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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response (“Response”) on 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Smith fails to disclose "while a state of a mobile POS device is a locked state, updating an electronic shopping cart based on a received product, wherein the electronic shopping cart is unassociated with any user account while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state" (Response: pg. 9). Smith teaches “the method 200 provides the customer with no access to his or her profile when the device 12 is operating in the locked state 305” (Smith: ¶ 0055), which clearly teaches “wherein the electronic shopping cart is unassociated with any user account while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state”. This leaves the embodiment of “while a state of a mobile POS device is a locked state, updating an electronic shopping cart based on a received product”. Smith teaches in “the locked state 14, the device 12 or other apparatus 24 prohibits certain operations from being performed on the device 12.” (Smith: ¶ 0026). Smith further teaches that while in the locked state “the device's software application in some embodiments still does not allow the customer to perform at least some functions on the device 12G. Such functions may include for instance scanning items in the store 10 and/or using the local software application to complete payment” (Smith: ¶ 0058) and a user “scans or otherwise adds products to be purchased to a shopping cart” (Smith: ¶ 0039). Examiner brings Applicant’s attention to the embodiment where Smith would teach the prohibited operations being scanning items in the store 10 or using the local software application to complete payment. Meaning there is an embodiment where scanning items in the store would not be a function that is not allowed while in the locked state. Therefore, Smith teaches the embodiment that a user can scan items in the store to be added to a shopping list when in a locked state and then unlock their device just to complete a payment. Further, while Mascavage does not use the term locked and unlocked, the instant Publication states “the staff member may login/authenticate to the system so as to unlock the mobile device 630 such as, for example, to check out or continue the cart building” (¶ 0107). Therefore, Mascavage teaching of scanning item’s identifiers to be added to the shopping list and then logging in to checkout (Mascavage: ¶¶ 0040 and 0088) also teaches the broad limitation of a POS device being in the locked or unlocked state (signed in/out).
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.
Claims 1, 9, 12-13, 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0324780 A1 to Smith et al. (“Smith”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0087467 A1 to Mascavage et al. (“Mascavage”).
As per claims 1, 13 and 25, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith includes:
a processor-implemented method for processing transactions at mobile point-of-sale (POS) devices, the method comprising (Smith: Abstract and ¶ 0004):
while a state of a mobile POS device is a locked state, updating an electronic shopping cart based on a received… product, wherein the electronic shopping cart is unassociated with any user account while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state (Smith: ¶¶ 0026 “a device 12 operating in a locked state 14. In the locked state 14, the device 12 or other apparatus 24 prohibits certain operations from being performed on the device 12. Which particular operations are prohibited depends on whether the device 12 is secured on a device-level, an application-level, or operation-level as described above, all of which to some extent prohibit certain operations from being performed”, 0039 “scans or otherwise adds products to be purchased to a shopping cart”, 0052 “the device 12 is configured to transition directly from a locked state 305 to an unlocked state 315 responsive to a user authenticating himself or herself through the unabbreviated (i.e., full) first authentication process”, 0053 “the electronic device 12 is usable by different customers, e.g., who authenticate themselves to the device 12 or the other apparatus 24. For example, where the device 12 is the kiosk 12E shown in FIG. 1, the kiosk 12E may be generally accessible to any customer for providing retail information and/or retail services to that customer (e.g., self-checkout POS transactions). In this and other scenarios, the device 12 or other apparatus 24 may store or otherwise access a plurality of customer profiles that are specific to individual customers. A customer's profile may include for instance customer-specific information such as payment information (e.g., stored credit card information), purchase history, purchase recommendations, contact information, or the like” and 0058 “the local authentication to the device's software application in some embodiments still does not allow the customer to perform at least some functions on the device 12G. Such functions may include for instance scanning items in the store 10 and/or using the local software application to complete payment” and 0055 “the method 200 provides the customer with no access to his or her profile when the device 12 is operating in the locked state 305” and Fig. 6);
while the state of the mobile POS device is an unlocked state, receiving a request for performing a transaction task related to the electronic shopping cart and performing the transaction task, wherein the transaction task is associated with a user account while the state of the mobile POS device is the unlocked state (Smith: ¶¶ 0026, 0039, 0055 “the method 200 may provide the customer with full access to these more sensitive aspects of the profile in the unlocked state 315 (i.e., upon authentication of the customer through the first process)” and 0058 “Such functions may include for instance scanning items in the store 10 and/or using the local software application to complete payment” ).
Smith fails to specifically teach a received identifier of a product. The Examiner provides Mascavage to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Mascavage includes:
while a state of a …device is a signed-out state, updating an electronic shopping cart based on a received identifier of a product, wherein the electronic shopping cart is unassociated with any user account while the state of the … device is the signed-out state (Mascavage: ¶¶ 0040 “the step for transmitting a purchase selection 3 may include, without limitation, scanning a particular item or entering an item code, such as a stock keeping unit (SKU) number or bar code” and 0088 “a flow diagram of an embodiment of a process 1200 for authorizing and clearing the payment from a perspective of the merchant is shown. The depicted portion of the process 1200 starts in step 1204 where the merchant web site 720 presents web pages to the user to elicit a sale. As the user shops, items are added to the shopping cart.” and Fig. 12)
while the state of the …device is an signed-in state, receiving a request for performing a transaction task related to the electronic shopping cart and performing the transaction task, wherein the transaction task is associated with a user account while the state of the… device is the signed-in state (Mascavage: ¶ 0088 “Once done shopping, the user initiates the checkout process and the merchant site 720 presents the shopping cart to the user with login name/password request and payment options. In this embodiment, the login name/password authenticates the user for the merchant alone in step 1212”)
Smith teaches a system and method for using a device to build a shopping list. Mascavage teaches a comparable system and method for using a device to build a shopping list that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Mascavage offers the embodiment of a received identifier of a product. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the received identifier of a product as disclosed by Mascavage to the scanned products as taught by Smith for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for using devices to build shopping lists. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 9 and 21, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith and Mascavage includes:
wherein the transaction task comprises one or more of: initializing a checkout transaction; processing a checkout process; retrieving or updating an inventory status for one or more products; retrieving customer information; initiating or requesting an order assessment; initiating or requesting an order fulfillment; assigning or updating a sales attribution value; or sending the electronic shopping cart to a remote device for processing (Smith: ¶¶ 0053 and 0058).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Smith and Mascavage are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 13, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 12 and 24, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith and Mascavage includes:
receiving, at the mobile POS device, authentication information while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state; verifying the authentication information against the user account; and changing the state of the mobile POS device to the unlocked state (Smith: ¶¶ 0046 and 0051).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Smith and Mascavage are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 13, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mascavage as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0077460 A1 to Hare et al. (“Hare”).
As per claims 2 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith and Mascavage includes:
wherein, while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state, the mobile POS device provides … access to a database for retrieving information about the product (Smith: ¶ 0026, 0052 and 0058 “the apparatus 24 may store UPC codes and SKU numbers that are loaded to a local folder within the device 12G”)
Smith and Mascavage fail to specifically teach read-only access. The Examiner provides Hare to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Hare includes:
the mobile POS device provides read-only access to a database for retrieving information about the product (Hare: ¶¶ 0031 “UPC level 1 security architecture may be implemented using role based security. User group 510 includes users, in some embodiments, which belong to UPC security level 1… task group 520 may be configured to grant read-only access to telecom network commands in telecom network 100 as dictated by UPC security level 1. In various embodiments, task group 530 grants read-write access to telecom network commands in telecom network 100 as dictated by UPC security level 1. In some embodiments, task set collection 540 includes task sets which comprise telecom network commands in telecom network 100. Thus, in various embodiments, users in user group 510 have read-write access to telecom network commands in task set 540a because user group 510 is associated with task group 530 which grants read-write access to user task set 540a. In some embodiments, user group 510 has read only access to all task sets within task set collection 540 because of the association between user group 510 and task group 520”)
Smith and Mascavage teach systems and methods for providing access to information by logging into accounts on devices. Hare teaches a comparable system and method for providing access to information by logging into accounts on devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hare offers the embodiment of read-only access. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the read-only access as disclosed by Hare to the access as taught by Smith and Mascavage for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for providing access to information by logging into accounts on devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mascavage as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent No. 8,683,597 B1 to Johansson et al. (“Johansson”).
As per claims 3 and 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith and Mascavage includes:
receiving and verifying the authentication information, and changing the state of the mobile POS device to the unlocked state; and associating the electronic shopping cart with the user account and performing the transaction task associated with the user account after the state of the mobile POS device is changed to the unlocked state (Smith: ¶¶ 0028 “The device 12 or other apparatus 24 allows transition from the locked state 14 to the unlocked state 18 responsive to a user authenticating himself or herself through an authentication process” and 0031 “responsive to a user authenticating himself or herself (to the apparatus implementing the method 100) through an authentication process, allowing those certain operations to be performed on the electronic device 12 in an unlocked state”, 0053 “the device 12 or other apparatus 24 may store or otherwise access a plurality of customer profiles that are specific to individual customers. A customer's profile may include for instance customer-specific information such as payment information (e.g., stored credit card information), purchase history, purchase recommendations, contact information, or the like” and 0058 “Such functions may include for instance scanning items in the store 10 and/or using the local software application to complete payment”).
Smith and Mascavage fail to specifically teach while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state, receiving the request for performing the transaction task and outputting an indication via the mobile POS device requesting authentication information. The Examiner provides Johansson to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Johansson includes:
while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state, receiving the request for performing the transaction task and outputting an indication via the mobile POS device requesting authentication information (Johansson: column 3, lines 49-67 “the authentication application 130 may generate a user interface which includes a prompt for a login identifier and a password” and column 4, line 51 through column 5, line 6 “This user interaction results in a user making a request to perform a particular operation 145 on the network site. For example, a user may browse the network site, add a product to a shopping cart, purchase a product, or change the expiration date of a credit card associated with the user's account. For some of these operations, the electronic commerce application 133 requires authentication, and in such cases, invokes the authentication application 130. If the user has not yet been authenticated, the authentication application 130 obtains security credentials from the user and authenticates the user through these credentials. As part of the authentication process, the authentication application 130 may maintain a session and associated session state” and column 7, lines 26-45);
Smith and Mascavage teach systems and methods for providing access to information by logging into accounts on devices. Johansson teaches a comparable system and method for providing access to information by logging into accounts on devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hare offers the embodiment of while the state of the mobile POS device is the locked state, receiving the request for performing the transaction task and outputting an indication via the mobile POS device requesting authentication information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the authentication prompt as disclosed by Johansson to the authentication steps as taught by Smith and Mascavage for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for providing access to information by logging into accounts on devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mascavage as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2021-018704 A to Ito (“Ito”).
As per claims 4 and 16, Smith and Mascavage fail to specifically teach prior to receiving the identifier of the product: receiving an electronic signal to set the mobile POS device to a POS mode and setting a mode of the mobile POS device to the POS mode; wherein the mobile POS device in the POS mode is enabled to receive the identifier of the product, and wherein a default state of the mobile POS device in the POS mode is the locked state. The Examiner provides Ito to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Ito includes:
prior to receiving the identifier of the product: receiving an electronic signal to set the mobile POS device to a POS mode and setting a mode of the mobile POS device to the POS mode; wherein the mobile POS device in the POS mode is enabled to receive the identifier of the product, and wherein a default state of the mobile POS device in the POS mode is the locked state (Ito: ¶¶ 0018 and 0024-0027)
Smith and Mascavage teach systems and methods of using a POS device. Ito teaches a comparable system and method of using a POS device that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Ito offers the embodiment of prior to receiving the identifier of the product: receiving an electronic signal to set the mobile POS device to a POS mode and setting a mode of the mobile POS device to the POS mode; wherein the mobile POS device in the POS mode is enabled to receive the identifier of the product, and wherein a default state of the mobile POS device in the POS mode is the locked state. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the POS mode signal as disclosed by Ito to the POS devices as taught by Smith and Mascavage for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of using POS devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 5 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith, Mascavage and Ito includes:
wherein the electronic signal is generated responsive to a manual input received by the mobile POS device (Ito: ¶¶ 0008, 0017 and 0026).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Smith, Mascavage and Ito are discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 16, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 6-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mascavage as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent No. 10,540,686 B1 to Hughes et al. (“Hughes”).
As per claims 6 and 18, Smith and Mascavage fail to specifically teach detecting that the electronic shopping cart has been pending for a defined duration during which the mobile POS device remained in the locked state and removing the electronic shopping cart from a checkout queue. The Examiner provides Hughes to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Hughes includes:
detecting that the electronic shopping cart has been pending for a defined duration during which the mobile POS device remained in the locked state and removing the electronic shopping cart from a checkout queue (Hughes: column 13, lines 4-18)
Smith and Mascavage teach systems and methods of making electronic shopping carts. Hughes teaches a comparable system and method of making electronic shopping carts that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hughes offers the embodiment of detecting that the electronic shopping cart has been pending for a defined duration during which the mobile POS device remained in the locked state and removing the electronic shopping cart from a checkout queue. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of removing an unused electronic shopping cart as disclosed by Hughes to the shopping cart methods and systems as taught by Smith and Mascavage for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of making electronic shopping carts. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 7 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith, Mascavage and Hughes includes:
further comprising removing the electronic shopping cart from a checkout queue after receiving an input from the mobile POS device indicating removal of the electronic shopping cart (Hughes: column 13, lines 4-19, column 14, lines 3-12 and column 16, lines 54-64).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Smith, Mascavage and Hughes are discussed in the rejection of claims 6 and 18, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 8 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith, Mascavage and Hughes includes:
further comprising storing data of the electronic shopping cart prior to the removal of the electronic shopping cart, wherein the data of the electronic shopping cart comprises one or more of: production information of one or more items in the electronic shopping cart, a location of the POS device, a timestamp associated with the electronic shopping cart, a sales attribution value associated with the electronic shopping cart, or a customer profile associated with the electronic shopping cart (Hughes: column 16, lines 54-64).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Smith, Mascavage and Hughes are discussed in the rejection of claims 6 and 18, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mascavage as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0218349 A1 to Gotanda et al. (“Gotanda”).
As per claims 10 and 22, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith and Mascavage includes:
wherein performing the transaction task comprises sending the electronic shopping cart to a remote device for processing, the method further comprising: sending the electronic shopping cart to the remote device (Smith: ¶¶ 0039 and 0058)
Smith and Mascavage fail to specifically teach determining that a state of the remote device is unlocked. The Examiner provides Gotanda to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Gotanda includes:
determining that a state of the remote device is unlocked; and sending the electronic shopping cart to the remote device (Gotanda: ¶¶ 0106-0109 and 0112-0114)
Smith and Mascavage teach POS systems and methods. Gotanda teaches a comparable POS system and method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Gotanda offers the embodiment of determining that a state of the remote device is unlocked. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of determining that a state of the remote device is unlocked as disclosed by Gotanda to the POS systems and methods as taught by Smith and Mascavage for the predicted result of improved POS systems and methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 11 and 23, the claimed subject matter that is met by Smith, Mascavage and Hughes includes:
wherein the electronic shopping cart is sent to the remote device with a sales attribution value (Gotanda: ¶¶ 0106-0109 and 0112-0114).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Smith, Mascavage and Gotanda are discussed in the rejection of claims 10 and 22, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights