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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 24–26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, The limitation “using the mechanical” lacks a complete identification of the claimed structure. Although claim 10 previously recites “a mechanical interface,” the subsequent phrase “using the mechanical” does not clearly identify whether “the mechanical” refers to the mechanical interface or some different component.
Regarding claims 24–26, each claim recites “the checkout management system.” However, claims 24–26 depend from claim 22, and neither claim 22 nor claim 17, from which claim 22 ultimately depends, previously introduces a checkout management system. Although claim 23 recites “a checkout management system,” claims 24–26 do not depend from claim 23. Accordingly, “the checkout management system” in claims 24–26 lacks proper antecedent basis, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Regarding claim 28, “The checkout management system of claim 26”; however, claim 26 is directed to a method rather than a checkout management system. Thus, claim 28 does not properly specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 26. The dependency appears inconsistent with the claim category and should be corrected if applicant intended claim 28 to depend from a system claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skiles (US 2013/0153656 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Skiles teaches “a convertible checkout station, comprising: a housing” by teaching checkout station having base platform 48, which defines hollow 50 within its top surface and supports the checkout components (para. [0017]; Figs. 3A–3B).
Skiles further teaches “a rotatable section including a scanner” by teaching turntable 52 positioned within hollow 50 and barcode scanner 58 attached to the turntable, wherein the scanner changes orientation as turntable 52 rotates (paras. [0018]–[0019]).
Skiles further teaches “wherein the rotatable section includes a platter that remains within a volume defined by the housing when converting the checkout station between a self-service checkout station and a staffed checkout station.” Specifically, turntable 52 corresponds to the claimed platter and is positioned within hollow 50 defined by base platform 48. Skiles teaches that the top surface of turntable 52 is shaped to fit within hollow 50 and that the turntable rotates between a first cashier-assisted position and a second self-checkout position while remaining in that arrangement (paras. [0017]–[0020]; Figs. 3A–3B). Skiles expressly states that rotation of the turntable converts the checkout station between cashier-assisted and self-checkout modes (para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 16, “wherein the rotatable section further includes a rotation mechanism and a plate,” Skiles teaches turntable 52 having a rotatable solid surface, corresponding to the claimed plate, and further teaches that the turntable is supported by a support structure including bearings that allow the turntable to rotate, corresponding to the claimed rotation mechanism (paras. [0018], [0020]).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 17, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skiles (US 2013/0153656 A1) in view of Lau (US 2021/0365990 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Skiles teaches “a convertible checkout station capable of being automatically converted between self-service and staffed stations” insofar as Skiles teaches a checkout station convertible between a cashier-assisted checkout mode and a self-checkout mode by changing the orientation of the scanner and display. Skiles explains that the checkout station acts as a cashier-assisted checkout station in a first orientation and as a self-checkout station in a second orientation (paras. [0014], [0019], [0023]).
Skiles further teaches “a rotatable section including a scanner” by teaching a turntable 52 having a barcode scanner 58 attached thereto, wherein the turntable rotates between first and second positions and changes the orientation of the barcode scanner (paras. [0015], [0018]–[0019]; Figs. 3A–3B).
Skiles further teaches that the first position corresponds to a cashier-assisted checkout mode and the second position corresponds to a self-checkout mode, and that rotation of the turntable conveniently converts the checkout station between those modes (para. [0019]).
Skiles does not teach “a motor that rotates the rotatable section between a self-service station and a staffed station.” Rather, Skiles teaches releasing latches and rotating the turntable between the first and second positions (paras. [0020], [0023]).
Lau teaches a POS system having a motor 104 that automatically rotates a POS component between first and second positions. In particular, Lau teaches a display panel 102 that is automatically switched between a first position facing a merchant or associate and a second position facing a customer, wherein motor 104 is included in a swivel feature that rotates the display panel between the first and second positions (paras. [0006], [0010]). Lau further teaches that processor 106 executes instructions causing motor 104 to be activated to perform the switch and that a command is sent to the motor to initiate the switching operation (paras. [0007], [0009]–[0010]).
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 rotatable checkout turntable of Skiles to include the motorized swivel mechanism taught by Lau, thereby automatically rotating the scanner-bearing turntable between the cashier-assisted and self-checkout positions, in order to automate the known manual reorientation of the checkout station and reduce the need for manual repositioning while predictably achieving the same conversion between operator-facing and customer-facing configurations.
Regarding claim 17, Skiles teaches “a method of automatically converting an automated convertible checkout system (ACCS)” insofar as Skiles teaches operating a checkout station that is convertible between cashier-assisted and self-checkout modes by reorienting a rotatable turntable carrying the scanner and display (paras. [0014], [0019], [0023]).
Skiles further teaches “receiving a mode instruction” by teaching a trigger or physical switch for switching the checkout station between cashier-assisted and self-checkout modes, with the processor determining which checkout mode is selected (paras. [0022]–[0023]).
Skiles further teaches “rotating a rotatable section of the ACCS” by teaching rotation of turntable 52, including barcode scanner 58 and display 56, between a cashier-facing first position and a customer-facing second position, thereby converting between cashier-assisted and self-checkout modes (paras. [0018]–[0019], [0023]).
Skiles does not teach “activating a motor in response to the mode instruction” or performing the rotation “using the motor.”
Lau teaches a POS system having motor 104 and processor 106, wherein the processor executes instructions that activate motor 104 to switch a POS display between first and second positions. Lau further teaches that, when a positional switch is determined to be appropriate, a command is sent to motor 104 to initiate the switch, and that the motor may be part of a swivel mechanism that rotates the POS component between the first and second positions (paras. [0006], [0009]–[0010]).
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 Skiles's method of converting the checkout station by using the motorized swivel control taught by Lau, such that a mode instruction causes activation of a motor and the motor thereafter rotates the scanner-bearing rotatable section between the staffed and self-service positions, in order to automate the known manual conversion and reduce manual repositioning of the checkout interface.
Regarding claim 18, “wherein the mode instruction is received from a manual control interface,” Skiles teaches a physical switch 72 or trigger used to switch the checkout station between cashier-assisted and self-checkout modes (para. [0022]). Skiles further teaches that the trigger causes the processor to determine whether operation is to proceed in the self-checkout mode or cashier-assisted mode (paras. [0022]–[0023]).
Regarding claim 22, “wherein the rotating is within a volume corresponding to a housing of the ACCS,” Skiles teaches base platform 48 having a hollow 50 formed within its top surface, with rotatable turntable 52 positioned in and fitted within hollow 50. Skiles further teaches that turntable 52 rotates between the cashier-assisted and self-checkout positions while supported within the base platform (paras. [0017]–[0020]; Figs. 3A–3B).
Claims 2-6, 14, 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skiles in view of Lau and further in view of Dubois (US 2016/0026985 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Skiles and Lau do not expressly teach “a station controller that directs operation of the motor by sending operating signals to initiate and stop rotation of the rotatable section.”
Dubois teaches a reconfigurable checkout station having a processor circuit that controls a motor in response to commands for switching between employee-assisted and self-service modes. Dubois teaches that the processor generates control signals that actuate motor 40 to initiate movement of the checkout station in response to a mode-switch command (paras. [0029]–[0032]).
Dubois further teaches that the processor determines when the commanded movement has reached a predetermined threshold and then “generate[s] control signals to deactivate the motor 40 to cease” movement (para. [0033]). Dubois expressly summarizes that the processor generates appropriate control signals and sends them to the motor, and that the control signals control the motor “to start and stop” movement (para. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the motorized checkout station of Skiles as modified by Lau with the controller arrangement taught by Dubois, such that the controller sends operating signals to initiate and stop motor operation, in order to provide automated and controlled movement of the rotatable section between its predetermined staffed and self-service positions.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the station controller includes a processor, a memory, and an interface,” Dubois teaches processor circuit 90, memory circuit 92 storing control application 94, and a user I/O interface and communications interface 96 associated with the hybrid checkout station (paras. [0037]–[0041]; Fig. 5).
Dubois further teaches “wherein the interface receives mode instructions,” because the user I/O interface receives commands to switch the checkout station between employee-assisted and self-service operating modes, and alternatively the mode-switch command may be received through a communications link from a central controller (paras. [0029], [0043]).
Dubois further teaches “the processor generates the operating signals based on the mode instructions,” by teaching that processor circuit 90, responsive to receiving the user command, generates control signals that are sent to motor 40 to control operation of the drive mechanism and effect the commanded mode change (paras. [0030], [0032], [0039], [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the station controller of the Skiles/Lau checkout station according to Dubois to include a processor, memory, and interface receiving mode instructions and to generate motor operating signals based on those instructions, in order to provide electronic control of the automated conversion between staffed and self-service configurations.
Regarding claim 4, “further comprising a manual control interface configured to generate the mode instructions when activated,” Dubois teaches that a merchant may manually enter a command to switch the hybrid checkout station between employee-assisted and self-service modes using a keypad or other user input/output interface associated with the checkout station (para. [0029]). Dubois further teaches a user I/O interface including a keypad or keyboard for accepting user input and providing commands used to switch between operating modes (paras. [0037], [0043]; Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Skiles/Lau/Dubois checkout station with the manual user interface taught by Dubois, such that activation of the interface generates the mode instruction for switching between staffed and self-service configurations, in order to permit an operator to manually initiate the desired checkout mode conversion.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the mode instructions are local signals generated by the manual control interface or remote signals received from a source external to the convertible checkout station,” Dubois teaches that a merchant may locally enter a mode-switch command through a keypad or other user I/O interface associated with the hybrid checkout station. Dubois alternatively teaches that the command to switch operating modes may be transmitted to the checkout station through a communications link established with a central controller (para. [0029]).
Dubois further teaches a user I/O interface for receiving local user commands and communications interface 96 for communicating data and signals with remote devices, including central servers and other remote devices over wired or wireless networks (paras. [0037], [0041], [0043]). Thus, Dubois teaches the checkout station being capable of receiving both locally generated mode commands and remotely supplied commands.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the interface arrangement of the Skiles/Lau/Dubois checkout station to receive either locally generated mode instructions from the manual control interface or remotely generated mode instructions from an external controller, thereby permitting checkout-mode conversion to be initiated either locally by an operator or remotely through the checkout management infrastructure.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the external source is a checkout management controller,” Dubois teaches that the command to switch the hybrid checkout station between employee-assisted and self-service modes may be sent remotely to the checkout station through a communications link established with a central controller (para. [0029]). Dubois further teaches communications interface 96 for communicating data and signals with remote devices, including central servers and other remote devices (para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the central controller taught by Dubois as the external checkout management controller for remotely issuing mode instructions to the convertible checkout station, in order to permit centralized control of checkout-station operating modes.
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the motor is an electric motor,” Dubois expressly teaches that motor 40 may comprise an electric motor powered by commercial electrical power (para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the motor of the Skiles/Lau checkout station as the electric motor taught by Dubois, in order to provide a conventional electrically powered actuator for automated movement of the checkout structure.
Regarding claim 19, Skiles in view of Lau teaches the limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. However, Skiles and Lau do not expressly teach “wherein the motor is activated by a station controller that receives the mode instruction.”
Dubois teaches a processor circuit at the checkout station that receives a user command to switch between employee-assisted and self-service modes and, responsive to receiving the command, generates control signals that actuate motor 40 to perform the commanded reconfiguration (paras. [0029]–[0030], [0039], [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the Skiles/Lau checkout system with the station controller taught by Dubois, such that the controller receives the mode instruction and activates the motor in response thereto, in order to provide automated electronic control of the checkout mode conversion.
Regarding claim 20, “wherein the rotating ends in response to a sensor signal,” Dubois teaches that one or more sensors provide feedback to the processor regarding movement of the checkout station, and that when the calculated movement reaches or exceeds a predetermined threshold, the processor generates control signals to deactivate motor 40 and cease movement (paras. [0033], [0042]–[0043]).
Thus, Dubois teaches terminating motor-driven movement in response to sensor-derived feedback indicating that the commanded movement has reached its endpoint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the motorized rotation of the Skiles/Lau system to terminate in response to sensor feedback as taught by Dubois, in order to stop movement when the desired checkout position is reached and provide repeatable automated positioning.
Regarding claim 23, Skiles and Lau teach the limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. However, Skiles and Lau do not expressly teach “wherein the mode instruction is received from a checkout management system.”
Dubois teaches that a command to switch the hybrid checkout station between employee-assisted and self-service operating modes may be sent to the checkout station through a communications link established with a central controller (para. [0029]). Dubois further teaches communications interface 96 for communicating data and signals with central servers and other remote devices (para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Skiles/Lau checkout station to receive the mode instruction from the central checkout-management controller taught by Dubois, in order to permit remote centralized control of the operating mode of the checkout station.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skiles in view of Lau and Dubois, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0318693 A1), as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 7, Skiles in view of Lau and Dubois teaches the limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. However, the combination does not expressly teach “one or more sensors configured to generate sensor signal indicating when rotation of the rotatable section is complete.”
Kim teaches first and second stop sensors 168, 169 associated with a motor-driven rotating structure. The stop sensors are electrically connected to motor controller 122 and provide detection signals indicating that the driven structure has reached a predetermined endpoint (paras. [0052], [0055]–[0056]). Specifically, when the moving part reaches the position of a stop sensor, the sensor transmits a detection signal to the motor controller indicating that the predetermined position has been reached, after which the motor is stopped (paras. [0058]–[0059]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the motorized rotatable section of Skiles as modified by Lau and Dubois with the stop-sensor arrangement taught by Kim, such that a sensor generates a signal indicating that rotation has reached its predetermined completion position, in order to provide reliable endpoint detection and controlled positioning of the rotatable section.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the interface is configured to receive the sensor signal, and the processor is configured to generate an operating signal for the motor to stop the rotation,” Kim teaches first and second stop sensors 168, 169 electrically connected to motor controller 122, wherein the sensors transmit detection signals to the motor controller when a predetermined endpoint is reached (paras. [0055]–[0056], [0058]–[0059]).
Kim further teaches that, responsive to receiving the detection signal, motor controller 122 determines that the driven structure has reached the preset location and stops motor 162 from rotating further (paras. [0058]–[0059]).
Dubois further teaches a processor circuit that generates control signals for controlling and deactivating a motor, including generating control signals to cease movement when a predetermined position is reached (paras. [0033], [0039], [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of the Skiles/Lau/Dubois/Kim checkout station to receive the endpoint sensor signal and, in response, generate a motor-control signal to stop rotation of the rotatable section, in order to terminate movement at the desired checkout orientation and provide repeatable positional control.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the interface is configured to receive the mode instructions and the sensor signal from either a wireless or a wired connection,” Dubois teaches communications interface 96 configured to receive data and signals from remote devices and expressly teaches that the communications interface may be a wired ETHERNET interface or, alternatively, a wireless interface configured to communicate over a wireless access network (para. [0041]). Dubois also teaches that mode-switch commands may be received through a communications link from a central controller (para. [0029]).
Kim further teaches that the stop sensors 168, 169 are electrically connected to motor controller 122 and transmit detection signals to the motor controller when the predetermined endpoint is reached (paras. [0056], [0058]–[0059]). Thus, Kim teaches receipt of the claimed sensor signal over a wired electrical connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the interface of the Skiles/Lau/Dubois/Kim system to receive mode instructions through the wired or wireless communication arrangements taught by Dubois and to receive the sensor signal through the wired electrical connection taught by Kim, in order to provide conventional communication paths appropriate for remote mode control and local sensor feedback.
Regarding claim 10, “further comprising a mechanical interface, wherein the motor rotates the rotatable section using the mechanical [interface],” Lau teaches that motor 104 may be incorporated into a swivel feature that rotates the POS display panel between first and second positions, thereby teaching a motor mechanically coupled to a rotational mechanism for producing the commanded rotation (paras. [0006], [0010]).
Dubois further teaches drive mechanisms operatively connected to one or more motors, including gears and linkages that mechanically couple the motor to the driven checkout structure (paras. [0038], [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the motorized rotatable section of Skiles as modified by Lau with the mechanical drive interface taught by Lau and Dubois, such that motor torque is mechanically transferred to the rotatable section, in order to effect controlled rotation of the checkout structure between its predetermined operating positions.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the rotatable section includes a platter that interacts with the mechanical interface for the rotation,” Skiles teaches rotatable turntable 52 comprising a solid surface on which the scanner and display are mounted, wherein the turntable is supported within hollow 50 of base platform 48 and rotates between the cashier-assisted and self-checkout positions (paras. [0018]–[0020]; Figs. 3A–3B). The turntable therefore corresponds to the claimed platter forming part of the rotatable section.
Lau teaches that a motor may be incorporated into a swivel mechanism that mechanically rotates a POS component between first and second positions (paras. [0006], [0010]), while Dubois teaches motor-driven mechanical interfaces including gears and linkages for transferring motor movement to a checkout structure (para. [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mechanically couple the turntable/platter of Skiles to the motor-driven mechanical interface of Lau and Dubois so that the platter interacts with the mechanical interface to effect rotation between the staffed and self-service positions.
Regarding claim 12, “further comprising a housing that includes the manual control interface, the station controller, the motor, the mechanical interface, the at least one sensor, and the rotatable section,” Dubois teaches cabinetry 12 forming the housing of the checkout station and housing the computing/control components and one or more motors. Dubois further teaches processor circuit 90, memory circuit 92, communications interface 96, motors 40, and lateral/vertical drive mechanisms 98, 100 associated with the cabinetry (paras. [0018]–[0020], [0037]–[0042]; Fig. 5). Kim teaches stop sensors associated with the motor-controlled drive mechanism, as discussed with respect to claims 7 and 8.
Regarding “the rotatable section wholly rotates within a volume defined by the housing,” Skiles teaches base platform 48 having a hollow 50 within its upper surface, with rotatable turntable 52 positioned within and fitted into hollow 50. Skiles further teaches barcode scanner 58 attached to the turntable beneath opening 54 and teaches that the turntable rotates within the base platform between the cashier-assisted and self-checkout positions (paras. [0017]–[0020]; Figs. 3A–3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the controller, motor, mechanical drive components, and sensor arrangement of the modified Skiles checkout station within the checkout housing as taught by Dubois and Kim, while retaining Skiles's turntable/scanner arrangement within the volume of the base platform, in order to provide a compact, integrated checkout assembly in which the rotating components remain within the footprint of the checkout housing during conversion.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the rotatable section further includes a terminal, and the terminal and scanner are located on the platter and extend above the housing,” Skiles teaches turntable 52 having display screen 56 fixedly attached to the solid surface of the turntable. Skiles further teaches that a barcode scanner is attached to the turntable and, in one embodiment, a bi optic scanner includes a first scanner beneath the turntable surface and a second scanner situated vertically above the top surface (para. [0018]; Figs. 3A–3B).
Skiles also expressly claims a display attached to the turntable and a barcode scanner attached to the turntable, such that both reorient with rotation of the turntable (claims 2, 14–15; para. [0019]).
Thus, Skiles teaches a checkout display/terminal component and a scanner carried by the rotatable platter, including embodiments in which those components extend above the surrounding base platform.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the rotatable platter of the modified Skiles checkout station such that the checkout terminal/display and scanner are supported on the platter and extend above the surrounding housing, in order to provide operator access to the transaction interface and scanning field in either rotational checkout orientation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skiles (US 2013/0153656 A1) in view of Lau (US 2021/0365990 A1) and Dubois (US 2016/0026985 A1), and further in view of Takahashi (US 2011/0225055 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Skiles, Lau, and Dubois teach the limitations of claim 20 as set forth above. However, the combination does not expressly teach “wherein the rotatable section is rotated 180 degrees, and the sensor signal indicates a rotation of 180 degrees.”
Takahashi teaches a checkout apparatus having an operator unit 20 that includes scanner 21 and is rotatably supported by turntables 30 between a self-service position and a cashier position. Takahashi expressly teaches that the cashier-mode position is reached by rotating operator unit 20 by 180 degrees from the self-service position (paras. [0024]–[0025]).
Takahashi further teaches position sensors 40 and 41 that output a position signal when the operator unit is at the self-service-mode position and when the operator unit is at the cashier-mode position (paras. [0027]–[0031]). Takahashi explains that the controller determines the change between those positions based on the change in the output source of the position signal (paras. [0039]–[0041]).
Accordingly, Takahashi teaches that the operator unit rotates 180 degrees between the cashier and self-service positions and that the position-sensor signal indicates arrival at the corresponding 180-degree-separated position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the motorized convertible checkout station of Skiles, Lau, and Dubois according to Takahashi, such that the rotatable section rotates 180 degrees between the staffed and self-service positions and the sensor signal indicates completion of that 180-degree rotation, in order to provide reliable confirmation that the rotatable checkout section has reached the intended operating position.
Claim 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skiles (US 2013/0153656 A1) in view of Lau (US 2021/0365990 A1), Dubois (US 2016/0026985 A1), and further in view of DeBardeleben (US 2021/0241249 A1), as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 24, Skiles and Lau teach the limitations of claim 22 as set forth above. The combination does not teach “wherein the checkout management system generates the mode instruction based on factors that include one or more of a number of cashiers present, time of day, historical data, or a number of customers.”
DeBardeleben teaches a terminal access and load manager 125 that manages checkout terminals based on checkout conditions including total customers per queue, available staff, opened and closed terminals, and historical customer traffic patterns (paras. [0014], [0038]–[0040], [0044]).
DeBardeleben further teaches determining staff members currently present and working in the store (para. [0036]), maintaining transaction performance information from transaction logs/metrics (para. [0037]), and using available staff, customer counts, opened and closed terminals, and performance metrics to determine whether additional checkout terminals should be opened (paras. [0039]–[0040]).
DeBardeleben also expressly discusses anticipated “peak times of day” and review of transaction data for managing checkout staffing and availability (paras. [0002]–[0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the checkout management system of the Skiles/Lau/Dubois combination to generate mode instructions based on the checkout-management factors taught by DeBardeleben, including customer counts, available cashiers or staff, historical transaction or traffic data, and time-dependent checkout demand, in order to dynamically configure checkout resources according to current and anticipated staffing and customer-load conditions.
Regarding claim 25, “wherein the checkout management system automatically generates the mode instruction,” DeBardeleben teaches an automated terminal access and load manager that continuously evaluates checkout conditions, including customer counts, queue lengths, available staff, opened and closed terminals, and performance metrics, and automatically determines whether checkout terminals should be opened or closed (paras. [0014], [0038]–[0044]).
DeBardeleben further teaches that terminal-access-and-load manager 125 sends notifications to staff to open a closed checkout terminal when calculated wait-time conditions approach a threshold, thereby automatically generating a checkout-management instruction based on monitored operating conditions (paras. [0039]–[0040], [0066], [0082]).
Regarding claim 26, “wherein the checkout management system manages more than one ACCS,” DeBardeleben teaches terminal-access-and-load manager 125 centrally managing a plurality of checkout terminals 140, including both staff-operated POS terminals and customer-operated self-service terminals (paras. [0015]–[0018], [0048]).
DeBardeleben further teaches that the manager monitors and manages multiple checkout stations by tracking customer counts and wait times for each terminal, determining opened and closed terminals, directing staff to open or close terminals, and optimizing terminal availability across the plurality of checkout stations (paras. [0034]–[0044]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (US 2016/0026985 A1) in view of DeBardeleben (US 2021/0241249 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Dubois teaches “a checkout management system, comprising: one or more multiple convertible checkout stations that are each capable of being automatically converted between self-service and staffed stations” by teaching multiple hybrid checkout stations 10a, 10b, each configurable between an employee-assisted operating mode and a self-service operating mode (paras. [0014]–[0016], [0024]–[0025]). Dubois further teaches that, responsive to a mode-switch command, a motor automatically moves the checkout station to reconfigure it for the selected operating mode (paras. [0015]–[0016], [0027]–[0032]).
Dubois further teaches “a checkout management controller that generates and sends a remote mode instruction to one or more of the multiple convertible checkout stations, wherein the remote mode instruction indicates conversion between a self-service mode and a staffed mode” in part, by teaching that a command to switch a hybrid checkout station between employee-assisted and self-service modes may be sent to the station through a communications link established with a central controller (para. [0029]). Dubois further teaches communications interface 96 for communicating data and signals with central servers and other remote devices (para. [0041]).
Dubois does not expressly teach a checkout management controller centrally managing and issuing operating instructions across multiple checkout stations.
DeBardeleben teaches a centralized terminal-access-and-load manager 125 that manages a plurality of checkout terminals 140, including staff-operated POS terminals and customer-operated self-service terminals, and determines whether terminals should be opened or closed based on checkout conditions (paras. [0014]–[0018], [0038]–[0048]). DeBardeleben further teaches centrally sending instructions or notifications associated with operation of the checkout terminals, including instructions to open or close terminals (paras. [0039]–[0041], [0066], [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the central controller of Dubois according to the centralized terminal-management arrangement taught by DeBardeleben, such that the controller manages multiple convertible checkout stations and sends remote mode instructions to selected stations indicating conversion between staffed and self-service operating modes, in order to provide centralized and dynamic management of checkout resources according to store operating conditions.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (US 2016/0026985 A1) in view of DeBardeleben (US 2021/0241249 A1), and further in view of Skiles (US 2013/0153656 A1) and Lau (US 2021/0365990 A1), as applied to claim 27 above.
Regarding claim 28, “wherein at least one of the one or more convertible checkout stations is automated and includes: a rotatable section including a terminal and a scanner,” Skiles teaches turntable 52 carrying display screen 56 and barcode scanner 58, wherein the turntable rotates between a cashier-assisted position and a self-checkout position (paras. [0018]–[0019]; Figs. 3A–3B).
Skiles does not teach “a motor that automatically rotates the rotatable section in response to a mode signal.” Lau teaches a POS system having motor 104 and processor 106, wherein the motor is activated to automatically switch a POS component between first and second positions, and a command is sent to the motor to initiate the switching operation (paras. [0006], [0009]–[0010]).
Regarding “a station controller that generates the mode signal based on the remote mode instruction,” Dubois teaches processor circuit 90 receiving a command to switch the hybrid checkout station between employee-assisted and self-service modes and, responsive to the received command, generating control signals that actuate motor 40 to perform the commanded reconfiguration (paras. [0029]–[0030], [0039], [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure at least one of the centrally managed convertible checkout stations of Dubois and DeBardeleben with the rotatable scanner/terminal arrangement taught by Skiles and the motorized POS rotation taught by Lau, such that the station controller generates a motor-control mode signal in response to the remotely received mode instruction, in order to automatically reconfigure the selected checkout station between staffed and self-service orientations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mason (US 2003/0115103) Fig. 1-3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights