DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 4/16/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13 and 16-20 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. In response to the additional limitations added in the amendments, Thramann (cited in below rejection and in notice of references cited) is relied upon to teach certain new limitations. After a new search was conducted, it was determined that a combination of Musiani and Thramann teaches the new claims, including determining a chronological order of regions, a distance variation determination for item movement tracks through the regions for determining a non-scan event, and other limitations. While the novelty rejection for the majority of the claims was overcome, new obviousness-type rejections necessitated by the amendments is presented below. Examiner thanks Applicant for citations to the disclosure in support of the amendments.
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 1-3, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani (US 2024/0242503) in view of Thramann (US 9,589,433).
Claims 1, 11 and 20. Musiani teaches a method, comprising:
by a point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window (para. 50 showing window) a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, (para. 42 barcode scanning) the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture an image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with a container configured to carry an object, a POS subregion associated with the scanning window, and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area, (para. 75 showing basket, scanning and bag regions with scanner and camera to monitor said regions)
obtaining data that represents a set of successive images of the POS region captured by the optical sensor device as a target object is moved in the POS region (paragraphs 56 and 65 showing cart pose analyzer images to detect non scan event) (para. 90 showing placing item in bagging area without scanning)
determining the object movement track having a set of successive object locations of the target object as the target object is moved in the POS region based on the successive image data, (para. 70 showing images used to track item movement in said regions; see also paragraphs 75-78)
identifying those POS subregions that correspond to the object movement track of the target object based on the successive image data or the object movement track; (see para. 75 for multiple regions of checkout; para. 70 showing images tracking item throughout determined said regions) (para. 90 showing alert when scanning area is not traveled through by item)
determining a starting or ending POS subregion of the target object based on the successive image data or the object movement track (para. 70 showing item movement starting in cart area based on images)
Musiani does not, but Thramann teaches:
determining a set of distances between the object movement track and the POS subregion associated with the bagging area; and (Column 2, lines 60-68 showing comparison of differences in tracked movement and predefined movement through checkout)
determining that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned based on whether the POS subregion associated with the scanning window corresponds to the object movement track, the starting or ending POS subregion, and the set of distances. (Column 2, lines 64 through column 3, line 3 showing comparison of differences in tracked movement and predefined movement through checkout pre- and post-purchase location.) (column 1 showing in lines 45-50 system detection of non-scan items) (Claim interpretation: “distance” in present application’s disclosure, in para. 23 of specification, can be referred to as pixel amount. Examiner interprets distance to include more than conventional length measurements, including the movement comparison in above citation of Thramann.)
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 object tracking in Musiani with the known technique of determining a difference in item movements in Thramann, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for improved fraud non-scanning of products. See column 2, line 64-column 3, line 3 of Thramann.
Claims 11 and 20 additionally: Musiani teaches the POS system device further includes processing circuitry and a memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the processing circuitry is configured. (para. 54 showing computer embodiment)
Claim 2. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the method of claim 1. Musiani teaches wherein the image data obtaining step further includes
receiving, by a processing circuit of the POS system device or the optical sensor device, from the optical sensor, the successive image data. (para. 14 receiving image data)
Claims 3 and 12. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the method of claim 1. Musiani teaches further comprising:
detecting activity in the POS subregion associated with the container based on the successive image data; (paragraphs 77-79 showing monitoring of predetermined checkout process, including starting in Phase 1 with items in container/basket being positioned into said zone…)
determining that the activity in that POS subregion corresponds to the target object being disposed in the container based on the successive image data; and (…and determining the items are in the basket to start…)
identifying the target object as starting the object movement track in that POS subregion. (said predetermined process as Phase 1)
Claims 7 and 16. Musiani as modified by Thramann method of claim 1. Musiani teaches wherein:
determining that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned is further based on (para. 90 showing determination of non-scan) a set of predetermined criteria (paras. 77-78 showing criteria) associated with the set of POS subregions and the object movement track. (para. 90 showing item movement and regions)
Claims 8 and 17. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the method of claim 7. Musiani teaches wherein at least one of the set of predetermined criteria is associated with a number of the set of POS subregions that corresponds to the object movement track. (paragraphs 77 and 78 showing a number of regions in item path used for analysis)
Claims 9 and 19. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the method of claim 7. Musiani teaches wherein at least one of the set of predetermined criteria is associated with a starting or ending POS subregion of the set of POS subregions that corresponds to the object movement track. (paragraphs 77 and 78 showing a number of regions in item path used for analysis, including basket and bagging areas)
Claims 10 and 18. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the method of claim 7. Musiani teaches wherein at least one of the set of predetermined criteria is associated with a certain one of the set of POS subregions that corresponds to the object movement track. (paragraphs 77 and 78 showing a number of regions in item path used for analysis, including basket and bagging areas)
Claim 14. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the method of claim 11. Musiani teaches further comprising:
determining, for the set of successive images, the set of successive object locations of the target object in the POS region based on the successive image data; and (paras. 76-79 showing tracking of item through regions with system and identifying regions)
determining the object movement track based on the set of successive object locations. (paras. 76-79 showing tracking of item through regions with system)
Claim 15. Musiani as modified by Thramann teaches the POS system device of claim 11. Musiani teaches wherein the memory includes further instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the processing circuitry is configured to:
send an indication that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned. (para. 90, red lights when item is not scanned but bagged)
Claims 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani (US 2024/0242503) in view of Pricochi (US 2020/0234056).
Claims 4 and 13. Musiani teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying the starting POS subregion and the ending POS subregion of the target object based on the successive image data or the object movement track; and (para. 61 showing identification of a region (subregion); para.75 showing starting and ending regions of cart and bag area respectively)
determining a chronological order of the identified POS subregions
(Musiani para. 68 showing order of steps determination, said steps including order or regions and correct planement of cart, scan, and bag region)
Musiani does not, but Pricochi teaches: determining a duration between the starting and ending POS subregions that correspond to the object movement track. (para. 35 showing duration recording of time between basket and bag area)
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 object tracking in Musiani with the known technique of monitoring a time of a process in Pricochi, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for tracking and categorizing activity based on time thresholds. See para. 36 of Pricochi.
Claim 5. Musiani as modified by Thramann and Pricochi teaches the method of claim 4. Musiani teaches further comprising:
determining, for the set of successive images, the set of successive object locations of the target object in the POS region based on the successive image data; and (paras. 76-79 showing tracking of item through regions with system and identifying regions)
determining the object movement track based on the set of successive object locations. (paras. 76-79 showing tracking of item through regions with system)
Claim 6. Musiani as modified by Thramann and Pricochi teaches the method of claim 5. Musiani teaches further comprising:
determining a trajectory of the target object based on the set of successive object locations and image data. (para. 90 showing identification of an item trajectory based on image data)
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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