DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 action is in reply to the application filed on July 2, 2024.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 2, 2024 and December 24, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 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), 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):
(1) 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;
(2) 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
(3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Computer implemented means plus function limitations that perform general purpose computer functions need only disclose sufficient computer structure in the specification. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Limitations that are performing any specialized functions, or that require any special purpose computer, however, must disclose computing structure and an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See id.
Claim 1, line 2, includes the limitation “a person detector configured to detect”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“a person detector”) and functional language (“configured to detect”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“a person detector” has insufficient structure). The limitation “a person detector configured to detect” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph 55. Claim 8, line 9, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding computer structure and algorithm in specification paragraph 55 as well.
Claim 1, line 6, includes the limitation “a commodity detector configured to detect”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“a commodity detector”) and functional language (“configured to detect”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“a commodity detector” has insufficient structure). The limitation “a commodity detector configured to detect” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph 56. Claim 8, line 13, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding computer structure and algorithm in specification paragraph 56 as well.
Claim 1, line 10, includes the limitation “a fraud alerting component configured to alert”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“a fraud alerting component”) and functional language (“configured to alert”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“a fraud alerting component” has insufficient structure). The limitation “a fraud alerting component configured to alert” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph 64. Claim 8, line 19, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, the corresponding computer structure and algorithm in specification paragraph 64 as well.
Claim 2, line 3, includes the limitation “a person direction detector configured to detect”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“a person direction detector”) and functional language (“configured to detect”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“a person direction detector” has insufficient structure). The limitation “a person direction detector configured to detect” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph number 59. Claim 9, line 3, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding computer structure and algorithm in specification paragraph number 59 as well.
Claim 2, line 5, includes the limitation “a detection disabling component configured to disable”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“a detection disabling component”) and functional language (“configured to disable”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“a detection disabling component” has insufficient structure). The limitation “a detection disabling component configured to disable” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph number 59. Claim 9, line 5, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding computer structure and algorithm in specification paragraph number 59 as well.
Claim 3, line 3, includes the limitation “an input detector configured to detect input operation”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“an input detector”) and functional language (“configured to detect input operation”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“an input detector” has insufficient structure). The limitation “an input detector configured to detect input operation” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification paragraph 19, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification paragraph numbers 74–77. Claim 10, line 3, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding computer structure in specification paragraph 19 and corresponding algorithm in specification paragraphs 74–77 as well.
Claim 3, lines 5–7, includes the limitation “an alert suppressing component configured to . . . suppress alert processing”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“an alert suppressing component”) and functional language (“configured to . . . suppress alert processing”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“an alert suppressing component” has insufficient structure). The limitation “an alert suppressing component configured to . . . suppress alert processing” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification paragraph 79, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification paragraph number 78. Claim 10, line 5–7, contains an identical limitation and thus has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding computer structure in specification paragraph 79 and corresponding algorithm in specification paragraph 78 as well.
Claim 8, line 4, includes the limitation “image sensor configured to capture images”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“image sensor”) and functional language (“configured to capture images”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“image sensor” has insufficient structure). The limitation “image sensor configured to capture images” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph numbers 55 and 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–14 are directed to a machine (“A fraud detection apparatus” and “A fraud detection system”), and claims 15–20 are directed to a process (“A fraud detection method”). Thus, claims 1–20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . detect, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus;
. . . detect, based on the image, at least one of a commodity and a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus; and
. . . alert a store clerk to a fraud if . . . not detect the person and . . . not detect both of the commodity and the storing body in a state in which settlement processing is executed for the commodity.
The claims, therefore, recite detecting transaction fraud, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“fraud detection apparatus”, “person detector”, “commodity detector”, “fraud alerting component”, “person direction detector”, “detection disabling component”, “input detector”, “alert suppressing component”, “light emitting component”, “display screen”, “fraud detection system”, and “image sensor”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to detect fraud and alert users. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent apparatus claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“fraud detection system”, “image sensor” “fraud detection apparatus”, “person detector”, “commodity detector”, and “fraud alerting component”). The only differences are that the features of claim 1 are performed by a system in claim 8 and implemented by a method in claim 15. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claims 8 and 15 are also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 9, and 16, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud detection recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by further specifying how the person is detected—“ detect a direction” and “disable the detection of the person detector if the direction . . . is not a direction of the target apparatus”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite a person direction detector and detection disabling component, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to detect the person. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud detection recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by further specifying how the alert is communicated—“if the input detector detects the input operation, suppress alert”, “changes a light emission state”, and “display on a store clerk side”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite an input detector, alert suppressing component, light emitting component, display screen, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to communicate the alert. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud detection recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by further specifying the area analyzed—“including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed” and “a commodity basket . . . and . . . a commodity cart . . . and a retaining section in a periphery”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 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 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 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, 2, 4–9, 11–16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0242503 (“Musiani”) in view of Sekine et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0278362 (“Sekine”).
For claim 1, Musiani teaches:
A fraud detection apparatus, comprising (¶ 50: example system): . . .
a commodity detector configured to detect, based on the image, at least one of a commodity and a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 79: items recognized from image from within basket and shopping cart); and
a fraud alerting component configured to alert a store clerk to a fraud if the person detector does not detect the person and the commodity detector does not detect both of the commodity and the storing body in a state in which settlement processing is executed for the commodity (¶ 90: error states regarding misplacement of item with regard to basket and cart; ¶ 106: alert supervisory personnel).
Musiani does not teach: a person detector configured to detect, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus.
Sekine, however, teaches:
a person detector configured to detect, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 37: detection of person in vicinity of self-service POS based on image acquired; ¶ 61: fraud detected based on absence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
For claim 2, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Sekine further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a person direction detector configured to detect a direction of the person detected by the person detector (¶ 48: multiple persons facing various directions detected); and
a detection disabling component configured to disable the detection of the person detector if the direction of the person detected by the person direction detector is not a direction of the target apparatus (¶ 48: detection processes ended).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
For claim 4, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second area is an area including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 5, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the storing body includes at least one of a commodity basket that stores the commodity and a commodity cart that stores the shopping basket (¶ 79: items within basket or shopping cart), and
the second area is an area including a placing section on which the commodity basket is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus and a retaining section in a periphery of the placing section in which the commodity cart is retained (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 6, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a light emitting component that changes a light emission state to alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes red lights).
For claim 7, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display screen to display on a store clerk side of the fraud detection apparatus an alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes screen messages).
For claim 8, Musiani teaches:
A fraud detection system, comprising (¶ 50: example system):
a plurality of target apparatuses that are fraud detection targets (¶ 50: self-checkout stations);
one image sensor configured to capture images of the plurality of target apparatuses (¶ 50: overhead camera above system); and
a fraud detection apparatus connected to the image sensor, the fraud detection apparatus including (¶ 70: fraud detection system connected to camera): . . .
a commodity detector configured to detect, based on the image of the image sensor capturing the plurality of target apparatuses, at least one of a commodity and a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the one target apparatus among the plurality of target apparatuses (¶ 79: items recognized from image from within basket and shopping cart); and
a fraud alerting component configured to alert a store clerk to a fraud if the person detector does not detect the person and the commodity detector does not detect both of the commodity and the storing body in a state in which the one target apparatus is executing settlement processing for the commodity (¶ 90: error states regarding misplacement of item with regard to basket and cart; ¶ 106: alert supervisory personnel).
Musiani does not teach: a person detector configured to detect, based on an image of the image sensor capturing the plurality of target apparatuses, a person in a first area in a periphery of one target apparatus among the plurality of target apparatuses.
Sekine, however, teaches:
a person detector configured to detect, based on an image of the image sensor capturing the plurality of target apparatuses, a person in a first area in a periphery of one target apparatus among the plurality of target apparatuses (¶ 37: detection of person in vicinity of self-service POS based on image acquired; ¶ 61: fraud detected based on absence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
For claim 9, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Sekine further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the fraud detection apparatus further comprises: a person direction detector configured to detect a direction of the person detected by the person detector (¶ 48: multiple persons facing various directions detected); and
a detection disabling component configured to disable the detection of the person detector if the direction of the person detected by the person direction detector is not a direction of the target apparatus (¶ 48: detection processes ended).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
For claim 11, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the second area is an area including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 12, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the storing body includes at least one of a commodity basket that stores the commodity and a commodity cart that stores the shopping basket (¶ 79: items within basket or shopping cart), and
the second area is an area including a placing section on which the commodity basket is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus and a retaining section in a periphery of the placing section in which the commodity cart is retained (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 13, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, further comprising: a light emitting component that changes a light emission state to alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes red lights).
For claim 14, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, further comprising: a display screen to display on a store clerk side of the fraud detection apparatus an alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes screen messages).
For claim 15, Musiani teaches:
A fraud detection method, comprising (¶ 79: example process): . . .
detecting, based on the image, at least one of a commodity and a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 79: items recognized from image from within basket and shopping cart); and
alerting a store clerk to a fraud if the person is not detected and both of the commodity and the storing body are not detected in a state in which settlement processing is executed for the commodity (¶ 90: error states regarding misplacement of item with regard to basket and cart; ¶ 106: alert supervisory personnel).
Musiani does not teach: detecting, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus.
Sekine, however, teaches:
detecting, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 37: detection of person in vicinity of self-service POS based on image acquired; ¶ 61: fraud detected based on absence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
For claim 16, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Sekine further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, further comprising: detecting a direction of the person detected (¶ 48: multiple persons facing various directions detected); and
disabling the detection of the person if the direction of the person detected is not a direction of the target apparatus (¶ 48: detection processes ended).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
For claim 18, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 5 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, wherein the second area is an area including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 19, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, wherein the storing body includes at least one of a commodity basket that stores the commodity and a commodity cart that stores the shopping basket (¶ 79: items within basket or shopping cart), and
the second area is an area including a placing section on which the commodity basket is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus and a retaining section in a periphery of the placing section in which the commodity cart is retained (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 20, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, further comprising at least one of: changing a light emission state a light emitting component to alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes red lights); and
displaying on a store clerk side of a display screen an alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes screen messages).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0242503 (“Musiani”) in view of Sekine et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0278362 (“Sekine”) and Malgarini et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0249342 (“Malgarini”).
For claim 3, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Musiani and Sekine does not teach: an input detector configured to detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person; and an alert suppressing component configured to, if the input detector detects the input operation, suppress alert processing of the fraud alerting component for a predetermined time.
Malgarini, however, teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an input detector configured to detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person (¶ 105: user interacts with button); and
an alert suppressing component configured to, if the input detector detects the input operation, suppress alert processing of the fraud alerting component for a predetermined time (¶ 105: alert dismissed based on user interacting with button).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the person detection in Sekine by adding the alert from Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing theft at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Malgarini (¶ 4: theft prevention is obstacle to adoption of contactless checkouts; ¶ 5: invention provides alerts in cases of fraud) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, and Malgarini are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 10, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 8 above. The combination of Musiani and Sekine does not teach: an input detector configured to detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person; and an alert suppressing component configured to, if the input detector detects the input operation, suppress alert processing of the fraud alerting component for a predetermined time.
Malgarini, however, teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the fraud detection apparatus further comprises: an input detector configured to detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person (¶ 105: user interacts with button); and
an alert suppressing component configured to, if the input detector detects the input operation, suppress alert processing of the fraud alerting component for a predetermined time (¶ 105: alert dismissed based on user interacting with button).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the person detection in Sekine by adding the alert from Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing theft at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Malgarini (¶ 4: theft prevention is obstacle to adoption of contactless checkouts; ¶ 5: invention provides alerts in cases of fraud) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, and Malgarini are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 17, Musiani and Sekine teach all the limitations of claim 15 above. The combination of Musiani and Sekine does not teach: detecting input operation to the target apparatus by the person; and if detecting the input operation, suppressing alert processing of the fraud alerting component for a predetermined time.
Malgarini, however, teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, further comprising: detecting input operation to the target apparatus by the person (¶ 105: user interacts with button); and
if detecting the input operation, suppressing alert processing of the fraud alerting component for a predetermined time (¶ 105: alert dismissed based on user interacting with button).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the person detection in Sekine by adding the alert from Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing theft at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Malgarini (¶ 4: theft prevention is obstacle to adoption of contactless checkouts; ¶ 5: invention provides alerts in cases of fraud) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, and Malgarini are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Naito et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0270099, discloses self-checkout fraud detection based on image analysis.
Wen et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0280027, discloses self-checkout warnings based on video frames captured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696