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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations of a method for processing product transactions at an unmanned product checkout (including AI), which falls under mental steps/ organized human activity/ math. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is merely being performed using generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the exception is being applied to a generic environment using generic components. The Examiner notes that transfer units, weight sensors, scan units, and recognition units are generic computer components performing routine data gathering, tantamount to mental work/ processes. The processor is generally recited and is performing routine data processing/ data gathering. Displaying is insignificant post solution activity, and the implementation of AI falls under math, as it is broadly recited and is being applied to the checkout field. The generic retrieving, displaying, and analyzing of data with generic computer components has been determined to be directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) for similar concepts. The dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons as they merely further specify details of the abstract ideas, such as the types of data, additional comparison/ output steps, and further data gathering. Claim 10 recitations of a membership program fall under organized human activity.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryukov (US 20240051756) in view of Goncalves (US 7909248) and Packwood et al. (US 202301773910).
Kryukov teaches:
an unmanned store product checkout apparatus comprising:
a first transfer unit for transferring a product to scan the product desired by a user to purchase (301+);
a first product recognition unit installed at a first point where transfer of the product begins by the first transfer unit, to recognize that the product is placed on the first transfer unit (501+);
a weight sensor installed at a lower one side of the first transfer unit, to measure a weight of the product (identification module 7 can include a weight module);
a scan unit installed to be spaced apart from the first transfer unit as much as a preset distance, to scan a barcode and an image of the product transferred by the first transfer unit (identification module can include barcodes per paragraph [0088]+);
a second product recognition unit installed at a second point where scan of the product is performed by the scan unit, to recognize that the product has arrived at the second point (505+).
Kryukov teaches different transfer units (301+) for transferring based on production recognition. For example, 304 is designed to allow reverse movement of the belt to return products to tray 6 if the identified product does not match. Second product recognition can be intpereted as prior to entering the tunnel and product identification performed by the processor results in conveyor (9) to move the products to the end. A control unit is understood as implicit for such acts. Though silent to a calculation unit for calculating a total price of the products and a display unit for providing the user with the total price and a product list, the Examiner notes that such limitations are notoriously well known and conventional for self-checkouts and are an obvious expedient to facilitate the process with a customer.
Though a processor is implicit in Kryukov for identifying the product, Kryukov is silent to explicitly reciting a processor for identifying what the product is by using artificial intelligence learning data on the basis of the barcode and image of the product scanned by the scan unit and the weight of the product measured through the weight sensor.
Goncalves teaches using the barcode, image, and weight to identify the product (col 4, lines 35+, including determining consistency between a UPC, weight, and visual features)). As Goncalves teaches models, AI data is obviated for machine learning.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for accuracy.
Nonetheless, Packwood et al. generally teaches machine learning/ AI as it pertains to checkouts, for images, scales, and barcodes (paragraph [0020]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for improved accuracy through machine learning.
Re claim 2, as discussed above, there is a plurality of transfer units. The Examiner notes that a number of units of directional layout is within the ordinary skill in the art based on the layout of the apparatus.
Re claim 3, a barcode scanner and imager have been discussed above, and are ubiquitous in self-checkouts, especially tunnel-based checkouts for security and accuracy.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Goncalves/ Packwood et al. teach using images, barcodes, and weights, and various situations for determining proper identification of a product or faulty identification. Accordingly, it would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, that when a product is recognized/ not recognized that a signal is generated to provide information to the system/ customer. Goncalves at col 4, lines 45+ teaches various scenarios which obviate the claimed limitations based on level of accuracy/ security for the system.
Re claim 5, as discussed above, various transfer units have been discussed above to guide the products through the system to completion or to tray 6 for unidentified products, which obviates the use of transfer units based on a desired layout of the system.
Re claim 6, the limitations have been discussed above. Though silent to user information at a user terminal, the Examiner notes that user information such as payment/ loyalty (card) is an obvious expedient as part of a checkout process to pay. Receiving tray 6 is for unidentified products and area 10/11 is output areas for identified products. Scanning and weight recognition have been discussed above. It would have been obvious that conveyors be stopped when they have finished moving. Though Kryukov is silent to the weight being measured, then stopping the first transfer unit when the product arrives at a second point at which scanning occurs, as the Kryukov teaches such events occurring in tunnel 7. Goncalves at paragraph [0025]+ teaches that the weighing can occur anywhere including at the start of the conveyor belt. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the weighing done before the tunnel (scanning) as the location is not critical to the operation of the system, and that placing the scale in front would provide object detection to turn on / off belts, etc. One would have been obviated to stop a first unit when it has arrived at a second point such as to save energy to not run belts when not required.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryukov/ Goncalves/ Packwood et al., as discussed above, in view of Beghtol et al. (US 20180157881).
Re claim 7, scanning a barcode has been discussed above. Though both imaging and barcode capture have been taught above, the prior art is silent to the limitation of acquiring an image when the barcode is not recognized and acquiring a name.
Beghtol et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph 208-214). Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to help assist in production identification when barcodes fail, which obviates a name/identification of the product. The Examiner notes that AI learning data has been taught above.
Re claims 8-9, as discussed above, the use of weight information to verify a product has been discussed above, and the Examiner notes that an item is transported to the exit when the weight is corresponding to the expected weight and to transport to tray 6 when unexpected results / unconfirmed/ unverified/ fault condition. Displaying a notification is an obvious expedient as part of a checkout transaction.
Re claim 10, thought silent to the detail of the membership information as recite, the examiner notes that such limtaitons are routine and conventional in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the expected benefits of loyalty programs applied at checkouts, such as for marketing, customer savings, etc.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryukov/ Goncalves/ Packwood et al./ Beghtol et al., as discussed above, in view of Schueller et al. (US 20110196732).
The teachings of Kryukov/ Goncalves/ Packwood et al./ Beghtol et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the membership/ loyalty/ rewards as recited.
Schueller et al. generally teaches membership/ reward/ loyalty, as is known in the art for shopping (paragraph [0040]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to provide the benefits of membership/ rewards programs such as marketing, discounts, loyalty, etc., wherein displaying and discounts are implicit/ obviated as part of the checkout.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights