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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s initially filed application dated 10/02/2024, claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative claim 11 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A point-of-sale terminal, comprising: a bagging area; a bagging area sensor; an operation area sensor; a data storage unit for storing a reference output of the bagging area sensor and a reference output of the operation area sensor; an output device for providing information to a user at the point-of-sale terminal; a communication interface for connecting to a monitoring terminal; and a processor configured to: receive sensor output from the bagging area sensor and the operation area sensor; determine, based on the received sensor output from the bagging area sensor, whether merchandise is present in the bagging area after a registration of merchandise at the point-of-sale terminal; determine, based on the received sensor output from the operation area sensor, whether there is a person at the point-of-sale terminal; and cause the output device to output a warning when it is determined, based on the received sensor output, that the person is at the point-of-sale terminal during an on-going transaction at the point-of-sale but merchandise is no longer present in the bagging area after the registration of merchandise.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “point of sale terminal, sensors, output device, communication interface, and processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “point of sale terminal, sensors, output device, communication interface, and processor”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 5 additional elements – “point of sale terminal, sensors, output device, communication interface, and processor”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “point of sale terminal, sensors, output device, communication interface, and processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “point of sale terminal, sensors, output device, communication interface, and processor” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 8,196,822 B2 to Goncalves ("Goncalves"), in view of United States Patent No. 7,416,117 B1 to Morrison ("Morrison"), and further in view of United States Patent No. 5,965,861 to Addy et al. ("Addy").
In regards to claims 1, 11, and 19, Goncalves discloses the following limitations:
A monitoring device, comprising: a data storage unit; (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 and col. 3 ll. 8-29 and col. 4 ll. 10-20 disclosing memory storing reference image features and reference weights)
bagging area sensor; (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 col. 3 ll. 1-30 disclosing one or more video cameras trained on the counter and the bagging area, and col. 3 ll. 1-30 disclosing the bagging area scale 180)
a communication interface; (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 col. 4 ll. 1-10 disclosing the network/communication module of the self-checkout station)
and a processor configured to: receive sensor output from at least one sensor associated with a point-of-sale terminal; (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 col. 3 ll. 1-30 disclosing one or more video cameras trained on the counter and the bagging area, and col. 3 ll. 1-30 disclosing the bagging area scale 180)
determine, based on the received sensor output, whether merchandise is present in a bagging area after a registration of merchandise at the point-of-sale terminal; (see at least Goncalves col. 3 ll. 50–67 and col. 4 ll. 1–35 disclosing detection of items placed into the bagging area by camera and scale outputs after UPC scanning, and col. 4 ll 46- col. 5 ll. 55 disclosing the system's detection of expected items not being present after a scan)
and cause an output device to output a warning… wherein the warning is output to the person at the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Goncalves Figures 4-8 the verification/recognition process intervenes in the transaction by alerting the customer of a potential problem via the customer interface 130 / touch screen display, prompting the customer to rescan, or temporarily stopping the transaction when the bagging-area sensor outputs are inconsistent with the registered items; the touch-screen display 130 is the output device through which the warning is presented to the customer).
While Goncalves discloses sensing a checkout operation of a customer at the point of sale device and providing alerts to the customer (see above citations), Goncalves does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
operation area sensor;
determine, based on the received sensor output, whether there is a person at the point-of-sale terminal;
and cause an output device to output a warning when it is determined, based on the received sensor output, that the person is at the point-of-sale terminal during an on-going transaction at the point-of-sale but merchandise is no longer present in the bagging area after the registration of merchandise, wherein the warning is output to the person at the point-of-sale terminal.
The Examiner provides Morrison to teach the following limitations:
operation area sensor; determine, based on the received sensor output, whether there is a person at the point-of-sale terminal during an on-going transaction at the point-of-sale (see at least Morrison Figure 4 and claim 1 disclosing receiving movement signals from a plurality of adjoining detection zones of a floor mat in a checkout floor area adjacent to a self-service checkout terminal in response to the detection zones reacting to a weight of the user as the user walks on the detection zones; tracking directional movements of the user from the movement signals as the user walks about the checkout floor area in any direction while using the self-service checkout terminal; and determining whether the user is at the checkout floor area while a transaction is on-going by determining whether a payment-tendered control signal was received indicative of the user having tendered payment for the registered merchandise items; see also Morrison col. 7 ll 42 – col. 8 ll 36 teaches that the self-service checkout terminal records a number of merchandise items for purchase by the user during the on-going transaction and tracks the user's presence in relation to that on-going transaction).
The Examiner further provides Addy to teach the following limitations:
determine, based on the received sensor output, that merchandise is no longer present in the bagging area after the registration of merchandise (Addy teaches that a self-service checkout terminal can be configured to detect the removal of an item that was previously placed in the grocery container or on the weight scale, and to generate a control signal indicative of that removal during the checkout transaction. see at least Addy claim 5 disclosing detecting removal of the item from the grocery container with the video system and generating a removal control signal in response to the item removal detecting step; see also Addy claim 8 disclosing detecting removal of the item from the weight scale zone with the video system and generating a scale-removal control signal in response thereto).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system as taught by Goncalves the teachings of Morrison and Addy in order for customer-facing warnings being output to the person while the person is present at the POS during an on-going transaction in response to detected removal of registered merchandise from the bagging area, and 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 2, 12, and 20, the combination of Goncalves and Addy discloses warning the customer at the POS via the customer-facing display when an in-transaction discrepancy or item removal is detected, and a network connection to an external device (see Goncalves Figure 3) and Addy further discloses generating an "electronic log value" and a "personnel signal" when the log threshold is exceeded (see at least Addy claim 3), but the combination does not expressly disclose causing an alarm notification to be output via the communication interface to an external/monitoring device specifically when the person is not at the point-of-sale terminal during an on-going transaction at the point-of-sale.
The Examiner provides Morrison to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to: cause an alarm notification to be output via the communication interface to the external device when it is determined, based on the received sensor output, that the person is not at the point-of-sale terminal during an on-going transaction at the point-of-sale and merchandise is no longer present in the bagging area after the registration of merchandise. (see at least Morrison claim 1 disclosing receiving a last movement signal as said user leaves said checkout floor area indicative of said user ceasing operation of said self-service checkout terminal; determining if a payment-tendered control signal was received by said self-service checkout terminal indicative of said user having tendered payment for said merchandise items prior to receipt of said last movement signal; and if said payment-tendered control signal was not received by said self-service checkout terminal, operating a summoning device so as to summon retail personnel by said self-service checkout terminal; see also Morrison claim 3 disclosing that the summoning device comprises a paging system coupled to said self-service checkout terminal).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system as taught by Goncalves and Addy the teachings of Morrison in order to alert via the summoning device or paging system that there is a security risk with a customer that has walked away during a transaction (see at least Morrison col. 8 ll 15-65), and 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 3, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the data storage unit stores a reference output for the at least one sensor, and the processor determines whether merchandise is present in the bagging area by comparing the received sensor output to the stored reference output. (see at least Goncalves Figures 4-8 and col. 4 ll. 35–67 and col. 5 ll. 1–25 disclosing storage of reference image features and reference weights for items, and the processor's comparison of received bagging-area camera and scale data against the stored references)
In regards to claim 5, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the at least one sensor associated with the point-of-sale terminal includes a camera in the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Goncalves col. 3 ll. 8-18 and FIG. 1 disclosing one or more video cameras within the self-checkout station)
In regards to claim 6, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the at least one sensor associated with the point-of-sale terminal includes a scale integrated with the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 col. 3 ll. 19-29 disclosing a weight scale 180 incorporated into the bag rack 170 of the self-checkout station)
In regards to claim 10, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the output device is a display screen of the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 col. 4 ll. 20-33 disclosing the customer interface / touch screen display 130 of the self-checkout station)
In regards to claim 13, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the processor determines whether merchandise is present in the bagging area by comparing the received sensor output from the bagging area sensor to the stored reference output for the bagging area sensor, (see at least Goncalves col. 4 ll. 35–67 and col. 5 ll. 1–25 disclosing the processor's reference-based comparison of bagging-area sensor outputs and operation-area camera outputs)
The Examiner provides Morrison to teach the following limitations
and the processor determines whether the person is at the point-of-sale terminal by comparing the received sensor output from the operation area sensor to the stored reference output for the operation area sensor (see at least Morrison claim 1 disclosing the processor of the self-service checkout terminal tracking directional movements of the user based on movement signals received from the detection zones of the floor mat, and determining whether the user is present in the checkout floor area based on those signals against the floor mat's reference detection zones).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system as taught by Goncalves the teachings of Morrison and Addy in order for customer-facing warnings being output to the person while the person is present at the POS during an on-going transaction in response to detected removal of registered merchandise from the bagging area, and 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 14, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the bagging area sensor is a first camera, and the operation area sensor is a second camera. (see at least Goncalves FIG. 2 disclosing one or more cameras with one trained on the counter and one trained on the bagging area)
In regards to claim 17, Goncalves discloses:
a barcode scanner to read a barcode from an item of merchandise to register the item in a sales transaction at the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Goncalves Figures 1-3 disclosing UPC scanner 120)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 8,196,822 B2 to Goncalves ("Goncalves"), in view of United States Patent No. 7,416,117 B1 to Morrison ("Morrison"), in view of United States Patent No. 5,965,861 to Addy et al. ("Addy").and further in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 18, Goncalves discloses:
wherein the output device is a display screen, and the warning is displayed on the display screen as a popup window over a registration screen being displayed on the display screen. (see at least Goncalves col. 4 ll 20-35 disclosing that warnings are presented on touch screen 130 along with the registration/transaction display)
Further the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to use pop up windows to draw users attention to something important, such as an alert or warning.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system as taught by Goncalves the teachings of Official Notice 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 8,196,822 B2 to Goncalves ("Goncalves"), in view of United States Patent No. 7,416,117 B1 to Morrison ("Morrison"), in view of United States Patent No. 5,965,861 to Addy et al. ("Addy").and further in view of United States Patent No. 9,564,031 B2 to Migdal et al. ("Migdal").
In regards to claim 4, Goncalves does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the data storage unit stores a reference output for the at least one sensor, and the processor determines whether the person is at the point-of-sale terminal by comparing the received sensor output to the stored reference output.
The Examiner provides Migdal to teach the following limitations:
wherein the data storage unit stores a reference output for the at least one sensor, and the processor determines whether the person is at the point-of-sale terminal by comparing the received sensor output to the stored reference output. (see at least Migdal col. 5–7 and FIG. 3 disclosing video analysis at a self-checkout terminal that monitors the transaction area against reference image data, including background-subtraction / region-of-interest comparison to detect operator activity, and modifying the video feed to simplify it by cropping or masking the imagery relative to reference views)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine in the system as taught by Goncalves, Morrison, and Addy the teachings of Migdal 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, Goncalves's existing image-processing infrastructure is already used for storing-and-comparing-against-reference for items; extending the same comparison technique to operator/customer presence detection in the operation area is a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
In regards to claim 7, Goncalves discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a bagging area camera in the point-of-sale terminal and an operation area camera in the point-of-sale terminal, the bagging area camera is positioned to image the bagging area, and the operation area camera is positioned to image an operation area in front of the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Goncalves Figure 1 multiple cameras positioned to image front side and top down areas of the bagging and operation area (160-162 and 120)
In regards to claim 8, Goncalves does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a camera separate from the point-of-sale terminal and positioned to image the bagging area and an operation area in front of the point-of-sale terminal.
The Examiner provides Migdal to teach the following limitations:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a camera separate from the point-of-sale terminal and positioned to image the bagging area and an operation area in front of the point-of-sale terminal. (see at least Migdal col. 6–7 and FIG. 5 disclosing camera(s) separate from the POS terminal, including overhead cameras positioned to capture both the transaction area and the bagging area)
Therefore it would have been obvious to include in the system and method as taught by Goncalves the teachings of Migdal 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 9, Goncalves does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to extract a bagging area image and an operation area image from an image received from the camera.
The Examiner provides Migdal to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to extract a bagging area image and an operation area image from an image received from the camera. (see at least Migdal col. 8 ll. 1–25 and FIG. 3 disclosing modifying / cropping / masking image regions of the video feed corresponding to the transaction area and bagging area)
Therefore it would have been obvious to include in the system and method as taught by Goncalves the teachings of Migdal 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 8,196,822 B2 to Goncalves ("Goncalves"), in view of United States Patent No. 7,416,117 B1 to Morrison ("Morrison"), in view of United States Patent No. 5,965,861 to Addy et al. ("Addy").and further in view of WIPO Publication No. WO 2003/049057 A1 to Greyling ("Greyling").
In regards to claims 15 and 16, the combination of Goncalves, Morrison, and Addy discloses that the bagging area sensor can be a scale or camera (see at least Goncalves disclosure of the bag rack with scales) and the operation area sensor can be a pressure-sensitive floor mat (see at least Morrison claim 1), but does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the bagging area sensor is a scale, and the operation area sensor is an infrared sensor; and wherein the bagging area sensor is one of a camera, a scale, and a distance sensor, and the operation area sensor is one of a camera, an infrared sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor
The Examiner provides Greyling to teach the following limitations:
the customer-presence sensor at a POS may be implemented as an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or a real time image processing sensor (see at least Greyling claim 19 of the motion detector for the customer position at a POS, which may be any one of an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or a real time image processing sensor).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine in the system as taught by Goncalves, Morrison, and Addy, the teachings of Greyling 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights