DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US 10963659 B1) in view of Holub (US 9892301 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahmed discloses:
1. A self-checkout vehicle system, comprising: a self-checkout vehicle having (fig. 1 104):
one or more cameras configured to capture one or more images of an item within a storage area of the self-checkout vehicle (column 3 5-20); and
at least one weight sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle and configured to measure a weight of the item within the self-checkout vehicle (column 13 35-45); and at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (column 20):
identify a
determine, based on the
rotate the one or more images by the determined degree (fig. 3A 306); and identify, from the rotated one or more images using a computer vision technique, the item based on an identifier affixed to the item (fig. 3A 316).
Ahmed fails to disclose and Holub discloses the orientation being a probabilistic orientation (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ahmed by using a probability metric to determine the orientation. The motivation for the combination is rapid barcode location (column 2 line 2).
Regarding claim 2, Ahmed discloses:
2. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the identifier includes at least one of a global trade item number (GTIN), a price lookup (PLU) code, or a barcode (fig. 3A barcode).
Regarding claim 5, Ahmed discloses:
5. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more camera is positioned and oriented such that its field of view comprises an area of the self-checkout vehicle in which the item is located (fig. 3A 302).
Regarding claim 7, Ahmed discloses:
7. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: monitor a weight measurement provided by at least one weight sensor to detect a decrease in the measured weight indicative of an item being removed from the self-checkout vehicle (column 7 45-65, column 13 30-55, column 15 20-40).
Regarding claim 8, Ahmed discloses:
8. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: detect movement of an item indicative of the item being removed from the self-checkout vehicle (column 7 45-65, column 13 30-55, column 15 20-40).
Regarding claim 9, Ahmed discloses:
9. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 8, wherein detecting movement of the item indicative of the item being removed from the self-checkout vehicle comprises at least one of: detecting vertical movement of the item beyond a predefined threshold distance; or detecting an absence of the item in an image captured by the one or more cameras, wherein the item was previously present in an image previously captured by the one or more cameras (column 21 10-35 sensors will clearly detect item removed beyond threshold distance).
Claims 11, 12, 15, 17-19, are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US 10963659 B1) in view of Holub (US 9892301 B1) as applied to claim 1/11 and further in view of Li (US 20190118844 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ahmed as modified fails to disclose and Li discloses:
3. The self-checkout vehicle of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: calculate, based on the identification of the item and the measured weight, a value of the item (paragraph 90).
4. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: add the item and its value to a running list of items being selected by a user (paragraph 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ahmed as modified by using a measured weight to add bulk/produce items to a settlement list. The motivation for the combination is increased settlement speed (paragraph 5).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US 10963659 B1) in view of Holub (US 9892301 B1) as applied to claim 5/9/15/19 and further in view of Meidar (US 20220198550 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ahmed as modified fails to clearly disclose and Meidar discloses:
6. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 5, wherein the field of view further comprises the at least one weight sensor (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cameras pointing towards the bottom of the basket where the weight sensors are located. The motivation for the combination is improved verification (paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 10, Ahmed as modified fails to clearly disclose and Meidar discloses:
10. The self-checkout vehicle system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: compare a first weight measurement captured prior to detecting the absence of the item with a second weight measurement captured at or after detecting the absence of the item; and determine that the item was removed if a difference in the first weight measurement and the second weight measurement corresponds with the measured weight of the item (paragraph 18, fig. 4A 404). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Ahmed by using weight information to validate removal events. The motivation for the combination is improved billing accuracy (paragraph 21).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baqai (US 20130193211 A1) discloses a barcode algorithm involving reorienting an image of a barcode. Hagen (US 20210300453 A1) discloses a sensor-based smart cart. Chaubard (US 10600043 B2) discloses a sensor-based smart cart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights