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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 8/6/26. Claims 1, 6, and 8 through 17 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are amended; claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are canceled. Applicant added new claims 13-17. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 -a lack of antecedent basis for “illicit behavior”.
For example “detecting illicit behavior” followed by “the illicit behavior” followed by “the illicit behavior” followed by “detecting illicit behavior” , “at type of the illicit behavior” and “detecting illicit behavior” and then “the illicit behavior” and then “an amount of illicit behavior”, “the amount of illicit behavior”, “the illicit behavior”. Here “detecting illicit behavior” should likely be “the illicit behavior” otherwise the examiner might conclude that a different behavior is contemplated.
Claim 14 contains a number of instances of illicit behavior, is this the same as the illicit behavior?
Claim 15 same inconsistent use of illicit behavior
Claims 1, 11 and 12, 16 “varied conditions” or varied is used. What is varied and how does this establish a limit on the conditions. For now interpreted as conditions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 o
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim claims 1,6,8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are directed to system, non-transitory medium and method claims which are statutory categories of invention. (step 1 yes)
Claim 12 is analyzed as the representative claim.
Claim 12 is directed to automating the functions at a cash register which are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, customer checkout and fraud analysis are a fundamental economic practice.
Claim 12 contains the following abstract limitations;
, the method comprising: detecting illicit behavior by a customer regarding purchase of items at a …; based on images captured by one or more …detecting the illicit behavior including by detecting an inconsistency between a result of analysis of the images and information about registered … output from … obtaining information about a type of the illicit behavior in response to detecting illicit behavior by the customer; determining with varied conditions according to the type of the illicit behavior whether an amount of illicit behavior by the customer detected satisfies a predetermined criterion; and in response to the amount of illicit behavior satisfying the criterion, outputting a first alert to an …, the first alert indicating occurrence of the illicit behavior.
If a claim under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within certain levels of organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claim recites and abstract idea. The non-abstract elements include a store an instore terminal, pos control circuitry, one or more cameras. The claims are applying generic computer components to the abstract limitations . The recitation of abstract computer components does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 are similar to claim 12.
Step 2a pong 1 yes the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of store and in-store computer, now one or more cameras which could be one and control circuitry. The computer elements are recited at a high level of generality. The dependent claims do not add further elements. However, the specification may include specific computer elements and cameras.
The additional elements when considered separately or as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practice the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Thus claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application .Step 2A prong 2 no, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include elements because when considered separately or as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more known as inventive concept to the exception. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are found in the claims.
The specification (see drawings) shows more specific elements that could be applied to claim a practical application such as the actual computing device and cameras. Step 2B no the claims do not provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 6,8-10 and 13-17 , do not further define the abstract idea of claim 1. The dependent claims do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more the than the judicial exception. and thus are rejected by virtue of dependency. Thus claims 1,6,8-17 are not patent eligible.
By amendment, one or more cameras are added. Here the methodology of counting is now claimed. However, broadly speaking the process is not improving the technology of monitoring human behavior. If there is an improvement to the computer system that would be desirable. Further “one or more cameras” could be just one broadly interpreted.
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.
Claim(s) 1,6,8-12, are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Suzuki 20230005267 in view of US Patent 11521447 to Ogram.
As per claim 12 Suzuki discloses; A monitoring method in a monitoring system, the method comprising: detecting illicit behavior by a customer regarding purchase of items at a store Suzuki(0041, fraudulent act) based on images captured by one or more image capture devices; Suzuki(0036, camera devices) detecting the illicit behavior including by detecting an inconsistency between a result of analysis of the images and information about registered items output from POS control circuitry;
Suzuki (0141, compare the number of products registered to the self checkout compared with the motion count from the camera)
obtaining information …in response to detecting illicit behavior by the customer; determining, with varied conditions according to the type of the illicit behavior,
Suzuki (0110, there are no conditions described here, just varied, 0172, varied conditions could be anything)
whether an amount of illicit behavior by the customer detected satisfies a predetermined criterion; and in response to the amount of illicit behavior satisfying the criterion, outputting a first alert to an in-store terminal, the first alert indicating occurrence of the illicit behavior. (0046 still relatively open ended, alert 0141)
Here in regards to an illicit behaviour,
Orgram teaches; what Suzuki does not,
Shoplifiting, col 2 appears to teach a form of tracking to identify suspect customers
Ogram(col. 4 former shoplifter and further more entering the store, col 1 lines 35-40)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the theft prevention system of Suzuki with the identification of criminals for the motivation of “providing further security from shoplifting”, (col. 1 lines 25-27.)
Claims 1, 11 are similar to claim 12.
As per claim 7 Suzuki discloses; The information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store count information for each customer and for each type of illicit behavior, the count information being information about a number of instances of illicit behavior by each customer, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to determine whether
the amount of illicit behavior by the customer detected by the detection circuitry satisfies the criterion for each type of illicit behavior, based on the count information.
Suzuki(counts the number of acts of fraud, 0041, behavior “such as”)
As per claim 8 Suzuki discloses; The information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store count information for each customer, the count information being information about a number of instances of illicit behavior by each customer, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to determine whether the amount of illicit behavior by the customer detected by the detection circuitry satisfies the criterion,
based on the count information, and the memory is configured to, in response to behavior of the customer at the store satisfying a predetermined condition, initialize the count information relating to the customer. Suzuki(counts the number of acts of fraud, 0041)
As per claim 9 Suzuki discloses; The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the output circuitry is configured to output the first alert to a customer terminal used by the customer, in addition to the in-store terminal.
Suzuki(0041, notifies the store clerk)
As per claim 10 Suzuki discloses;
the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the output circuitry is configured to output, in addition to the first alert, information representing a degree of maliciousness of the illicit behavior by the customer to the in-store terminal.
Suzuki(threshold, 0072)
Claim(s) 13-17, are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Suzuki 20230005267 in view of US Patent 11521447 to Ogram further in view of US Patent Publication to Okamura 2022/022644
As per claim 13 Suzuki and Ogram do not explicitly disclose what Okamura teaches;
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to increase a likelihood of determining that the amount of illicit behavior by the customer satisfies the criterion if the illicit behavior has a high degree of maliciousness, compared to when the illicit behavior has a low degree of maliciousness. Suzuki(0134, determines the counts and a wrong count is fraud)
(Per applicant spec. “high degree” 0067 says any of shoplifting, shoplifting with the whole basket, leaving the store without paying, taking away unpaid items, and barcode spoofing, is detected by the illicit behavior detection circuitry)
Here Okamura(0128 indicates fraud, which is an illicit behavior. The claims do not limit high degree versus low degree leaving it up to the broadest interpretation which could be fraud or no fraud as claimed)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fraud teachings of Suzuki with the counting of actions by Okamura for the motivation of “reducing labor costs” because there is less oversight more “fraud” monitoring is required. (0003)
As per claim 14 Suzuki and Ogram do not explicitly disclose what Okamura teaches;
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to determine whether the amount of illicit behavior by the customer detected by the detection circuitry satisfies the criterion for each type of illicit behavior, based on count information, the count information being information about a number of instances of illicit behavior by each customer.
Okmura(claims 1-3, here again the number of instances and number of behaviors is not limited by the claim)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fraud teachings of Suzuki with the counting of actions by Okamura for the motivation of “reducing labor costs” because there is less oversight more “fraud” monitoring is required. (0003)
As per claim 15 Suzuki and Ogram do not explicitly disclose what Okamura teaches;
The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to determine whether the amount of illicit behavior by the customer detected by the detection circuitry satisfies the criterion for each type of illicit behavior by comparing the number of instances of illicit behavior by each customer with a predetermined reference count as the count information, and the reference count varies according to the type of the illicit behavior.
Okamura(claims 1-4 count the number of instances of behavior, since there is no reference count claimed, it could be as little as 1, however, the claim could be written narrower as well to overcome the reference)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fraud teachings of Suzuki with the counting of actions by Okamura for the motivation of “reducing labor costs” because there is less oversight more “fraud” monitoring is required. (0003)
As per claim 16 Suzuki and Ogram do not explicitly disclose what Okamura teaches;
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to determine whether the criterion is satisfied by comparing points added each time the customer commits the illicit behavior with a predetermined reference value, the points being points to which a varied number is added according to the type of the illicit behavior.
Okamura(Col. 19, number of times registration behavior smaller than the times of merchandise registration) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fraud teachings of Suzuki with the counting of actions by Okamura for the motivation of “reducing labor costs” because there is less oversight more “fraud” monitoring is required. (0003)
As per claim 17 Suzuki and Ogram do not explicitly disclose what Okamura teaches;
The information processing system according to claim 15, wherein the determination circuitry is configured to: determine that the criterion is satisfied if the illicit behavior by the customer detected by the detection circuitry is the second or subsequent instance of illicit behavior by the customer; and if the illicit behavior by the customer detected by the detection circuitry is of a predetermined type, determine that the criterion is satisfied even if the illicit behavior is not the second or subsequent instance of illicit behavior by the customer.
Okamura(claim 1, though applicant claim is relatively complex “or” is utilized as a choice and If might not occur, if not the second instance etc. thus interpret similar to claim 1, that a determination of fraud is made based on the behavior criteria)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fraud teachings of Suzuki with the counting of actions by Okamura for the motivation of “reducing labor costs” because there is less oversight more “fraud” monitoring is required. (0003)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 8/6/26. Claims 1, 6, and 8 through 17 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are amended; claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are canceled. Applicant added new claims 13-17. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended to recite that the detection of illicit behavior is performed based on images captured by one or more image capture devices, and that the detection of the illicit behavior includes detecting an inconsistency between a result of analysis of the images and information about registered items output from POS control circuitry. As amended, the independent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, the Office Action has characterized the claims as directed to a
fundamental economic practice, namely customer checkout and fraud analysis, within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, evaluated as a whole and with attention to the specific requirements of the claim limitations, are not directed to such an abstract idea. As amended, the independent claims require detecting illicit behavior based on images captured by one or more image capture devices, including by detecting an inconsistency between a result of analysis of the captured images and information about
registered items output from POS control circuitry. This image-based detection, which compares the result of an analysis of captured image data against item-registration data produced by POS control circuitry, is a computer-implemented data-processing operation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and is not itself a fundamental economic practice. A limitation is properly treated as a mental process only when it can be practically performed in the human mind, as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), and the claimed image-analysis and inconsistency- detection operations cannot be so performed.
Here whether the operation can be performed in the human mind is a theoretical analysis. Theoretically it can be done by a human just like it can be done manually. However, if the applicant could clarify the criteria and then take an action beyond an alert and also link the determining to a specific computer, then the examiner would likely agree.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, even assuming the claims recite an abstract idea, the additional limitations integrate any such idea into a practical application. The Specification describes a specific technical problem at paragraphs [0203] and [0204]. As described there, detecting illicit behavior by counting the number of times a customer has picked up items and the number of times the customer has registered items requires dedicated devices to count these numbers and other equipment, which complicates the configuration of the monitoring system and the management device.
The claimed invention provides a specific technical solution to this problem. By detecting illicit behavior based on images captured by one or more image capture devices, including by detecting an inconsistency between a result of analysis of the images and information about registered items output from POS control circuitry, the claimed system detects illicit behavior using a simpler configuration than a system that counts the number of times a customer has picked up items and the number of times the customer has registered items, as described at paragraph [0204]. This is an improvement to the technical field of automated in- store monitoring, not merely the application of an abstract idea on a generic computer. The Office Action acknowledges that the Specification discloses more specific elements, including image capture devices, that may be applied to claim a practical application, and the independent claims have now been amended to recite the image-based detection and inconsistency-detection operations that provide that practical application. The claim limitations thereby impose meaningful limits that confine any abstract idea to a particular technological implementation.
Here the applicant could claim a practical application however, the inconsistency measurement by analysis element is what is abstract. “between a result of analysis of the images and information about registered items” The actual analysis technique and the way of determining, currently “with varied conditions according to the type of illicit behavior” are rather abstract because there is no claim to the methodology. However the dependent claims provide further definition that might help in this regards.
The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to a specific technological solution to a technological problem are patent-eligible. The claims do not merely recite the performance of a known business practice with the requirement to perform it on a computer, but instead provide a particular technological solution, image-based detection of illicit behavior including detection of an inconsistency between image-analysis results and checkout item-registration data, that addresses a technical problem arising in the configuration of automated monitoring systems. The claims are therefore directed to patent-eligible subject matter at Step 2A, Prong Two.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1, 11, and 12, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Here the examiner agrees that this may be a technical solution but as claimed, it does not appear that the technical aspects are claimed in the detail that might be necessary to satisfy the practical application and or step 2a prong 2 analysis.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 al as being anticipated by US Patent Publication to Suzuki, 20230005267
Claims 1, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Suzuki. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended as set forth above. Applicant submits that the amended independent claims are patentable over Suzuki for at least the following reasons.
Amended claim 1 recites that the determination circuitry is configured to determine, with varied conditions according to the type of the illicit behavior, whether the amount of illicit behavior by the customer satisfies the criterion for each type of illicit behavior, and that the detection circuitry is configured to, in response to detecting illicit behavior by the customer,
obtain information about a type of the illicit behavior. Independent claims 11 and 12 recite corresponding features.
Suzuki does not disclose this feature.
The Office Action relies on Suzuki at paragraph [0046] for the rejection of claim 12, and on Suzuki at paragraphs [0072] and [0073] in connection with the related dependent claims. Suzuki at paragraphs [0072] and [0073] describes that an evaluating unit counts a first count, which is the number of motions of a person putting a commodity product into a basket, and a second count, which is the number of motions of registering a commodity product to a terminal, and determines that the person has behaved fraudulently when a difference between the first count and the second count is greater than or equal to a first threshold and when the first count is greater than or equal to a second threshold. The first threshold and the second threshold of Suzuki are applied to the discrepancy between item-pickup motions and item-registration motions and to the number of items, respectively. They are not conditions that vary according to a type of illicit behavior, and Suzuki does not obtain information about a type of illicit behavior and then vary the condition for determining whether the criterion is satisfied according to that type. Suzuki at paragraph [0074] describes a further third threshold applied when a person is specified from an image capturing a sales floor of a high-priced commodity product, but this concerns the price of the commodity product and the location of its sales floor, not a type of illicit behavior, and it does not disclose determining whether the criterion is satisfied for each type of illicit behavior with varied conditions according to the type. Accordingly, Suzuki does not disclose, expressly or inherently, the limitation of the amended independent claims requiring determination, with varied conditions according to the type of the illicit behavior, of whether the amount of illicit behavior satisfies the criterion for each type of illicit behavior.
Here the arguments are in part moot. However, it is noted that claim 12 does not clearly define the types of behavior to be multiple behaviors. For example “a type” could be one type. Varied conditions … the type of the illicit behavior… does this type have to be a different type. Varied conditions for example are also not limited to multiple.
Because Suzuki does not disclose at least the above limitation of each of independent
claims 1, 11, and 12, Suzuki does not anticipate the amended independent claims. Claims 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13 through 17 depend, directly or indirectly, from an amended independent claim and are patentable over Suzuki at least by virtue of that dependency, as well as for the additional limitations recited therein. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is respectfully requested.
Claim(s) 3,6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Suzuki in view of US Patent 11521447 to Ogram.
Claims 3 and 6 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ogram. By the present amendment, claims 3 and 6 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer. The rejection of claims 3 and 6 is therefore moot. Cancellation of these claims is not an admission regarding the patentability of their subject matter.
To the extent the combination of Suzuki and Ogram is applied against the amended
independent claims and the claims depending therefrom, Applicant submits that the combination does not render those claims unpatentable. Ogram is relied upon by the Office Action for teaching the identification of a former shoplifter entering the store, as described at column 4 and column 1, lines 35 through 40, of Ogram. Ogram is not relied upon, and does not disclose, determining with varied conditions according to the type of the illicit behavior whether the amount of illicit behavior satisfies the criterion for each type of illicit behavior. Ogram therefore does not cure the deficiency of Suzuki described above with respect to the amended independent claims. Because neither Suzuki nor Ogram, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests this limitation of the amended independent claims, the claims are patentable over the combination of Suzuki and Ogram for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to Suzuki.
Here the broadest reasonable interpretation is that the illicit behavior could be just one and thus Suzuki teaches identifying fraud and Ogram teaches shop lifting which is a type of fraud. The combination is now asserted. However it does appear that applicant could tighten the claims to be more specific about the count of behavior and types to overcome this art. For new claims 13-17, a new art, Okamura is asserted which might be more relevant for a narrowed independent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A mobile checkout application for groceries, IEEE 2022
Revealing the retail black box by interaction sensing, IEEE, 2003
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights