CTNF 18/969,977 CTNF 81380 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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). 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 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : JP 2025089092 A, US 20230027382 A1, US 20240021057 A1 . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/969,977 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/969,977 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/969,977 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/969,977 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights