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 .
This Office Action responds to the amendment and argument filed by applicant on June 18, 2026, in response to the Office Action mailed on March 19, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabatake in view of Khojastepour et al. (US 2020/026566, hereinafter Khojastepour).
With respect to claim 1, Takabatake discloses a gate device comprising: a gate mechanism provided at a passage through which a customer passes, wherein the gate apparatus 10 is provided on a passage through which a person passes and includes structural portions defining the gate passage (see, e.g., paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0019]-[0024], FIGS. 1–2). Takabatake expressly explains that the gate may be provided at an entrance and/or exit of a predetermined space such as a store.
a detector configured to detect the customer passing through the passage, namely first person detection unit 120 and second person detection unit 122, each detecting the existence/passage of a person, with the second person detection unit positioned on the exit side of the first person detection unit (see, e.g., paragraphs [0015]-[0024], [0081]-[0083], FIGS. 1, 4, 8–10). In particular, when a person enters gate apparatus 10, first person detection unit 120 outputs a signal indicating detection of the person to control unit 140.
a light emitter configured to make a notification, namely first light emission unit 110 and, in another embodiment, second light emission unit 112, whose respective emission states are controlled to provide information to persons using the gate (see, e.g., paragraphs [0015]-[0024], [0065]-[0066], [0080]-[0083], FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 8–10). The second light emission unit is expressly provided for notifying a person exiting gate apparatus 10 whether the person may exit.
Takabatake further discloses a processor configured to control the gate device, namely control unit 140 including processor 1020, memory 1030, storage device 1040, input-output interface 1050, and network interface 1060; the storage device stores program modules which are read into memory and executed by processor 1020 to provide the functions of control unit 140 (see, e.g., paragraphs [0053]-[0060], FIG. 3).
Takabatake further discloses that the processor controls notification by the light emitter in response to detection by the detector, because control unit 140 changes the light emission state of first light emission unit 110 from a first state to a second state upon detection of a person by first person detection unit 120 and changes the state back upon detection by second person detection unit 122 (see, e.g., paragraphs [0015]-[0024], [0080]-[0083], FIGS. 4 and 8–10).
More specifically, Takabatake teaches that before entry the light emission units emit blue; upon detection of a person by first person detection unit 120, control unit 140 changes both light emission units to red, thereby notifying the next person that entry is prohibited and notifying the person already in the gate concerning the checkout state (see paragraphs [0080]-[0083], FIGS. 8–10).
To the extent Takabatake does not expressly characterize its different control conditions as “switch[ing] an operation mode of the gate mechanism between a first mode in which notification is made by the light emitter when the detector detects a person passing through the passage and a second mode in which no notification is made even when the detector detects a person passing through the passage,” Khojastepour teaches selectable/distinct gate operational states in which sensor detections initiate and terminate gate sessions and in which notification indicators operate according to the resulting gate state.
Khojastepour discloses entrance and exit sensors that mark a “session start time” and “session end time.” Once a person crosses the entrance, the sensor detects the entry and indicates that a session has started; the system further detects additional crossings, wrong-way exits, and entries from the exit side (see, e.g., paragraphs [0042]- [0046]).
Khojastepour further teaches that the WTG has “in-session” and “not in-session” states, with indicator lamps 180, 182 used to indicate those states. The sensors positioned at the entrance and exit provide the session start and session end information to the WTG software component (see paragraphs [0049]- [0052], FIG. 1).
Khojastepour additionally teaches that the lamps may be on/off or use multiple colors; the light is green when the WTG is free and not in session, changes to red when a person enters and the session starts, and returns to green after the person leaves. Khojastepour also expressly permits use of a display or sound notification (see paragraphs [0053]- [0057], FIGS. 2–3).
Thus, the combined teachings establish a processor-controlled retail gate having person detection and different operational states in which the response/notification behavior of the gate is changed according to the selected/current state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gate apparatus of Takabatake to employ the session/mode-dependent control taught by Khojastepour so that detection-triggered notification behavior is selectively enabled according to the operational state of the gate.
Both references concern automated passage gates employing sensors to detect persons and electronically controlled visual indicators for communicating the state of the gate. Takabatake expressly controls the light-emission state in response to detection, while Khojastepour expressly organizes gate operation into sensor-determined session states and changes the gate indicators according to those states. The modification therefore would have amounted to applying Khojastepour's known state-dependent control technique to Takabatake's known detector-controlled notification system to obtain the predictable result of providing different detector responses under different gate operating conditions.
Such a modification would have predictably prevented unnecessary notifications when the notification functionality was not required while preserving detection-triggered notification when the gate was operating in the state for which such notification was useful. This constitutes use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding predictable results.
With respect to claim 2, Takabatake discloses the gate apparatus but does not explicitly disclose an accounting machine located upstream of the passage that performs payment processing for a customer transaction.
However, Khojastepour discloses a retail checkout system associated with a gate or passage in which a customer performs a transaction prior to passing through the gate (see for example paragraphs [0018], [0036] and Fig. 1).
Further, Khojastepour discloses a checkout device receiving a customer operation to initiate a transaction and performing payment processing associated with the transaction (see for example paragraphs [0037] and [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the checkout/payment processing functionality of Khojastepour into the gate device of Takabatake in order to allow the gate system to coordinate with retail transaction processing systems.
With respect to claim 3, Takabatake discloses setting the gate apparatus to an initial operational state with a corresponding initial light emission state prior to user detection (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0037]).
Takabatake further discloses changing the light emission state when the operational state of the gate changes (see for example paragraphs [0037] and [0046]).
Thus, Takabatake discloses changing the light emission state from a first state to a second state upon occurrence of a system event, corresponding to receiving an instruction to start a transaction.
With respect to claim 4, Takabatake discloses determining whether the detector has detected a person approaching or passing through the gate (see for example paragraphs [0027] and [0030]).
Takabatake further discloses controlling the light emission state of the gate apparatus depending on the detection result (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0037]).
With respect to claim 5, Khojastepour discloses changing an indicator lamp or display state during transaction or checkout processing (see for example paragraphs [0036], [0040] and Fig. 3).
Thus, the reference teaches changing the light emission state while performing payment processing associated with a transaction.
With respect to claim 6, Khojastepour discloses transaction processing operations in which different transaction conditions may occur (see for example paragraphs [0040] and [0043]).
The reference further discloses determining whether a transaction condition requires intervention by store personnel (see for example paragraph [0045]).
With respect to claim 7, Khojastepour discloses events during transaction processing that require assistance from store personnel, such as irregular transaction conditions (see for example paragraphs [0043] and [0045]).
The system correspondingly changes the notification or indicator state to inform store personnel or the customer.
With respect to claim 8, Khojastepour discloses errors occurring during checkout or payment processing and system responses to those errors (see for example paragraphs [0044] and [0046]).
Such responses include different notification conditions depending on the type or severity of the error.
With respect to claim 9, Takabatake discloses changing the light emission state of the light emitter when the detector detects a person approaching or passing through the gate (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0037]).
With respect to claim 10, Takabatake discloses a light emitter mounted on a structural portion of the gate apparatus to provide visible notification to approaching persons (see for example paragraphs [0029] and [0031]).
Mounting a lamp on a vertically extending pole or structure adjacent the passage is a known and obvious design choice in gate signaling systems.
With respect to claim 11, regarding the additional limitation that “the processor is configured to perform notification processing in response to the detection by the detector during the first mode,” Takabatake expressly teaches that control unit 140 changes the notification/light state in response to a signal indicating detection of a person by first person detection unit 120 (see, e.g., paragraphs [0015]-[0024], [0080]-[0083], FIGS. 4 and 8–10).
In particular, when first person detection unit 120 detects a person, it outputs a detection signal to control unit 140, and the control unit changes first light emission unit 110 and second light emission unit 112 from blue to red, thereby communicating gate information to the customer (paragraphs [0081]- [0083], FIGS. 8–10).
Khojastepour likewise discloses notification processing responsive to passage detection, wherein entrance sensor SPM1 monitors the entrance IR sensor, controls the entrance and exit lights, and sends a message to the judgment module when the entrance sensor is crossed; exit sensor SPM2 sends a message to the POS when the exit sensor is crossed (see paragraphs [0096]-[0102], FIGS. 8 and 10).
Regarding the feature, “and does not perform the notification processing in response to the detection by the detector during the second mode,” Khojastepour teaches different operational/session states, including “in-session” and “not in-session,” and that the notification lights are controlled according to those states (paragraphs [0049]- [0057], FIGS. 1–3). The light is green when the gate is free/not in session, changes to red when entry initiates a session, and returns to green when the person exits.
Thus, although neither reference uses Applicant's exact nomenclature of a first mode and second mode having respectively enabled and disabled “notification processing,” the combined references teach controlling whether/how detector-triggered notification processing occurs as a function of gate operational state. Configuring one of the known gate states so that the detector remains available while notification processing is suppressed would have been an obvious implementation choice where the notification is unnecessary during that state.
It would have been obvious to modify Takabatake's processor-controlled notification system in view of Khojastepour's session/state-dependent operation to selectively perform detector-responsive notification processing in a first operational state and suppress such processing in another operational state, because doing so would avoid unnecessary customer notifications while permitting the underlying passage detector to remain operative. Such implementation represents no more than predictable software control of a known output according to a known operating state.
With respect to claim 13, regarding the feature, “further comprising a display on which [a] message to the customer is displayed,” Takabatake expressly teaches that another notification unit may replace the light emission unit and that the notification unit may be a display, wherein different notification states may constitute differences in displayed content; Takabatake also permits notification by voice output (see paragraph [0066], FIG. 6).
Khojastepour independently reinforces this teaching by expressly providing that the WTG may use “a display device” to let the customer know that the checkout process has finished (paragraph [0053], FIGS. 1–3).
Regarding “wherein the processor is configured to cause display contents of the display to shift in response to the detection by the detector during the first mode,” Takabatake teaches that notification states are changed in response to person detection and expressly teaches that, when a display substitutes for a notification/light unit, the different notification states may be represented by different displayed contents (paragraphs [0015]-[0024], [0065]-[0066], [0080]-[0083], FIGS. 6, 8–10).
Accordingly, substituting Takabatake's expressly disclosed display for its light emitter causes the content displayed by that notification device to change when the notification state changes in response to person detection. That is, the disclosed substitution yields: person detection to control-unit state chang to notification-state change to different displayed content.
Khojastepour provides further express support for the claimed detection/display relationship. Exit sensor SPM2 sends a message to POS when the exit sensor is crossed, and the POS receives that message and displays a sale receipt to the customer (paragraphs [0097]- [0098], FIGS. 8 and 10).
Regarding the feature “and does not cause the display contents to shift in response to the detection by the detector during the second mode,” Khojastepour teaches different gate operational/session states and state-dependent notification behavior, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11.
It would have been obvious to implement Takabatake's expressly disclosed display alternative so that the displayed content changes when notification processing is active in the first gate mode and remains unchanged when notification processing is suppressed in the second gate mode. Once the artisan adopts the two-mode notification control discussed for claim 1, applying the same enabled/disabled output control to Takabatake's expressly interchangeable display notification constitutes the predictable use of an expressly disclosed alternative output device.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabatake in view of Khojastepour and further in view of Warnbring et al., (US 2019/0352953 A1, hereinafter Warnbring).
With respect to claim 12, Takabatake in view of Khojastepour discloses the gate device of claim 11 substantially as set forth above.
Takabatake and Khojastepour do not expressly disclose the additional limitation that “the notification processing includes transmission of a notification signal to [a] sales clerk terminal.”
However, Warnbring expressly teaches this missing limitation.
Warnbring discloses an automatic checkout counter comprising a classification device 40, POS system 70, passage gate 100, controller 160, and sensor system 170 (see paragraphs [0046]- [0050], FIGS. 3a–3c). POS system 70 communicates with controller 160 to control passage gate 100, while sensor system 170 provides information to controller 160 regarding operation of the passage gate.
Warnbring discloses the feature that notification processing includes transmission of a notification signal to a sales-clerk terminal, wherein controller 160 is configured to detect if more than one person leaves through passage gate 100 at the same time and, “in response to that transmit an alarm signal,” which alarm signal may be sent “to a store clerk or other authorized personnel” or “to a mobile unit such as a tablet or a mobile phone arranged in the exit area displaying information” (see paragraph [0051], FIGS. 3a–3c).
Thus, Warnbring expressly establishes the claimed relationship:
person/passage condition detected to controller performs notification processing to notification/alarm signal transmitted to store clerk/authorized-personnel terminal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the gate apparatus resulting from Takabatake and Khojastepour to transmit the detection-responsive notification signal to a store-clerk terminal as taught by Warnbring. Takabatake itself places the claimed gate technology in a store and checkout environment, and its second embodiment expressly states that gate apparatus 10 is installed to perform checkout processing at a store. Warnbring similarly uses an automatic passage gate as part of an automatic checkout/POS system.
A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had reason to employ Warnbring's known remote-clerk alarm technique in Takabatake/Khojastepour so that a detected passage condition requiring attention could be brought to the attention of store personnel who may not be physically adjacent to the gate. This would improve supervision of an automated checkout gate and allow store personnel to respond to improper passage while retaining the automatic operation of the gate.
The combination merely uses Warnbring's known remote notification technique for its established purpose in the analogous automated retail gate of Takabatake/Khojastepour, with the predictable result that a gate-detection event requiring attention causes an electronic notification to be transmitted to store personnel.
With respect to claim 14, regarding the feature “wherein the processor is configured to count a duration of time during which the gate mechanism is in the second mode,” Khojastepour expressly teaches time-based gate/session operation. Khojastepour defines a “session” as an interval of time and deploys sensors at the entrance and exit to provide the session start time and session end time to the software component of the WTG (paragraph [0049], FIG. 1).
Khojastepour further expressly teaches a maximum session duration. Because the customer cannot be held inside the WTG beyond a particular time, when the maximum session duration is reached, the system decides regarding the pending tags and permits the customer to exit, thereby ending the session (paragraphs [0028]- [0032]).
Khojastepour's claims likewise expressly recite that the WTG is “in session” within a time period defined by entry and exit, that “a session has a minimum duration time and a maximum duration time,” and that session time may be dynamically adjusted by a judgment algorithm.
Regarding “and starts to perform processing to switch the operation mode of the gate mechanism from the second mode to the first mode upon the counted duration of time reaching a threshold,” Khojastepour expressly teaches that when the maximum session duration time is reached, the pending-tag decision is finalized and the exit session indicator changes state to green, meaning that the customer may exit (paragraph [0057], FIG. 3).
Thus, Khojastepour teaches the essential claimed control sequence: start operational/session state to measure duration to compare duration against maximum duration to maximum duration reached to initiate processing to transition gate/indicator state.
Warnbring additionally corroborates that time-based automatic state changes were conventional for checkout passage gates. Warnbring teaches that, once the customer passes through passage gate 100, the gate must be closed to prevent a nonpaying customer from exiting and that the gate “may be closed after a predetermined time after the gate was opened,” or alternatively based upon sensors detecting the presence of a person (paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takabatake's mode-controlled gate apparatus to employ Khojastepour's maximum-duration timer as a condition for automatically transitioning from one gate operational state to another.
Takabatake already performs processor-controlled transitions of gate notification states, while Khojastepour expressly teaches defining gate operational sessions using start/end times and imposing a maximum duration that triggers processing and a subsequent state change. Warnbring independently teaches automatically changing checkout-gate operation after a predetermined elapsed time. The references therefore provide complementary solutions to the same recognized gate-control problem—avoiding indefinite retention of a temporary gate state.
The modification therefore amounts to applying a known time-controlled state-transition technique to a known electronically controlled gate to obtain the predictable result of automatically restoring the normal gate mode after expiration of a predetermined period.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights