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 recited as being performed is the obtaining of the data. How the claims make the specific recited determinations are recited as ‘intended usage’ and are not necessarily limiting to the claims nor are they recited as positively being performed until claims 8-10 and 18-19, which is why the specific rejection under 35 USC 101 is being given below.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18/893,528, filed 23 September 2024, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. More particularly, the features found in claims 8 and 18 of “determining that the second target object is scanned responsive to determining that the second target object is closest to the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the object distances of the first and second target objects” were added. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it is a continuation-in-part of the prior application, however any claims disclosing added disclosure shall only get the benefit of the filing date of the instant application of 31 March 2025 where the features were first disclosed.
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 1-7, 11-17 and 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 1-7, 11-17 and 20 are directed to obtaining data, 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, machine, or article of manufacture.
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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area,
obtaining data that represents a set of successive images of the POS region captured by the optical sensor device as first and second target objects are moved in the POS region to enable a determination that the first target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned while the second target object is contemporaneously scanned without being transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area based on a set of predetermined criteria associated with the set of POS subregions, a first object movement track associated with the first target object and a second object movement track associated with the second target object, with each track having a set of successive object locations of the corresponding target object as that target object is moved in the POS region.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including 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 performed in the mind or 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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area” language, “obtaining data that represents a set of successive images of the POS region” 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. Further, “determination that the first target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned while the second target object is contemporaneously scanned without being transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area based on a set of predetermined criteria associated with the set of POS subregions, a first object movement track associated with the first target object and a second object movement track associated with the second target object, with each track having a set of successive object locations of the corresponding target object as that target object is moved in the POS region” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” 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 only recite a number of 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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including 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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including 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 component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the determining step), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the obtaining step) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. a POS system having a scanning and a bagging area). 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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including 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, insignificant extra-solution activity 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, insignificant extra-solution activity 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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including 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 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0242503 A1 to Musiani et al. (“Musiani”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0059589 A1 to Gonvalves et al. (“Gonvalves”).
As per claims 1, 11 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Musiani includes:
A method, comprising (Musiani: Abstract and Fig. 2):
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 an image that includes the POS region, the POS region having a set of POS subregions including a POS subregion associated with the scanning window and a POS subregion associated with the bagging area (Musiani: ¶ 0050 “self-checkout station 200 may be configured with a top-down or overhead camera… self-checkout station 200 may include a self-checkout structure or counter 202, a shopping basket support region 204, a bagging area 205 with a pair of bagging structures 206a and 206b. A scanning region 207 may include a scanning shelf 208 at which an electronic display 210 (e.g., touch screen display), imaging window(s) 212 facing toward a customer and/or upwards from the scanning shelf 208, and payment device 214 are located” and Fig. 2),
obtaining data that represents a set of successive images of the POS region captured by the optical sensor device as first and second target objects are moved in the POS region to enable a determination that the first target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned while the second target object is scanned without being transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area based on a set of predetermined criteria associated with the set of POS subregions, a first object movement track associated with the first target object and a second object movement track associated with the second target object, with each track having a set of successive object locations of the corresponding target object as that target object is moved in the POS region (Musiani: ¶¶ 0070 “the module 336 may track that an item is taken out of a shopping cart or basket and scanned prior to being placed into a bagging area”, 0079, 0090 “Errors may occur when a user mistakenly places a scanned item back into a cart or elsewhere other than in the bagging area. Misbehavior occurs when a user takes an item out of a shopping cart or basket and does not scan the item before placing the item in the bagging area or elsewhere. Another example of an error or misbehavior is when an item is not removed from the cart or basket before placing scanned items back into the cart” and 0179 “a robust verification process and enhance the system capability to detect fraudulent (or erroneous) actions, such as: [0180] (i) Hidden labels (ex. labels occluded by the customer hands, partial barcodes detection and analysis); [0181] (ii) Label replacement; [0182] (iii) Multiple items passed across the scanning area; [0183] (iv) Fake scans: such as when the customer simulates a scan action, but remains at a distance from the scanner to prevent the label from being read; and [0184] (v) Real scan difficulties”).
Musiani fails to specifically teach the first and second target object are contemporaneously scanned. The Examiner provides Gonvalves to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Gonvalves includes:
contemporaneously scanned (Gonvalves: ¶ 0054 “ the object recognition module (103) receives images from one or more image acquisition modules (110, 110') and performs a visual recognition of any number of items present in an image. This feature can be useful for a particular kind of sweethearting, where multiple items are carried across the scanner but only one is scanned”)
Musiani teaches a fraud detection point of sale system and method. Gonvalves teaches a comparable fraud detection point of sale system and method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Gonvalves offers the embodiment of the first and second target object are contemporaneously scanned. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the contemporaneously scanning as disclosed by Gonvalves to the scanning as taught by Musiani for the predicted result of improved fraud detection point of sale 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
wherein the image obtaining step further includes receiving, by a processing circuitry of the POS system device or the optical sensor device, from the optical sensor, the successive image data (Musiani: ¶¶ 0017 and 0020).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
determining, for the set of successive images, the set of successive object locations of each target object in the POS region based on the successive image data; and
determining each object movement track based on the set of successive object locations of the corresponding target object (Musiani: ¶¶ 0047 “a processor as part of a system controller configured to interpret an image stream of the self-checkout station, and (iv) a state machine being executed by the processor and used (a) to track customers during a self-checkout process (e.g., cart arrival, guided correct placement, and verification support, items scanning, items bagging, customer payment, and cart departure)”, 0068 and 0070 “the module 336 may track that an item is taken out of a shopping cart or basket and scanned prior to being placed into a bagging area. As another example, the module 336 may track that the shopper takes all of the items out of the cart or basket and places the items into the bagging area (or back onto the cart in the event that the items are too large to be bagged). It should be understood that there are a number of different customer behavior scenarios that may be monitored utilizing the configuration of the self-checkout station. The module 336 may also use images generated by the camera 314 in the form of video and/or still images to perform the behavior tracking and analyzing of a customer as he or she is performing a self-checkout”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
detecting, based on the successive image data, activity in a POS subregion of the set of POS subregions that is associated with a container configured to contain an object; and
determining that the activity in that POS subregion corresponds to the first or second target object being transferred from or placed in the container based on the successive image data and the POS subregion associated with the container (Musiani: ¶ 0090 “Misbehavior occurs when a user takes an item out of a shopping cart or basket and does not scan the item before placing the item in the bagging area or elsewhere. Another example of an error or misbehavior is when an item is not removed from the cart or basket before placing scanned items back into the cart ”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
identifying the first or second target object as starting or ending the corresponding object movement track in the POS subregion associated with the container or the bagging area (Musiani: ¶ 0090 “Errors may occur when a user mistakenly places a scanned item back into a cart or elsewhere other than in the bagging area. Misbehavior occurs when a user takes an item out of a shopping cart or basket and does not scan the item before placing the item in the bagging area or elsewhere. Another example of an error or misbehavior is when an item is not removed from the cart or basket before placing scanned items back into the cart ”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
identifying at least one of the set of POS subregions that corresponds to each movement track of the corresponding target object (Musiani: ¶ 0090).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
determining, based on the set of predetermined criteria, the first and second object movement tracks and the set of POS subregions, that the first target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned while the second target object is contemporaneously scanned without being transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area (Musiani: ¶¶ 0070, 0079 and 0090 and Gonvalves: ¶ 0054).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
receiving, by a processing circuitry of the POS system device, from the optical scanner, an indication associated with a scan of the visual object identifier code disposed on an object;
determining that the second target object is scanned responsive to determining that the first object movement track of the first target object does not correspond to the POS subregion associated with the scanning window and the second object movement track of the second target object does correspond to the POS subregion associated with the scanning window; and
sending an indication that the target object is transferred to the POS subregion associated with the bagging area without being scanned (Musiani: ¶¶ 0070, 0079 and 0090).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves 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 Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
wherein at least one of the set of predetermined criteria is associated with a starting or ending POS subregion of the set of POS subregions that corresponds to an object movement track (Musiani: ¶¶ 0070, 0079 and 0090).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Musiani and Gonvalves are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani in view of Gonvalves as applied in claims 1 and 11, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0148559 A1 to Ramamurthy et al. (“Ramamurthy”).
As per claims 8 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Musiani and Gonvalves includes:
receiving, by a processing circuitry of the POS system device or the optical sensor device, from the optical scanner, an indication associated with a scan of the visual object identifier code disposed on an object (Musiani: ¶ 0072)
Musiani and Gonvalves fails to specifically teach determining an object distance between each target object and the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the corresponding object movement track and the POS subregion associated with the scanning window; and determining that the second target object is scanned responsive to determining that the second target object is closest to the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the object distances of the first and second target objects. The Examiner provides Ramamurthy to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Ramamurthy includes:
determining an object distance between each target object and the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the corresponding object movement track and the POS subregion associated with the scanning window (Ramamurthy: ¶ 0051); and
determining that the second target object is scanned responsive to determining that the second target object is closest to the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the object distances of the first and second target objects (Ramamurthy: ¶ 0051).
Musiani and Gonvalves teaches a visual analysis point of sale system and method. Ramamurthy teaches a comparable visual analysis point of sale system and method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Ramamurthy offers the embodiment of determining an object distance between each target object and the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the corresponding object movement track and the POS subregion associated with the scanning window; and determining that the second target object is scanned responsive to determining that the second target object is closest to the POS subregion associated with the scanning window based on the object distances of the first and second target objects. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the distance measurements as disclosed by Ramamurthy to the visual analysis point of sale systems and methods as taught by Musiani and Gonvalves for the predicted result of improved visual analysis point of sale systems and methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
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