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 .
Examiner Note
Presently Applicant recites generic features of a POS performing generic functions of a POS. The only step of the claims recite as being performed is the selection of the predetermined criteria based on the customer trust levels. How the images from the different regions of the POS are being utilized are not positively recited until claims 7 and 17, which is why the rejection under 35 USC 101 is being given below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are directed to selecting one set of sets of predetermined criteria based on a customer trust level, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 11 and 20) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method, comprising:
by a point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area,
selecting, based on one of a set of customer trust levels associated with a current transaction, one set of sets of predetermined criteria to enable a determination that a target object of the current transaction is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned based on the selected set of predetermined criteria, with each customer trust level being associated with at least one set of the sets of predetermined criteria
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area” language, “selecting, based on one of a set of customer trust levels associated with a current transaction, one set of sets of predetermined criteria to enable a determination that a target object of the current transaction is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned based on the selected set of predetermined criteria, with each customer trust level being associated with at least one set of the sets of predetermined criteria” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite several additional elements – “a point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area”. The “point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0243798 A1 to Kundu et al. (“Kundu”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0147511 A1 to Edwards (“Edwards”) and United States Patent No. 6,056,087 to Addy et al. (“Addy”).
As per claims 1, 11 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu includes:
a method, comprising:
by a point of sale (POS) system device having a terminal station apparatus and a bagging station apparatus with a bagging area, the terminal station apparatus includes a scanning platform having a scanning window and an optical scanner operable to scan through the scanning window a visual object identifier code disposed on an object while transferred over the scanning window, the POS system device being operationally coupled to an optical sensor device having an optical sensor with a field of view that includes a region about the POS system device and operable to capture a successive image that includes the POS region, the POS region includes a set of POS subregions with a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area (Kundu: ¶¶ 0003-0004, 0049, 0077-0098, 0105 and 0110),
determination that a target object of the current transaction is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned (Kundu: ¶¶ 0011, 0015-0018, 0094-0095 and 0105).
Kundu fails to specifically teach selecting, based on one of a set of customer trust levels associated with a current transaction, one set of sets of predetermined criteria to enable a determination …, with each customer trust level being associated with at least one set of the sets of predetermined criteria. The Examiner provides Edwards to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Edwards includes:
selecting, based on one of a set of customer trust levels associated with a current transaction, one set of sets of predetermined criteria to enable a determination …, with each customer trust level being associated with at least one set of the sets of predetermined criteria (Edwards: ¶¶ 0030 and 0037)
Kundu teaches a checkout system and method. Edwards teaches a comparable checkout system and method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Edwards offers the embodiment of selecting, based on one of a set of customer trust levels associated with a current transaction, one set of sets of predetermined criteria to enable a determination …, with each customer trust level being associated with at least one set of the sets of predetermined criteria. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the customer trust levels as disclosed by Edwards to the checkout system and method as taught by Kundu for the predicted result of improved checkout systems and methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
While Kundu and Edwards do teach each of the claimed features separately, Kundu and Edwards do not specifically teach that the predetermined criteria is for the determination that a target object of the current transaction is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned. The Examiner provides Addy to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Addy includes:
predetermined criteria to… a determination that a target object of the current transaction is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned (Addy: column 7, line 51 through column 8, line 44)
Kundu and Edwards teach checkout systems and methods. Addy teaches a comparable checkout system and method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Addy offers the embodiment of predetermined criteria to… a determination that a target object of the current transaction is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the predetermined criteria as disclosed by Addy to the checkout systems and methods as taught by Kundu and Edwards for the predicted result of improved checkout systems and methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 2 and 12, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
obtaining the one of the set of customer trust levels based on information related to a customer account associated with the current transaction (Edwards: ¶¶ 0029-0030).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 3 and 13, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein the customer account information is related to a transaction history associated with the customer account (Edwards: ¶¶ 0026 and 0029-0031).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 4 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein the customer account information is related to a customer profile associated with the customer account (Edwards: ¶ 0030).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 5 and 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein each set of predetermined criteria is associated with a certain likelihood of a false positive determination that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned (Edwards: ¶ 0030 and Kundu: ¶¶ 0065-0069).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 6 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein each set of predetermined criteria is associated with a same likelihood of a true positive determination that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned (Edwards: ¶ 0030 and Kundu: ¶¶ 0065-0069).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 7 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
obtaining data that represents a set of successive images of the POS region captured by the optical sensor device as a target object is moved in the POS region; determining that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area with or without being scanned based on the selected set of predetermined criteria, the set of POS subregions and an object movement track having a set of successive object locations of the target object as the target object is moved in the POS region, with each successive location being related to a certain one of the set of successive images of the POS region (Kundu: ¶¶ 0011, 0015-0018, 0094-0095 and 0105 and Addy: column 7, line 44- column 8, line 30).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 8 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein each set of predetermined criteria includes a predetermined criteria associated with a detection of a first scanned object in the POS subregion associated with the scanning window while a second unscanned object is contemporaneously placed in the POS subregion associated with the bagging area (Kundu: ¶¶ 0056 and 0081 and Addy: column 1, lines 49-62).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 9 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein each set of predetermined criteria includes a predetermined criteria associated with a frame rate of the successive image (Kundu: ¶¶ 0009, 0073 and 0081).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kundu, Edwards and Addy includes:
wherein each set of predetermined criteria includes a predetermined criteria associated with an area of at least one of the set of POS subregions (Addy: column 8, lines 4-20).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Kundu, Edwards and Addy are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights