono (US 2022/0177019).
Claims 1, 11 and 20. Packwood teaches a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, comprising: (para. 40 POS)
an interface circuit connectable to an imaging device; (para. 40 camera; para. 143 circuits)
a memory that stores feature data (para. 27 database for reference index; representing a feature of an image of each of items that are sold in a store, (para. 55 showing image data of products) the feature data being associated with an item code of said each of items; and (para. 40 showing referencing image database with barcode index)
a processor configured to:
control the imaging device to capture an image, (para. 40 image capture at POS imager)
perform feature extraction on the image to acquire first feature data representing a feature of the item shown in the image, (image analyzation for feature of shape)
search the memory for second feature data that is associated with the read item code, (para. 55 showing reference matching images of product and barcode scans)
based on a difference between the first and second feature data, determine whether a package of the item was changed since the second feature data was stored in the memory, (para. 55 showing product package changes a cause of mismatch)
upon determining that the package of the item was not changed, register the item for purchase, and (para. 106 showing proceed to pay upon identification)
upon determining that the package of the item was changed, issue a notification. (para. 86 showing generation of message upon mismatch event; see also para. 98, at least.)
Packwood does not, but Ono teaches further comprising:
a cart including a handle to which the imaging device is attachable. (Figure 1 and claim 10 showing attachable terminal and handle of cart)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of point-of-sale payments in Packwood, with the known technique of computerization of business devices such as shopping carts, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing less friction during a shopping session using a cart (See Ono para. 3 showing use of computerized shopping carts.)
Packwood teaches, in para. 43, capturing visual image data relating to characteristic forms, as well as separately capturing a known characteristic of a visual image such as a barcode, image mark, or logotype. It does not teach analyzing an image both for feature data and perform a code reading process on the image to read an item code of an item shown in the image. However, Ono does. (para. 46 showing imager identifying barcode to read item code, as well also performing object recognition techniques on feature data extracted by same imager/from same image)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of barcode scanning and item recognition in Packwood, with the known technique of image analysis in Ono, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for less hardware requirement. (See para. 46 of Ono showing one hardware unit for both barcode scanning and object recognition image analysis.)
Claim 20 additionally: Packwood as modified by Ono teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a method. (Para. 141 showing non-transient medium)
Claims 2 and 12. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines that the package of the item was changed when a degree of similarity of the first and second feature data is less than a threshold. (para. 67 showing threshold for generating mismatch notification)
Claims 3 and 13. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1, further comprising:
a network interface connectable to an external device, wherein (para. 144 showing server, remote computer and network)
the processor is configured to:
after determining that the package of the item was changed, generate information including the item code, and (para. 40 showing alert signal generation; para. 5 showing discrepancy after comparison of barcode and images; para. 25 showing alert after discrepancy)
control the network interface to transmit the generated information to the external device. (paras. 29 and 36 showing after mismatch, report is sent to model for updating training)
Claims 4 and 14. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to include data of the image in the information. (para. 36 showing data, including image, stored as input)
Claims 5 and 15. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 3, wherein the external device is one of a store server and a store clerk terminal that are installed in the store. (para. 40 showing POS)
Claims 6 and 16. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1, further comprising:
an input device, wherein (para. 106 showing screen presses for input)
the processor is configured to, upon input of a closing operation via the input device, perform a payment process for the registered item. (para. 98 showing input for payment)
Claim 10. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 9. Packwood teaches a point of sale and image analysis. It does not, but Ono teaches wherein
the cart includes a basket in which an item can be stored, and (Figure 2, cart and basket)
the imaging device faces the basket such that an image of an item can be captured. (para. 23 showing imager facing inside of cart)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of point-of-sale payments in Packwood, with the known technique of computerization of business devices such as shopping carts, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing less friction during a shopping session using a cart (See Ono paragraph 3 showing use of computerized shopping carts.)
Claim 19. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the method according to claim 11. Packwood teaches a point of sale and image analysis. It does not, but Ono teaches:
wherein the POS terminal is attached to a cart including a basket and a handle, and (Figure 1 and claim 10 showing attachable terminal and handle of cart)
the imaging device is attached to the handle so as to capture an image of an item placed in the basket. (para. 23 showing imager facing inside of cart)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of point-of-sale payments in Packwood, with the known technique of computerization of business devices such as shopping carts, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing less friction during a shopping session using a cart (See Ono paragraph 3 showing use of computerized shopping carts.)
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packwood in view of Ono, and further in view of DeSantola (US 2022/0292618).
Claims 7 and 17. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 6, further comprising:
a display device. (para. 106 showing screen on POS)
Packwood teaches paying at a POS. It does not detail generating a payment code, but DeSantola teaches:
the processor is configured to, in the payment process:
generate a payment code that represents the registered item and is readable by a payment device through which payment can be performed, and (Para. 237 showing QR code generation and display for payment)
control the display device to display the payment code. (See above.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of point-of-sale payments in Packwood, with the known technique of generating a payment code because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing customers more options in paying.
Claims 8 and 18. Packwood as modified by Ono and DeSantola teaches the POS terminal according to claim 7. Packwood teaches point of sales and a network including a server. It does not detail, but DeSantola teaches further comprising:
a network interface connectable to a server, wherein (para. 55 showing network)
the processor is configured to, in the payment process, control the network interface to transmit information indicating the registered item to the server. (para. 55 showing server including data about ordered items)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of point-of-sale payments in Packwood, with the known technique of generating a payment code because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for data integration (See DeSantola para. 55 showing said integration through networked storage and communication.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packwood (US 2023/0177391) in view of Ono (US 2022/0177019), and in further view of Trajkovic (US 2013/0001290).
Claim 21. Packwood as modified by Ono teaches the POS terminal according to claim 4. Packwood does not, but Trajkovic teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, after the generated information including the item code and the data of the image is transmitted to the external device, acquire updated feature data from the external device, and update the second feature data stored in the memory with the updated feature data. (paragraphs 29 and 30 showing item information sent to external device, and updated feature data is sent to terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of point-of-sale payments in Packwood, with the known technique of updating a reference database because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for successful registration of items for purchase. See paragraph 29 of Trajkovic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights