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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al, US 20220391871 A1 in view of Kambara et al., US 20190172039 A1.
11. A transaction processing system, comprising:
a point-of-sale terminal configured to process the registration of items in a sales transaction of a customer at a store and provide a sales receipt including a transaction identification code upon settlement of the sales transaction, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 106);
a camera positioned to image the customer at the point-of-sale terminal during the sales transaction, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 35);
a monitoring device connected to the camera and the point-of-sale terminal and configured to detect fraud acts of the customer in the sales transaction based on images of the customer at the point-of-sale terminal and point-of-sale event data from the point-of-sale terminal, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 39);
a point-of-sale server connected to the point-of-sale terminal and configured to receive transaction data for the sales transaction from the point-of-sale terminal and indications of a detected fraud act from the monitoring device and update the transaction data to indicate whether a fraud act has been detected in the sales transaction, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 30, 39);
a gate device on an exit lane on which the customer passes after finishing the sales transaction in the store, (see Yamaguchi, abstract), wherein the gate device is configured to:
read the transaction identification code from the sales receipt when presented by the customer about to pass through the exit lane, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 4), send the transaction identification code to the point-of-sale server, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 26), determine whether the transaction data associated with the transaction identification code indicates that the monitoring device has detected at least one fraud act in the identified sales transaction, (see Yamaguchi, abstract).
send the transaction identification code read from the sales receipt to the point-of-sale server, based on a response to the sending of the transaction identification code to the point-of-sale server (Under BRI, also including amended claim 1 “obtain transaction data associated with the identified sales transaction of the customer”), (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 4 “In a store where such accounting devices are installed, a gate device is typically provided at the exit of an accounting area in which the accounting device has been installed in order to prevent customers from leaving the store without making a payment. The gate device may read a barcode printed on a receipt issued by the accounting device after customer payment to confirm that the customer has completed payment. After confirming the barcode, the gate allows the customer to pass. A customer who has paid correctly can normally leave the accounting area (hereinafter, also referred to as “normal exit”) without the gate device performing any abnormality processing”). Abnormality processing is considered to include “fraud” processing as described in Applicant’s Specification ¶ 104.
Yamaguchi discloses an output notification, but not the alarm which is taught by Kambara:
cause an alarm notification to be output when the transaction data indicates the monitoring device has detected at least one fraud act in the identified sales transaction, (see Kambara, ¶ 256).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Yamaguchi and Kambara because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. retail checkout system classified in G06Q 20/208, Input by product or record sensing, e.g. weighing or scanner processing;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Kambara, ¶ 4, 5);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This rationale to combine the references is applied to all claims below.
12. The transaction processing system according to claim 11, wherein the gate device includes: a code reader at an entrance of the exit lane, and the code reader reads the transaction identification code of the customer by using the code reader, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 38).
13. The transaction processing system according to claim 12, wherein the code reader is a barcode scanner, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 38).
14. The transaction processing system according to claim 11, further comprising: an attendant terminal configured to receive the alarm notification from the gate device, (see Yamaguchi, ¶ 39 “voice output unit 57”).
15. The transaction processing system according to claim 11, wherein the gate device includes an alarm unit which outputs an alarm notice at the gate device when the alarm notification is output, (see Kambara, ¶ 256).
16. The transaction processing system according to claim 11, wherein the gate device includes a sensor to detect passage of a person through the exit lane, (see Kambara, ¶ 225), and the gate device is configured to cause an alarm notification to be output when the customer attempts to pass through the exit lane without presenting a valid sales receipt for the sale transaction, (see Kambara, ¶ 256).
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 contain the same or similar features as claims 11-16 rejected above, and therefore the remaining claims are rejected under the same references and rationale as those above herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “fraudulent representations”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Abnormality processing as taught by Yamaguchi is considered, under BRI, to include “fraud” processing as described in Applicant’s Specification ¶ 104. Yamaguchi, ¶ 5, teaches that a barcode containing number of people information be printed on a receipt and the gate device can check the number of people so that the customers in a group who make one transaction as a group (e.g., a plurality of people such as family members and friends). Paying for less than the number of customers who received a service or item is a form of fraudulent representation that Yamaguchi is capable of recognizing.
In response to applicant's argument that the claims are directed toward stopping fraudulent representations by sounding an alarm, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. 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, 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
