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 .
Priority
Foreign Priority is acknowledged from Japanese application JP2023-174567 with a filing date of 10/06/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 10/04/2024 and 05/14/2025 were reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 8-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an imaging unit”, “determination circuitry”, “a reporting unit”, “image data acquisition circuitry”, and “display control circuitry” relevant to Claims 1-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The independent claims recite an imaging unit capturing a target area including a placement area where unregistered and registered items are placed, determining whether each item is unregistered or registered based on the captured images, and reporting whether each item is unregistered or registered based on the results of the determination.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 1, the limitations of "determination circuitry configured to determine whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on images captured by the imaging unit”, as drafted only involves mental processes, such as determining whether each item is a registered item or not a registered item based on the images. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional step "A reporting system comprising: an imaging unit configured to capture a target area including a placement area where unregistered items and registered items are placed; and a reporting unit configured to report whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on results of determination by the determination circuitry”, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity. The other additional recited element in certain other claims is just a processor and a computer-readable storage medium, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claims 16 and 17.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-15 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the removal of an item and the return of the item after satisfying a registration criterion to determine the item as registered as recited in Claim 2 or determining an item and a returning item have a certain level of similarity as recited in Claim 4 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps or steps that could be completed within the human mind and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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, 8-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchimochi (US 20180068533 A1) in view of Yepez (US 20230345093 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsuchimochi teaches "A reporting system comprising: an imaging unit configured to capture a target area including a placement area where unregistered items and registered items are placed"; (Tsuchimochi, Claims 1 and 5, teaches an imaging unit imaging an action of a customer to generate an image and a detection unit using the image generated by the imaging unit to detect that a product is disposed in a detection target area including a recognition area being an area in which the product is recognized by the recognition unit wherein the detection unit determines a number of products disposed in the detection target area, and wherein the determination process is a process of determining whether or not the recognition unit recognizes the products of the number of products, i.e., imaging unit configured to capture a target area which includes a placement area of unregistered items and registered items being the recognized products and the unrecognized products).
However, Tsuchimochi does not explicitly teach "determination circuitry configured to determine whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on images captured by the imaging unit; and a reporting unit configured to report whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on results of determination by the determination circuitry”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Yepez teaches "determination circuitry configured to determine whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on images captured by the imaging unit"; (Yepez, Paras. 43 and 49-52, teaches scanning first item codes from a scan area and obtaining multiple images of each of a plurality of items located in the scan area during the transaction and performing item recognition on the multiple images of each item and assigns second item codes to the items wherein the first item codes are compared to the second item codes to detect if a scanned barcode does not match an identified item as well as scenarios in which the item tracker and recognizer determines an item may be unaccounted for when a total recorded item count does not match a total items seen count, i.e., determine whether each item placed on the placement area is unregistered or registered based on the images captured being the determination if the item codes match indicating a registered item or the item being unaccounted for being the unregistered item);
"and a reporting unit configured to report whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on results of determination by the determination circuitry"; (Yepez, Paras. 43 and 53, teaches the transaction manager raising an alert if an item barcode recorded by the scanner does not comport with an item code recorded for that corresponding item by item tracker and recognizer wherein the transaction manager may display an interface screen asking the customer if there was an item the customer put back or failed to scan in which an alert may be processed to cause an attendant to be dispatched to perform an item audit for the transaction, i.e., reporting unit to report whether each item place is registered or unregistered based on the determination of the items being the generation of an alert based on the determined mismatches or unaccounted items).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tsuchimochi by including the determine of each item being registered or not and reporting whether or not each item is registered taught by Yepez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the monitoring of the terminal (Yepez, Para. 2, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve monitoring of the associated self-service checkout terminal).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein, if a predetermined non-registration determination criterion is satisfied for at least one of items placed on the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit, the determination circuitry determines that the at least one item satisfying the non-registration determination criterion is an unregistered item"; (Tsuchimochi, Para. 79, teaches the determination unit determines whether or not a product is recognized by the recognition unit within a predetermined time from when it is detected that a product is disposed within the detection target area wherein the determination unit determines that a product is not recognized by the recognition unit in a case where it is detected that a product is disposed within the detection target area, i.e., predetermined non-registration determination criterion is satisfied for the item placed on the placement area in the images captured being the product not being recognized within the predetermined time and determine the item as unregistered or unrecognized).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez teaches "The reporting system according to claim 8, wherein a requirement for satisfaction of the non-registration determination criterion for at least one of items placed on the placement area is that the at least one item is not removed from the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit"; (Tsuchimochi, Para. 79, teaches the determination unit determines whether or not a product is recognized by the recognition unit within a predetermined time from when it is detected that a product is disposed within the detection target area wherein the determination unit determines that a product is not recognized by the recognition unit in a case where it is detected that a product is disposed within the detection target area, i.e., requirement for satisfaction of the non-registration determination criterion includes the item placed in the placement area is not removed from the placement area being the case where the product is detected to be disposed within the detection target area).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez teaches "The reporting system according to claim 8, wherein a requirement for satisfaction of the non-registration determination criterion for at least one of items placed on the placement area is that a position of the at least one item is not changed in the images captured by the imaging unit"; (Tsuchimochi, Para. 79, teaches the determination unit determines whether or not a product is recognized by the recognition unit within a predetermined time from when it is detected that a product is disposed within the detection target area wherein the determination unit determines that a product is not recognized by the recognition unit in a case where it is detected that a product is disposed within the detection target area wherein in a case where a product is not recognized even after a predetermined time, e.g. 0.5 seconds, has elapsed in spite of being disposed within the detection target area, it is possible that the customer's mistake in operation, the operation error of the recognition unit, or the like described above occur, i.e., requirement for satisfaction of the non-registration determination criterion includes the item placed in the placement area has not changed position and remains disposed within the detection target area).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez teaches "The reporting system according to claim 8, wherein a requirement for satisfaction of the non-registration determination criterion for at least one of items placed on the placement area is that the at least one item is not touched by hand in the images captured by the imaging unit"; (Yepez, Paras. 25, 27, and 43, teaches the cameras have an unobstructed and clear view of the scan area to capture images of the items placed in the scan area wherein transaction data recorded by a transaction manager is then compared against the list of items identified from the images and the scanned bar codes scanned, and if a discrepancy is detected, the customer is alerted to the discrepancy through the transaction screens and wherein an item being completely or partially covered by a hand of an operator may notify the transaction manager that an item is unaccounted for when a total recorded item count does not match a total items seen count and asking the customer if there was an item the customer put back or failed to scan, i.e., requirement for satisfaction of the non-registration determination criterion for an item placed on the placement area includes the item not being touched by hand in the images being the cameras requiring a clear and unobstructed view of the items to determine discrepancies such as un-scanned or unregistered items and a hand covering an item prompts a notification for removal).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi and Yepez references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 11. Thus, the system recited in claim 11 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez.
Regarding Claim 16 the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez teaches "A device comprising: image data acquisition circuitry configured to obtain image data, the image data capturing a target area including a placement area where unregistered items and registered items are placed"; (Tsuchimochi, Claims 1 and 5, teaches an imaging unit imaging an action of a customer to generate an image and a detection unit using the image generated by the imaging unit to detect that a product is disposed in a detection target area including a recognition area being an area in which the product is recognized by the recognition unit wherein the detection unit determines a number of products disposed in the detection target area, and wherein the determination process is a process of determining whether or not the recognition unit recognizes the products of the number of products, i.e., obtain image data to capture a target area including placement of unregistered and registered items);
"determination circuitry configured to determine whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item, based on the obtained image data"; (Yepez, Paras. 43 and 49-52, teaches scanning first item codes from a scan area and obtaining multiple images of each of a plurality of items located in the scan area during the transaction and performing item recognition on the multiple images of each item and assigns second item codes to the items wherein the first item codes are compared to the second item codes to detect if a scanned barcode does not match an identified item as well as scenarios in which the item tracker and recognizer determines an item may be unaccounted for when a total recorded item count does not match a total items seen count, i.e., determine whether each item placed on the placement area is unregistered or registered based on the images captured being the determination if the item codes match indicating a registered item or the item being unaccounted for being the unregistered item);
"and display control circuitry configured to cause a display to display results of determination by the determination circuitry"; (Yepez, Paras. 43 and 53, teaches the transaction manager raising an alert if an item barcode recorded by the scanner does not comport with an item code recorded for that corresponding item by item tracker and recognizer wherein the transaction manager may display an interface screen asking the customer if there was an item the customer put back or failed to scan in which an alert may be processed to cause an attendant to be dispatched to perform an item audit for the transaction, i.e., display results of the determination).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi and Yepez references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 16. Thus, the system recited in claim 16 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez.
Regarding Claim 17 the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez teaches "A method comprising: acquiring image data that captures a target area including a placement area where unregistered items and registered items are placed"; (Tsuchimochi, Claims 1 and 5, teaches an imaging unit imaging an action of a customer to generate an image and a detection unit using the image generated by the imaging unit to detect that a product is disposed in a detection target area including a recognition area being an area in which the product is recognized by the recognition unit wherein the detection unit determines a number of products disposed in the detection target area, and wherein the determination process is a process of determining whether or not the recognition unit recognizes the products of the number of products, i.e., obtain image data to capture a target area including placement of unregistered and registered items);
"determining, based on the acquired image data, whether each item placed on the placement area is an unregistered item or a registered item"; (Yepez, Paras. 43 and 49-52, teaches scanning first item codes from a scan area and obtaining multiple images of each of a plurality of items located in the scan area during the transaction and performing item recognition on the multiple images of each item and assigns second item codes to the items wherein the first item codes are compared to the second item codes to detect if a scanned barcode does not match an identified item as well as scenarios in which the item tracker and recognizer determines an item may be unaccounted for when a total recorded item count does not match a total items seen count, i.e., determine whether each item placed on the placement area is unregistered or registered based on the images captured being the determination if the item codes match indicating a registered item or the item being unaccounted for being the unregistered item);
"and outputting results of determination"; (Yepez, Paras. 43 and 53, teaches the transaction manager raising an alert if an item barcode recorded by the scanner does not comport with an item code recorded for that corresponding item by item tracker and recognizer wherein the transaction manager may display an interface screen asking the customer if there was an item the customer put back or failed to scan in which an alert may be processed to cause an attendant to be dispatched to perform an item audit for the transaction, i.e., output results of the determination).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi and Yepez references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 17. Thus, the method recited in claim 17 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande et al. (US 20230120798 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez does not explicitly teach "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein, if at least one of items placed on the placement area is removed from the placement area and then returned to the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit and a predetermined registration determination criterion is satisfied in the images, the determination circuitry determines that the at least one item returned to the placement area is a registered item".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Palande teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein, if at least one of items placed on the placement area is removed from the placement area and then returned to the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit and a predetermined registration determination criterion is satisfied in the images, the determination circuitry determines that the at least one item returned to the placement area is a registered item"; (Palande, Claims 12-14 and 18 and Para. 35, teaches identifying items on the captured images and determining that the item has been placed in scanning range of the scanner from the captured images wherein, subsequent to the initiation of the detection of mis-scan, determine that a previously bagged item has been brought into scanning range of the scanner and determine that a mis-scan of the previously bagged item has not occurred wherein a condition to suspend the mis-scan alert includes the tracked item being scanned and staged in the second staging location, i.e., removing an item on the placement area being the bringing of a previously bagged item back to the scanning range of the scanner and then returning the item to the placement area in the images captured and a predetermined registration determination criterion is satisfied to determine the item returned to the placement area is a registered item being the re-scanning and re-staging of the previously bagged item in the second staging area to determine that the item has not been mis-scanned).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tsuchimochi and Yepez by including the determination of an item removed and then returned after satisfying a registration criterion as being a registered item taught by Palande. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it detects mis-scans of items during checkout (Palande, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to detect mis-scans of items during a checkout process).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande teaches "The reporting system according to claim 2, wherein at least one requirement for satisfaction of the registration determination criterion for an item removed from the placement area is that, in the images captured by the imaging unit, the item has been subjected to a predetermined operation in an area included in the target area other than the placement area"; (Palande, Claims 12-14 and 18 and Paras. 14 and 35, teaches identifying items on the captured images and determining that the item has been placed in scanning range of the scanner from the captured images in which an identifier is assigned to each scanned item wherein, subsequent to the initiation of the detection of mis-scan, determine that a previously bagged item has been brought into scanning range of the scanner and determine that a mis-scan of the previously bagged item has not occurred wherein a condition to suspend the mis-scan alert includes the tracked item being scanned and staged in the second staging location wherein the first area of interest includes a first proximate area encompassing the scanner, i.e., satisfying the registration determination criterion for an item removed from the placement area being the scanning of an item and assigning an identifier includes the condition that the item has been subjected to the operation in an area other than the placement area being the scanning of the item by the scanner in the first area as opposed to the placement area being the second staging area or location).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, and Palande references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 3. Thus, the system recited in claim 3 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein, at least on condition that at least one of items placed on the placement area is removed from the placement area and then returned to the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit (Palande, Claims 12-14 and 18 and Paras. 35, teaches identifying items on the captured images and determining that the item has been placed in scanning range of the scanner from the captured images wherein, subsequent to the initiation of the detection of mis-scan, determine that a previously bagged item has been brought into scanning range of the scanner and determine that a mis-scan of the previously bagged item has not occurred wherein a condition to suspend the mis-scan alert includes the tracked item being scanned and staged in the second staging location, i.e., removing an item on the placement area being the bringing of a previously bagged item back to the scanning range of the scanner and then returning the item to the placement area in the images captured and a predetermined registration determination criterion is satisfied to determine the item returned to the placement area is a registered item being the re-scanning and re-staging of the previously bagged item in the second staging area to determine that the item has not been mis-scanned);
“and that the determination circuitry receives, from an item registration system for registering items, a registration notification for an item removed from the placement area”; (Yepez, Para. 27, teaches alerting the customer via the transaction screen if the customer quickly places an item and the base and rapidly removes it, i.e., registration notification for an item that got removed from the placement area).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, and Palande references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 5. Thus, the system recited in claim 5 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein, if at least one of items placed on the placement area is removed from the placement area and then returned to the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit, the determination circuitry determines that the at least one item returned to the placement area is a registered item"; (Palande, Claims 12-14 and 18 and Para. 35, teaches identifying items on the captured images and determining that the item has been placed in scanning range of the scanner from the captured images wherein, subsequent to the initiation of the detection of mis-scan, determine that a previously bagged item has been brought into scanning range of the scanner and determine that a mis-scan of the previously bagged item has not occurred wherein a condition to suspend the mis-scan alert includes the tracked item being scanned and staged in the second staging location, i.e., removing an item on the placement area being the bringing of a previously bagged item back to the scanning range of the scanner and then returning the item to the placement area in the images captured to determine the item returned to the placement area is a registered item being the re-scanning and re-staging of the previously bagged item in the second staging area to determine that the item has not been mis-scanned).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, and Palande references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 12. Thus, the system recited in claim 12 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez, Palande, and Potter et al. (US 20250005948 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Palande does not explicitly teach "The reporting system according to claim 2, wherein at least one requirement for satisfaction of the registration determination criterion for an item removed from the placement area is that, in the images captured by the imaging unit, the item and an item returned to the placement area have a certain level of similarity".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Potter teaches "The reporting system according to claim 2, wherein at least one requirement for satisfaction of the registration determination criterion for an item removed from the placement area is that, in the images captured by the imaging unit, the item and an item returned to the placement area have a certain level of similarity"; (Potter, Paras. 80-81 and 84, teaches comparing the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object in which the similarity value may be compared to a threshold value to determine the second object as substantially similar and wherein the bioptic indicia reader may transmit the first indicia value to the host in response to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object, i.e., requirement for satisfaction of the registration is the items have a certain level of similarity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tsuchimochi, Yepez, and Palande wherein the first object is the removed object and the second object is the returned object by including the second item having a certain level of similarity to the first item to satisfy a registration determination criterion taught by Potter. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it allows the system to operate more quickly, accurately, and efficiently (Potter, Para. 80, teaches the motivation of combination to be to operate more quickly, accurately, and efficiently).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez, Palande, and Potter teaches "The reporting system according to claim 5, wherein, at least on condition that an item removed from the placement area and an item returned to the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit have a certain level of similarity"; (Potter, Paras. 80-81 and 84, teaches comparing the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object in which the similarity value may be compared to a threshold value to determine the second object as substantially similar and wherein the bioptic indicia reader may transmit the first indicia value to the host in response to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object, i.e., captured image data of items have a certain level of similarity);
"the determination circuitry determines that the item returned to the placement area is a registered item"; (Palande, Claims 12-14 and 18 and Paras. 35, teaches identifying items on the captured images and determining that the item has been placed in scanning range of the scanner from the captured images wherein, subsequent to the initiation of the detection of mis-scan, determine that a previously bagged item has been brought into scanning range of the scanner and determine that a mis-scan of the previously bagged item has not occurred, i.e., determine the returned item is a registered item).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, Palande, and Potter references presented in the rejection of Claim 4, applies to claim 6. Thus, the system recited in claim 6 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez, Palande, and Potter.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez, Palande, and Potter teaches "The reporting system according to claim 5, wherein, at least on condition that the item for which the registration notification has been issued and an item returned to the placement area in the images captured by the imaging unit have a certain level of similarity"; (Potter, Paras. Abstract and 80-81 and 84, teaches a scanning system including a first imager configured to capture a first image of a first object and a second imager configured to capture a second image of a second object passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader and comparing the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object in which the similarity value may be compared to a threshold value to determine the second object as substantially similar and wherein the bioptic indicia reader may transmit the first indicia value to the host in response to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object and wherein the determination of substantial similarity may indicate that the second object is a duplicate of the already-scanned first object and accordingly, the indicia and indicia value of the first object would be a duplicate of the second object, i.e., captured image data of items have a certain level of similarity);
"the determination circuitry determines that the item returned to the placement area is a registered item"; (Palande, Claims 12-14 and 18 and Paras. 35, teaches identifying items on the captured images and determining that the item has been placed in scanning range of the scanner from the captured images wherein, subsequent to the initiation of the detection of mis-scan, determine that a previously bagged item has been brought into scanning range of the scanner and determine that a mis-scan of the previously bagged item has not occurred, i.e., determine the returned item is a registered item).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, Palande, and Potter references presented in the rejection of Claim 4, applies to claim 7. Thus, the system recited in claim 7 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez, Palande, and Potter.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Chaubard et al. (US 11481751 B1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez does not explicitly teach "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein the reporting unit comprises a display configured to display at least the placement area included in the target area captured by the imaging unit, and the reporting unit is configured to cause the display to display items placed on the placement area in a manner that allows for distinguishing between the unregistered items and the registered items".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chaubard teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein the reporting unit comprises a display configured to display at least the placement area included in the target area captured by the imaging unit, and the reporting unit is configured to cause the display to display items placed on the placement area in a manner that allows for distinguishing between the unregistered items and the registered items"; (Chaubard, Col. 2 Lines 5-37 and Col. 5 Lines 55-67 and Col. 8 Lines 20-42, teaches all items in a store are recognized by photo images as they pass through a checkout area such as a designated area on a table wherein a small display screen positioned above the existing barcode reader displays a red bounding box around an unidentified item if the cameras fail to capture or identify to the threshold probability of the item and wherein a green bounding box can be shown around each item as it is identified, i.e., display the placement area included in the target area captured by the imaging unit to display items in a manner to distinguish between unregistered items and registered items being the display of green bounding boxes around identified items and red bounding boxes around unidentified items).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tsuchimochi and Yepez by including the display allowing for the distinguishing between unregistered items and registered items taught by Chaubard. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it expedites the checkout process and improves accuracy (Chaubard, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to expedite the checkout process and improve accuracy).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Chaubard teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein the reporting unit comprises a projector configured to project different images onto respective items placed on the placement area, depending on whether the items are the unregistered items or the registered items"; (Chaubard, Col. 2 Lines 5-37 and Col. 5 Lines 55-67 and Col. 8 Lines 20-42, teaches all items in a store are recognized by photo images as they pass through a checkout area such as a designated area on a table wherein a small display screen positioned above the existing barcode reader displays a red bounding box around an unidentified item if the cameras fail to capture or identify to the threshold probability of the item and wherein a green bounding box can be shown around each item as it is identified, i.e., project different images onto respective items placed in the placement area depending on whether the items are registered or not being the green and red bounding boxes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, and Chaubard references presented in the rejection of Claim 13, applies to claim 14. Thus, the system recited in claim 14 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Chaubard.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references of Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Chaubard teaches "The reporting system according to claim 1, wherein the reporting unit comprises a display provided in a placement surface of the placement area, and the reporting unit is configured to cause the display to display indications in association with respective items placed on the placement area, the indications indicating whether the items are the unregistered items or the registered items"; (Chaubard, Figure 3 and Col. 2 Lines 5-37 and Col. 5 Lines 55-67 and Col. 8 Lines 20-42, teaches all items in a store are recognized by photo images as they pass through a checkout area such as a designated area on a table wherein a small display screen positioned above the existing barcode reader displays a red bounding box around an unidentified item if the cameras fail to capture or identify to the threshold probability of the item and wherein a green bounding box can be shown around each item as it is identified, i.e., display provided on a surface in the placement area and cause the display to indicate whether the items are unregistered or registered being the red and green bounding boxes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tsuchimochi, Yepez, and Chaubard references presented in the rejection of Claim 13, applies to claim 15. Thus, the system recited in claim 15 is met by Tsuchimochi in view of Yepez and Chaubard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights