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
This office action is in response to communication filed on 7/16/2025.
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-17, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claims 1, 9 and 17 as representative recite:
detecting, for a target transaction that is performed to collectively check out one or more products, one or more scanning actions by analyzing a video including a hand of a user, wherein the one or more products are registered as one or more checkout targets of the target transaction via the one or more scanning actions;
counting a number of times the one or more scanning actions have been detected; and displaying both the number of times the one or more scanning actions and the number of the one or more products that have been registered as the one or more checkout targets while the one or more products are registered via the one or more scanning actions.
The limitations recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). These limitations, as drafted, recite a simple mental process that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance with pen and paper but for the recitation of the generic computer components. For example, a person reviewing a video, identifying when a hand performs a scanning motion, count those motions and compare results with the number of registered products.This would involve writing down the data and analyzing the information which may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims 1, 9 and 17 do recite additional elements, including registration checking apparatus, memory, processor, video. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 9 and 17 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 2-8, 10-16 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. Claims 2, 4 and 6 tie the analysis to the scanner’s readout area but the scanner is the environment in which the observation occurs. Claim 6 uses a detection model, which only specifies the result but does not alone establish a technological improvement.
In view of the above, claims 1-17 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 9 and 17 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, considering identifying, collecting, etc. as additional, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 9 and 17 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 2-8, 10-16, do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-17 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0183212, in view of Farow et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0096567).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, Wen teaches at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations [238-243] comprising:
detecting, for a target transaction that is performed to collectively check out one or more products, one or more scanning actions by analyzing a video including a hand of a user, wherein the one or more products are registered as one or more checkout targets of the target transaction via the one or more scanning actions; (Acquire a video of a user scanning one or more items, [56-65], motion tracks of hands and postures of hands, [66], each item pickup of the user may be considered as a complete action to determine whether there is code scanning behavior during each complete action, [68-73]),
counting video detected scanning actions; (the detection result may include whether the user has skip-scanning behavior, a quantity of skipped scans of the user, a moment at which skip-scanning behavior of the user is detected each time, [65])
Wen does not explicitly teach a number of times the one or more scanning actions have been detected; displaying both the number of times the one or more scanning actions and the number of the one or more products that have been registered as the one or more checkout targets while the one or more products are registered via the one or more scanning actions. However, Farrow teaches transaction data such as transaction count (e.g. scan count), thus represents the presence of an item or a number of items scanned by the scanner, while the item count from the video analysis represents the presence (or number) of items that the customer causes to move through the transaction area monitored by the video feed, [76], hen multiple items are scanned, the transaction data may also include transaction count which refers to a number items scanned via the scanner equipped by the checkout terminal. As the transaction count is identified using the scanner, the transaction count may be compared with a count of the items being placed at the bagging area, [74-75], the transaction data may be compared to the item count identified from the video analysis. When there is a discrepancy between the two counts, [77].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify individually detected actions of Wen, to include video counting, as taught by Farrow, in order to verifying a fraudulent activity by receiving input from the shopper at the self-checkout terminal to reduce false-positive alerts and human intervention, [3].
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Wen teaches the one or more scanning actions are detected in the video when the hand enters a readout area of a scanner and the hand subsequently exits the readout area, (the user's first action of moving a hand into a first boundary of the code scanning region, and determining the user's second action of moving a hand out of a second boundary of the code scanning region, [71]).
Regarding claims 3, 11, Wen teaches determining a scanning action of the one or more scanning actions is without product registration by comparing a period during which each scanning action is performed with a time point at which a corresponding product is registered and outputting an image including the scanning action, (determining whether the user has skip-scanning behavior in the time period according to an identifier of an item scanned in the time period, [69], In a time period in which an action takes place, if an identifier of an item is not scanned by the POS machine or another scanning apparatus, it is determined that the user has skip-scanning behavior in the time period, [73], it is found that a start time at which the user scans the first item is 19:00:00, and an end time is 19:00:05. A period of time between 19:00:00 and 19:00:05 is a time period in which a scanning action takes place, [77]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Wen teaches the one or more scanning actions are detected in the video when the hand holding a product enters the readout area and the hand subsequently exits the readout area, (user may align an identifier of an item to the scanner in the code scanning region to scan the item, [61], each item pickup of the user may be considered as a complete action to determine whether there is code scanning behavior during each complete action, [68], determining the user's second action of moving a hand out of a second boundary of the code scanning region, [71]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Wen teaches he one or more scanning actions are detected in the video when the hand with a shape satisfying a predetermined criterion enters the readout area of a scanner and the hand subsequently exits the readout area, (includes behavioral data of a user, for example, motion tracks of hands and postures of hands, [66], a plurality of key points of hands of a user may be obtained through algorithms such as OpenPose. Postures of the hands of the user are determined according to the key points, [67]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wen teaches detecting the one or more scanning actions comprises detecting the one or more scanning actions by using a detection model for detecting the one or more scanning actions from an input video, and the detection model is learned by using a video acquired by capturing an image of a scanning action with a camera, (see [66], 3D convolution, a plurality of consecutive frames are stacked to form a cube, [67], When the user scans the items, the self-service checkout terminal may acquire a video of the user in real time through the camera. The camera may be disposed at a position where item scan behavior of the user can be captured, [62-64]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Wen does not explicitly disclose, however, Farrow teaches the operations further comprise performing outputting a message prompting redoing of scanning of a product, (request the shopper to scan the item left in the shopping cart. Once the self-checkout terminal detects the missing item scanned, the SCO helper device may remove the notice and return to normal operation, [84, 89-90].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Wen teaches the skip scanning may be either intentional or unintentional [4, 55], but does not explicitly teach, however, Farrow teaches determining which of a fraudulent scanning action and a non-fraudulent scanning action a scanning action is, and predetermined output processing comprises performing output processing in such a way that output processing when a scanning action without product registration is a fraudulent scanning action and output processing when a scanning action without product registration is a non-fraudulent scanning action are different from each other, (The system comprises a computer processing unit which analyzes the video feed to identify the non-scan item. Further, the system comprises a self-checkout helper device which acts as a communication channel between the shopper and the attendant, to verify whether the non-scan item detected by the non-scan item detection system constitutes a fraudulent activity. Thus, the system and method for verifying a non-scan item disclosed herein provides a loss-prevention system and method that reduce false-positive rates in fraudulent activity detection and reduce a need for a human intervention, see at least [51-52, 58, 78-90].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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 (Ryan) 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights