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 .
Claim Interpretation
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sub-receipt” as used in claims 1-8 is defined in the Specification ¶ 14 to mean “the transaction terminal may automate the generation and/or presentation of multiple sub-receipts from one receipt for an order placed by multiple customers, thus, automating the splitting of the one receipt”, i.e. a split tab or check for a bill. Applicant’s Specification, ¶ 28, discloses that “Product identifiers” identify menu items being offered for sale by a merchant restaurant.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,134,022. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: “the product information includes product identifiers based on images of the items” and “assigning, by the processor, the first item included in the order to a first sub-receipt” in the issued patent claims, is similar to: “the customer association data includes spatial location data of the identified customers within a field of view of an image capture device at the location; generate sub-receipts by correlating the plurality of product identifiers with the customer association data” in the present application. The application claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). Claims 7, 15 and 19 of the issued patent also teach matching “incoming image data to the plurality of product identifiers, and based on the one or more captured images and the customer association data, product information; and sending, by the first device and to a transaction terminal, the product information”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zadeh et al., US 20180204111 A1.
9. A method, comprising:
generating, by a first device, a plurality of product identifiers based on one or more captured images, (see Zadeh, ¶ 1335 “the objects have to be recognized, first (by object or pattern recognition module), as what they are, and then they can be categorized or classified (by tags or flags), with comments, text, or identifiers superimposed or attached to the image file.”);
receiving, by the first device, customer association data, the customer association data identifying a first customer associated with one or more first items in the one or more captured images, (see Zadeh, ¶ 1249-51, “Removal Of Ambiguities…other identifiers or distinguishing parameters, such as her middle name, middle initial, age, social security number, address, father's name, husband's name, neighbor's name, friend's name, graduation date from high school, name of high school, nickname, pictures, tags on pictures, voice sample, fingerprint chart, other biometrics, or employee ID number, to remove the ambiguity”);
identifying a second customer associated with one or more second items in the one or more captured images, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2216, “In one embodiment, it (i.e. the system) determines a partial matching of an object…for all people recognized in the still image or video frame”);
generating, by the first device, based on training an imaging model to match incoming image data to the plurality of product identifiers, and based on the one or more captured images and the customer association data, product information, (see Zadeh, ¶ 114, new algorithms, methods, and systems for artificial intelligence, soft computing, and deep/detailed learning/recognition, e.g., image recognition (e.g., for action, gesture, emotion, expression, biometrics, fingerprint, facial, OCR (text), background, relationship, position, pattern, and object); and
sending, by the first device and to a transaction terminal, the product information, (see Zadeh, ¶ 1317, 2201, “the current best price or option available”, “for marketing or sales purposes, at the store front”).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the product information is generated by analyzing the one or more captured images using an object recognition technique, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2200, “show 2D or 3D images of shelves and objects or services for sale or offer, for user to visit and select or review”).
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the product information is generated based on metadata associated with the one or more captured images being passed through the imaging model, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2014, “the GPS data or location data or time data or metadata, associated with a picture in a phone or camera, are used for data for Z-web for that picture”).
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the customer association data includes object descriptors indicating a spatial location of the first customer and a spatial location of the second customer, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2551, “temporal/spatial locations, labels, auto-annotations and users' annotations, for example, associated with user/group (e.g., for friends, colleagues, for example, based on social network setting)… so that the information will be rendered and can be acted upon by the user via the user's application).
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more captured images include a plurality of captured images, the method further comprising: generating a plurality of product identifiers based on the plurality of captured images, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2770, “Search Based On Image…a search query is made based on images or parts of a video, e.g., by user selecting one or more objects/persons from the image or part of video”).
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of product identifiers includes information identifying one or more degrees of confidence, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2430, “based on the context and preference, e.g. based on percentage, ranking, fuzzy membership, or fuzzy descriptor, e.g. “85 percent”). A percentage is a measure of a degree of confidence.
15. The method of claim 9, wherein the product information includes: one or more additional product identifiers based on the one or more captured images; and one or more object descriptors based on the customer association data, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2054, “from a picture of food plate, the system extracts the objects and recognizes them…for a specific person”).
16. The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more captured images are captured at a table, the method further comprising: generating a user interface by the first device that displays the one or more captured images and corresponding product identifiers; associating the table with specific customers present at the table based on the one or more captured images; and receiving user input through the user interface to confirm or correct the product identifiers and customer associations before sending the product information to the transaction terminal, (see Zadeh, ¶ 2054, “from a picture of food plate, the system extracts the objects and recognizes them”).
As per remaining claims 1-7 and 17-20, these claims contain the same or similar features as claims 8-16 rejected above, and therefore the above rejections are applied against the remaining claims herein by reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10216998 B2, “pixels may be determined to be representative of an external object based on, for example, a trained neural network configured to detect predetermined external objects”;
WO 0137169 A1, “One or more point of purchase scanning computers 111, with associated biometric scanners 112, may be connected to scan control and accounting computer 104 so that users within the airport, transit system, hall, arena, etc. may obtain goods and services by submitting to a further biometric scan at the point of purchase. Such points of purchase may include newsstands, concessions, retail stores, and various services… when identification is complete, may either directly initiate a charge to one of user's financial accounts using financial network 110 (to which point of purchase scanning computer 110 is connected).”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights