DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. US12223724B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the above indicated claims of the instant application are anticipated by the respective claimed limitations in the listed claims of U.S. Patent No. US12223724B2. See the claim anticipation mapping below.
Instant application
Claims
Patent US12223724B2
Claims (across different statutory categories)
21, 27, 33
1
22, 28, 34
1, 2
23, 29, 35
1, 2
24
1, 5
25, 38
1, 6
26, 39
1, 7
30, 40
8
31
8, 9
32
8, 10
36
11
37
11
Prior art:
D1: Uchida et al (US20160210829A1)
D2: Miyagi (US20180276456A1)
D3: Miwa et al (WO2021186751A1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 and further in view of D3.
Regarding claims 21, 27 and 33, D1 teaches a fraudulent act recognition device configured to be operatively coupled to a camera that monitors operation of a settlement terminal by a purchaser, the fraudulent act recognition device comprising a controller configured to:
(D1, “the 3D camera 210 takes an image of a checkout stand 310 where a cash register 311 is placed, and particularly takes an image of a store staff 410 who is standing in front of the checkout stand 310 … The 3D camera 210 is placed at a position where images of the checkout stand 310 and the store staff 410 in front of (in the vicinity of) the checkout stand 310 can be taken”, [0035]; “The security device 100 includes a distance image analysis unit 110”, [0040]; “The alert device 240 is a device that notifies (outputs) alert information”, [0039]; the device/controller operatively coupled to a camera that monitors a checkout stand / cash register (settlement terminal) operated by a person)
review imaging data provided by the camera to recognize a registration action of the purchaser who performs a commodity registration based on a movement of the purchaser transporting a commodity while the purchaser faces the settlement terminal;
(D1, “The tracking unit 12 tracks a hand action of a person based on the acquired input image information”, [0029]; “by tracking a hand action of a customer or a store staff in front of a product shelf in a store”, [0030]; “the hand tracking unit 113 tracks the hand action of the customer or the store staff detected in S203”, [0060]; “the hand action recognition unit 114 extracts the feature of the action of the hand based on the action of the hand tracked in S204 (S205), and recognizes a suspicious action of the customer or the store staff”, [0061]; D2, “The product reader device 113 picks up an image of a sold product, which is held by the customer’s hand over the reader window 113 a, and obtains an image of the sold product”, [0025]; “the motion detecting module 31 and the object detecting module 32 detect motion of the operator’s hand holding an object, and next, the code symbol recognition module 21 or the object recognition module 22 recognizes a sold product before the motion detecting module 31 and the object detecting module 32 detect motion of the hand holding no object”, [0062]; D1 teaches review of imaging data to recognize (via hand tracking) a movement of a person transporting/holding a commodity while facing the monitored checkout stand. D2 expressly teaches recognition of the registration action by detecting the hand transporting the commodity over the reader window of the scanner while the operator faces the self-POS terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of D2 into the system or method of D1 in order to supply the explicit scanner-based registration recognition in an analogous self-checkout context, yielding a predictable improvement in identifying the registration-associated movement. The combination of D1 and D2 also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of D1 and D2 further teaches:
determine that the movement of the purchaser transporting the commodity for which the registration action has been recognized is a movement associated with replacing the commodity in response to a determination, based on the imaging data, that the movement of the purchaser includes at least one of (a) movement toward a floor or (b) movement toward an area behind the purchaser;
(D1, “when the customer moves the fingers off the product with the hand being close to a pocket of clothes, it detects that the customer puts the product in the pocket of the clothes”, [0062]; “determines an action of a customer that puts a product in a place other than a shopping basket or cart, such as a pocket or a bag in hand”, [0064]; D3, “In the control unit 110, the hand motion detection unit 114 detects the hand motion in the image extracted by the human extraction unit 111”, “the theft determination unit 115”, “in response to the fact that the product is no longer detected”, [p6]; “Store officials can quickly determine that shoplifting candidates will put the product in their pockets or my bag”, [p9]; D1 teaches determination, from tracked hand imaging data, that the post-registration movement is a replacement/concealment action into a pocket or bag (locations on/behind the person; the downward hand trajectory into a pocket inherently includes movement toward the floor relative to standing posture). D3 teaches hand-motion detection that distinguishes legitimate return/replacement actions from concealment into pocket or “my bag,” and treats the latter as the indicator of theft)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of D3 into the system or method of D1 and D2 in order to associate the floor/behind-directed hand movement with a replacing/concealment determination in an analogous retail-camera context. The combination of D1, D2 and D3 also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of D1, D2 and D3 further teaches:
determine that a fraudulent act has occurred in response to a determination that the movement of the purchaser is the movement associated with replacing the commodity; and
(D1, “when the detected pattern matches any of those, it determines that it is a suspicious action”, [0062]; “determines an action of a customer that puts a product in a place other than a shopping basket or cart, such as a pocket or a bag in hand”, [0064]; mapping the tracked replacement/concealment movement to a determination that a suspicious (fraudulent) act has occurred)
provide a notification in response to a determination that the fraudulent act has occurred.
(D1, “The alert device 240 is a device that notifies (outputs) alert information to a surveillant”, [0039]; “When a customer or a store staff performs the corresponding action, the following process is performed to output alert information in accordance with that action”, [0064]; providing a notification/alert upon the fraudulent-act determination)
Regarding claims 22, 28 and 34, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition device of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to recognize the registration action in response to detecting the movement of the purchaser, which is movement of a hand of the purchaser transporting the commodity over a reading window of a scanner of the settlement terminal.
(D1, “The tracking unit 12 tracks a hand action of a person based on the acquired input image information”, [0029]; “the hand tracking unit 113 tracks the hand action of the customer or the store staff”, [0060]; “The hand action recognition unit 114 extracts the feature of the action of the hand”, [0061]; D2, “The product reader device 113 picks up an image of a sold product, which is held by the customer’s hand over the reader window 113 a”, [0025]; “the motion detecting module 31 and the object detecting module 32 detect motion of the operator’s hand holding an object, and next, the code symbol recognition module 21 or the object recognition module 22 recognizes a sold product”, [0062]; D1 teaches hand-movement recognition while facing the terminal. D2 supplies that precise detection in an analogous self-POS context. Incorporating D2 into D1 fills the gap with a known scanner-hand technique, producing the claimed registration recognition as a predictable result)
Regarding claims 23, 29 and 35, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition device of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to recognize the registration action in response to detecting a hand of the purchaser over a reading window of a scanner of the settlement terminal.
(D1, D2, see comments on claim 22; D1 teaches hand detection at the terminal; D2 expressly teaches detection of the hand itself over the reader window).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition device of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to provide the notification by commanding a display of an attendant terminal to display a message.
(D1, “The alert device 240 is a device that notifies (outputs) alert information to a surveillant such as a store manager”, “may be an employee terminal in a shelf, a cash register, a guard’s room or a store”, [0039]; “output alert information in accordance with that action”, [0064]; notification to a surveillant / employee terminal (attendant terminal) that displays the alert information (message))
Regarding claims 25 and 38, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition device of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the movement of the purchaser is the movement associated with replacing the commodity in response to a determination, based on the imaging data, that the movement of the purchaser includes the movement toward the floor.
(D1, “when the customer moves the fingers off the product with the hand being close to a pocket of clothes, it detects that the customer puts the product in the pocket of the clothes”, [0062]; “puts a product in a place other than a shopping basket or cart, such as a pocket or a bag in hand”, [0064]; D3, “the hand motion detection unit 114 detects the hand motion”, [p6]; “Store officials can quickly determine that shoplifting candidates will put the product in their pockets or my bag”, [p9]; D1 teaches the downward hand trajectory into a pocket (movement toward the floor relative to standing posture) as the replacing indicator. D3 strengthens the explicit hand-motion-to-pocket determination. Incorporating D3 into D1 provides the clearer floor-directed linkage in an analogous retail setting (i.e., known hand-tracking technique applied to improve similar device).
Regarding claims 26 and 39, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition device of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the movement of the purchaser is the movement associated with replacing the commodity in response to a determination, based on the imaging data, that the movement of the purchaser includes the movement toward the area behind the purchaser.
(D1, D3; see comments on claim 25; D1 teaches movement into a pocket or bag carried on the person (area behind / on the body of the purchaser). D3 reinforces the same concealment direction via hand-motion detection)
Regarding claims 30 and 40, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the checkout system of claim 27, wherein the movement of the purchaser is a movement of a hand of the purchaser transporting the commodity, and wherein the controller is configured to determine that the fraudulent act has occurred in response to a determination that the movement of the hand of the purchaser includes at least one of (i) movement of the hand of the purchaser toward the floor or (ii) movement of the hand of the purchaser toward the area behind the purchaser.
(D1, “a tracking unit that tracks an action of a hand of the person”, [0013]; “the hand tracking unit 113 tracks the hand action”, [0060]; “when the customer moves the fingers off the product with the hand being close to a pocket of clothes”, [0062]; D3, see comments on claim 25; D1 expressly tracks and recognizes the hand movement itself and maps the pocket/bag trajectory (floor / behind) to fraudulent act. D3 strengthens the hand-specific concealment determination. D1+D3 => hand-limited fraudulent-act determination as a predictable refinement)
Regarding claim 31, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the checkout system of claim 30, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the fraudulent act has occurred in response to a determination that the movement of purchaser includes the movement toward the floor.
(D1, D3, see comments on claims 25 and 30; the floor-specific determination (claim 25) applied to the hand movement (claim 30)).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the checkout system of claim 30, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the fraudulent act has occurred in response to a determination that the movement of the purchaser includes the movement toward the area behind the purchaser.
(D1, D3, see comments on claims 26 and 30; the behind-specific determination (claim 26) applied to the hand movement (claim 30)).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition method of claim 33, wherein the camera is positioned to monitor operation of a settlement terminal by the purchaser.
(D1, “The 3D camera 210 is placed at a position where images of the checkout stand 310 and the store staff 410 in front of (in the vicinity of) the checkout stand 310 can be taken, which is, for example, above (the ceiling etc.) or in front of (a wall etc.) of the checkout stand 310, or on the checkout stand 310”, [0035]; the camera is positioned to monitor operation of the settlement terminal)
Regarding claim 37, the combination of D1, D2 and D3 teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the fraudulent act recognition method of claim 33, wherein providing the notification includes providing the notification to an attendant.
(D1, “The alert device 240 is a device that notifies (outputs) alert information to a surveillant such as a store manager, a business manager or a security guard … may be an employee terminal”, [0039]; sending notification to a surveillant / store manager / employee (attendant))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANXUN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9874. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 8AM-5PM Pacific Time.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/JIANXUN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662 10/3/2026
Prosecution Insights