 |
Description  |
|
|
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The invention pertains to the field of methods and devices for retail price
tag generation and maintenance. More particularly, the invention pertains
to an improved shelf price label, methods and apparatus for confirming the
accuracy of shelf pricing and product placement in a retail environment,
and for printing replacement shelf price tags for those with incorrect
prices.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The parent to this application, entitled "SHELF PRICE LABEL VERIFICATION
APPARATUS AND METHOD," taught the basic apparatus and method of
verification used in this Continuation-in-part application. The present
invention uses the apparatus and method disclosed in the parent with the
additional function or step of verifying that the product on the shelf
matches the shelf price label.
The adoption of the Universal Product Code (UPC) in April 1973 transformed
bar codes from a technological curiosity into a business necessity. Before
the UPC, every company had its own way of identifying its products. Some
used letters, some numbers, some both, and some had no codes at all.
Moreover, before the UPC, various bar code systems were in use, all
incompatible. After the UPC, any bar code on any product could be scanned
and interpreted in every suitably equipped store in the company.
The UPC comprises a twelve-digit bar code which is split into two halves.
The first digit is always 0, except for products like meat and produce
that have a variable price dependent upon weight, and a few other special
types of items. The first five digits after the "0" are the manufacturer's
code, the next five are the product code, and the last is a "check digit"
used to verify that the preceding digits have been scanned properly.
Hidden cues in the structure of the code tell the scanner which end is
which, so it can be scanned in either direction.
In certain products such as meat, etc., the first part of the code
identifies the type of item (chuck steak, chicken wings, etc.), and the
second half gives the price. Books, too, are given the price coding in the
second code group, and a part of the ISBN code is appended in another,
smaller, code group.
Manufacturers register their codes with the Uniform Code Council (UCC) to
get an identifier code for their companies, then register each of their
products. Thus, each package that passes over a checkout stand has its own
unique identification number.
Standardization made it worth the expense for manufacturers to put the
symbol on their packages and for printers to develop the new types of ink,
plates and other technology to reproduce the codes with the exact
tolerance required. Despite the estimated $200,000 per store cost of
scanning equipment, and the potential $200 million annual cost to
manufacturers, tests showed the UPC system would pay for itself in a few
years.
Once the level of 85% identification of products was reached in the late
1970's, sales of scanner systems took off rapidly. In 1978, less than 1%
of all grocery stores had scanners. By mid-1981 the figure was 10%, three
years later it was 33%, and today over 60% of all grocery stores in the
nation are using checkout scanners. Other types of stores have begun to
follow, led by discount chains such as K-mart and Walmart. (The preceding
discussion is adapted from "Bar Codes Sweep the World", Invention and
Technology, Spring 1993, pp. 57-63).
Although originally sold as a way of reducing time and errors at the
checkout without adding register employees, stores soon discovered that
one of the primary sources of savings in the use of the UPC system is that
it is no longer necessary for a store to pay an employee to individually
tag each and every item in the store. Instead, a single price label is
placed on the shelf next to (or under) the items to be sold. This also
allows price changes to be made without having to retag hundreds of items,
and eliminates the possibility of mis-tagged items.
While ideal for the retailer, shelf pricing has its disadvantages from the
consumer's point of view. Since there is no price on the item, the
checkout scanner (which is working from a central store database of
prices) will charge the customer based on the database price, without
reference to the shelf price. Unless he or she notes the price from the
shelf on each and every item, a consumer has no way of knowing if the
shelf price is the price he or she is actually charged at the register.
There may be some reason for consumers to mistrust shelf pricing. According
to an article in the Ithaca (NY) Journal, recent studies by Information
Week claimed that American consumers were overcharged some $2.5 Billion in
1992 ("NYPIRG: Scanner bill doesn't add up", Ithaca Journal, Apr. 19,
1993, page 3A), and a study in Money Magazine estimated that scanner
errors account for more than half of supermarket profits, giving consumers
a 1-in-10 chance of being overcharged on each visit to one of the 30% of
stores that routinely overcharge. ("Don't Get Cheated by Supermarket
Scanners", Money Magazine, April, 1993, pp. 32-138)
The Money Magazine article (p. 138) indicates that Connecticut exempts
stores from a coding law if the store uses computerized shelf pricing. To
this inventor's knowledge, the "electronic unit price shelf tags" are, in
fact, small electronic readouts under each item in the store which
directly display the scanner database price for each item. This is
obviously a huge investment for a store, not to mention the time and
trouble to reprogram a system when moving items from one shelf to another.
Legislation requiting stores to guarantee the accuracy of shelf prices
against scanner prices may be expected in the future. Tompkins County (NY)
is currently holding hearings on such a law requiring a 98% accuracy rate,
and New York, among other states, is considering it. Stores approve of a
scanner accuracy law, since it allows them to continue shelf pricing in
the absence of item pricing, but they will need some way of checking the
shelf prices to avoid penalties under the law. Having an employee manually
check every shelf label against a price list will eliminate some of the
gains made by going to shelf pricing in the first place. Also, counties or
states will need some way of checking shelf prices against scanner prices
to enforce any law which eventually goes into effect.
Watson, et.al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,654,514, recognizes the problem of
incorrect shelf prices and the difficulty of keeping them up to date. He
solves the problem by eliminating the shelf price and giving the consumer
a shelf mounted scanner to scan the UPC on the item, displaying the
correct price from a database downloaded from the store host. This system
just makes the problem worse, from the point of view of the consumer,
since this means no prices are displayed at all, neither on the shelf nor
on the item, and the customer must scan every item on the shelf to get
price comparisons. The confusion on a busy shopping night can be easily
imagined.
Tashiro, et.al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,065,002, provides a portable unit having a
bar code reader and printer, which reads bar codes and then prints them.
No particular application is disclosed, nor are any characteristics or
uses of the bar codes scanned. There is no processing of the data read, no
database of prices and no price lookup. Bar codes are scanned by a
hand-held scanner wand, stored in the wand, and dumped to the printer for
duplication.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Under the teachings of the invention, each shelf label will be printed with
the UPC or other barcoded identification for the product, extended with an
additional code group giving the price for the item. A portable
verification unit having a scanner is used to scan the label, including
the price. The UPC is used to look up the correct price in the store
database which is the same as that used by the store's checkout scanners
(or a full or partial copy of the database in the portable unit), and the
two prices are compared. In the case of an error, a new label beating the
correct price may be printed immediately. Also, the UPC or other barcode
on the product itself is scanned and compared to the shelf price label.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING
FIG. 1 shows the apparatus of the invention in use, scanning a shelf label.
FIG. 2 shows a detail of a shelf label adapted for use with the method of
the invention.
FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of the apparatus of the invention.
FIG. 4 shows a flowchart of the method of the invention.
FIG. 5 shows a detail of the top of the apparatus of the invention.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
Overview of the Invention
FIG. 1 shows the preferred embodiment of the invention as it might be used
in a store.
Two products are shown in the figure, bottles of soda (24) and milk cartons
(28), on a representative shelf (27). In front of the products are shelf
labels: (19a) for the soda, and (19b) for the milk. Each label gives the
price (20) of the item, in large numbers for the consumer to read. Each
label also has a bar code (18a)(18b), which will be discussed in greater
detail below. Each item has the standard UPC barcode--(17a) on the soda
(24), and (17b) on the milk (28). It will be noted that the shelf label
(19b) for the milk (28) does not match the product, in that the label
(19b) recites "1/2 Gallon Milk" and the actual container is "1 Gallon".
The invention is implemented using a portable verification unit (10), which
incorporates the various elements necessary to practice the invention. The
verification unit may be mounted on or placed in a roll-around cart or
shopping cart, or the entire unit could be made small enough to hang over
the shoulder of the unit operator on a strap.
The verification unit (10) has a top panel (16) shown in detail on FIG. 5.
The panel (16) has a readout device (55) or indicator which would
preferably be of the alphanumeric LCD type which is commonly available
from many sources, and requires low power drain and simple, standardized
interfacing. However, other display devices such as LED's, gas or plasma
discharge, or incandescent, could be used within the teachings of the
invention. Since the number of messages to be conveyed would be limited,
the readout could be replaced with a number of LED's or indicator lights
next to appropriate labels ("Item OK", "Item Mismatch", "Price OK", "Price
Error", "Item Not Found", etc.), if desired.
A number of switches, in the form of pushbuttons, will preferably be
mounted on the top panel. Shown are buttons for "Load Database" (56),
"Print" (57), and "Done" (58), as well as ON/OFF switches (or a single
rocker or toggle switch) for system power (54). The use of these switches
will become evident later. Switches of many kinds are available, and the
choice of type will be obvious to one skilled in the art.
The verification unit will have a printer (11) with paper supply, to allow
replacement shelf price labels to be printed if an error is detected. The
printer will preferably be built into the verification unit, but it will
be understood by one skilled in the art that the printer might be in a
separate box and attached to the verification unit by any convenient means
such as cables, IR remote, etc. Many kinds of small, low-power printers
are available, including thermal, inkjet or inked-ribbon, any of which can
be used within the teachings of the invention. The printer must be capable
of printing shelf labels or paper slips, including the printing of a bar
code which can be read by a scanner. This would not pose a problem with
most dot-matrix type printers known today. The printers designed for
portable calculators or label makers would be usable within the teachings
of the invention. The exact choice of printer for a specific application
would be determined by factors of price, power requirements, and the type
of label to be printed, all of which would be within the capability of any
person skilled in the art.
The verification unit is equipped with two connectors (12) and (13).
Connector (12) is for communications with the store's computer, to
download the UPC/price database into the verification unit's internal
storage. This connector would preferably be one of the industry-standard
connectors, such as the 25-pin DB-25, nine-pin DB-9, or one of the five-
or nine-pin DIN connectors.
The second connector (13) is for the scanning device, here shown as a wand
(15), connected to the main verification unit by a cord (14). In an
alternate embodiment, the cord (14) could be replaced by a remote means
such as IR or RF, which would allow a larger and heavier verification unit
to be mounted on a roll-around cart, with full freedom to the employee
doing the sensing, so long as he remained in range of the cart. The
scanning device is shown as a wand, which is available from many sources,
however one of the scanning guns available on the market could be used
instead. The wand is easier to use in this application, as it can simply
be run down the shelf in contact with the shelf edge and scanning each
label as it passes. The gun would require the employee to aim accurately
and "shoot" each label. In some applications, the gun might be preferable,
and the exact form of the scanning device can vary within the teachings of
the invention.
The wand (15) or gun is preferably provided with a switch (16) or trigger
to signal the verification unit that scanning of a label has begun, and
thus to start the laser beam for scanning. This switch may be omitted, if
desired. The trade-off between use of this switch (16) and continuous
scanning would be obvious to one skilled in the art, including such
factors as power drain, laser life, dangers from visible laser beams, etc.
FIG. 2 shows a shelf label (19) modified for use with the invention. The
label will include pricing information (20) for the customer to read,
possibly including a unit price as shown. It will also include a product
description (21), so the customer can determine what product the price
label refers to. An extended UPC for the product is printed on the label.
The standard UPC, identifying the product as described above (22), is
followed by an additional barcode group (23) giving the price of the item.
Preferably, this additional barcode follows the same format as the price
portion of the standard UPC price code used for priced items such as meat
or the like, which eliminates the need to define an additional code and
uses standard UPC coding-and decoding methods.
It should be noted that the exact coding shown in the drawing and described
herein is given for example only, and that any scanner-readable coding
which gives both the item identification and price will work within the
teachings of the invention. The "UPC" bars in FIGS. 1 and 2 of the drawing
do not actually relate to the products shown, nor do they form a valid UPC
barcode, but are provided for drawing purposes only.
Internal Details of the Apparatus
Referring now to FIG. 3, the block diagram of the portable verification
unit itself is enclosed in dotted lines (30). Not shown is the power
supply for the verification unit, which will preferably comprise a
rechargeable battery pack of sufficient voltage and amp/hour rating to
power the verification unit for several hours. Gelled-electrolyte
lead-acid ("Gel Cell") or Nickel-Cadmium (NiCd) batteries would be
preferable for this application. The choice of specific power supply will
depend on the electronics chosen for the various components in a manner
familiar to one skilled in the art.
The verification unit is seen to comprise a CPU (33), which can be any of
the many (preferably low power) general-purpose VLSI microprocessor
"chips" available, such as the 80C386 or the like. These devices are
currently widely used in portable "laptop" computers, and the same
advantages which make them well adapted for that application are also
important here.
The basic microprogram for the verification unit can be "burned" into Read
Only Memory (ROM) in the chip itself, or external ROM (68) can be provided
as shown. The ROM (68) contains the programming necessary to allow the CPU
to perform the functions required. If desired, the ROM need contain no
more code than that necessary to instruct the verification unit to
download additional code into the Random Access Memory (RAM) (37) from the
store's computer, when the price and identification data is loaded into
the disk (35).
The RAM (37) contains the short-term storage needed for the operation of
the verification unit, and possibly elements of the CPU programming which
are not ROM-resident. Any RAM which will interface with the CPU chosen is
usable, and the specific chips chosen will vary based on the processor,
the state of the art at the time, power drain, required memory capacity,
etc. At the present time, 1 Megabyte CMOS low-drain memory would be the
most likely choice.
The "disk" (35) is used to contain the price and product identification
information downloaded from the store's main computer. Although called a
"disk" in this specification, it will be understood by one skilled in the
art that the exact form of this mass storage medium will vary within the
teachings of the invention as the technology of portable mass storage
evolves. At present, large capacity rotating magnetic disks (on the order
of hundreds of megabytes) are relatively inexpensive and easily available.
In the future, this may be replaced by solid state memory, optical disks,
bubble memory, or some other technology yet to be developed. If desired,
large chains might distribute the price database on Compact Disk Read-Only
Memory (CDROM), which could either be physically used in the verification
unit, or downloaded onto a conventional magnetic or other "disk" in the
verification unit.
The information stored in the disk will contain, at a minimum, the UPC key
and price for every item to be verified. Preferably, the database will
also contain such information as a description of the item, quantity of
sale (14-ounce box, 1/2 gallon bottle, 50-count package, etc.), and
standard unit for unit pricing ("each", "ounce", "10-count", etc.), so
that all of the information necessary to produce the price label will be
immediately available in mass storage. Preferably the data will be stored
in some compressed format to save on disk space and transfer/access time.
If the "disk" storage is limited, it will be understood that the database
need not contain all of the UPC information for the entire store. By
planning how the store is to be checked, the database could be downloaded
in sections (i.e. all canned goods, all cereals, dairy/produce, etc.) and
the price checking would then be done by section of the store. As a
practical matter, this would have little or no effect upon the operation
of the system, since stores tend to be arranged in related aisles, and it
is most likely that an entire section would be scanned at a time, before
moving on to unrelated merchandise. If the store's computer contains such
information, the data could specifically be downloaded by aisle or group
of aisles.
It is not necessary for the data base to reside in the verification unit,
though this is preferred. If desired, the "disk" in the verification unit
can be eliminated, and the "I/O" link (34) in FIG. 3 between the
verification unit (30) and the store computer (60) would become a remote
link, using whatever radio (RF) or infrared (IR) technology is current at
the time. For example, the "wireless LAN modem" technology could be used
to establish the link, or a duplex simultaneous transmission/reception
path on one or more frequencies could be used with conventional 4-wire
modems. The operation of the invention would not change, except that the
"download database" step (42) of FIG. 4 would not be needed, and the
lookup would actually be performed in the store's computer database via
the remote link.
The display (36), switches (64), (65) and (66), wand (38), cord (67), and
printer (32) were discussed above.
The three switches shown would be used to initiate a database download
(56), control the printer (57) and signal that the scanning process is
completed (58). Since these switches will merely provide contact-closure
signals to the CPU, the exact functions of the switches will be under
software control. For example, the "print" switch could be programmed to
cycle through a series of print modes, signaled by appropriate messages on
the display (i.e., "No Print", "Print Always", "Print on Price Error").
The CPU could be programmed to print a summary on detecting a press of the
"done" key, etc. Other uses for the switches will be evident to one
skilled in the art.
The wand (38) or other scanning means will have a light source (62),
preferably an IR laser diode for the wand application (a gun would use a
higher-power visible laser) which illuminates the bar code (39), and a
photodetector (63) to detect the reflected light and thus "read" the code.
Preferably, the verification unit will include an audible alarm (69). This
could be simply a speaker driven from a port on the CPU, as is used in the
common PC speaker system, or it could be a piezoelectric alarm or
"Sonalert" module which are commonly available.
The store computer (60) would most likely be the same computer as now
exists to drive the checkout scanners. It maintains the database (61) of
information on the products. The I/O interface (34) adapts the
verification unit to the store computer in any way convenient to the
designer and the computer system. Preferably, this will be an
industry-standard serial RS-232 or RS-422 interface running at the maximum
available baud rate, or a standard bi-directional Centronics parallel
interface might provide a higher data rate. The volume of information to
be loaded into the verification unit will dictate that the highest
possible data transfer rate, perhaps including some compression, be used
to minimize the transfer time. If desired, while the data is being
downloaded, the internal batteries can be charging.
The preferred embodiment of the invention has been described herein in the
form of a specialized apparatus, specially built for the application.
However, it will be understood that one skilled in the art could adapt a
conventional general-purpose portable computer, such as one of the many
"laptop" or "notebook" PCs on the market today, to practice the invention.
Operation of the Invention
FIG. 4 shows a flowchart of the basic operation of the method of the
invention. This flowchart is intended to illustrate the basic operation of
the invention. Additional variations in the flowchart will be evident to
one skilled in the art, and some will be discussed below.
If the system is designed for the correct store price database to reside in
the portable verification unit, the operation starts (41) with the
download of the database from the store computer (42). This will probably
be initiated by plugging the verification unit into the store computer
(60), running an appropriate program on the store computer, and pressing
the "Load DB" button (56) on the verification unit. When step (42) is
complete, the verification unit can display an appropriate message such as
"DOWNLOAD COMPLETE" on the display (36).
If a remote data link to the store computer used to control the checkout
scanners replaces the internally stored database, then the "download
database" step (42) would be replaced by "establish remote link", with the
rest of the method proceeding as described below.
The basic scanning routine of the invention is enclosed in dotted lines
(43). The operations before and after this routine are shown in summary
fashion only, as the exact details of database loading, etc, will vary by
the hardware and software being used by the store, within the ability of
one skilled in the art.
The scan routine (43) is started when the employee takes the verification
unit out into the store to begin scanning. The employee scans a
shelf-price label (44) pressing the trigger switch.(16) on the wand (15)
or gun. This causes the scanning means to read the label, and the UPC (22)
and price (23) from the label are decoded by the CPU and loaded into the
RAM (37). The CPU then uses the UPC as a key to look up (retrieve) an item
record (45) in the database on the disk (35). If the item record is not
found (46), the CPU will cause the display to show an appropriate message
("ITEM NOT FOUND") and preferably to emit an audible warning. The routine
then falls through to the point where the item label is scanned (71).
Alternatively, if the decision is made that label items which cannot be
found need not be verified for match with the actual item, the routine
could ignore the item scan part and instead check for the "done" switch
(52).
If the item record was found (46), the CPU then (48) compares the price
scanned from the label (23) to the price from the item record retrieved
from the database stored on disk (35). If the comparison indicates that
the price is correct, the CPU displays a message to that effect (49)
("PRICE OK"), optionally gives an audible indication, and falls through to
the item scan (71), as described above.
If the price comparison was not successful (48), the CPU displays (50) an
appropriate message ("PRICE ERROR") with optional audible warning, and
prints (51) a new label, using the information from the database for the
description, units, etc. The printer can be set up to produce the entire
label "from scratch", using blank labels or paper. If desired, the printer
could also be loaded with preprinted forms bearing the store's logo,
possibly with color accents or advertising material, which would also have
the added advantage of making it difficult to forge the price labels.
The employee can then replace the erroneous shelf price label with the
newly printed one, and move on to the next label.
The next step is for the employee to use the wand (15) to scan the UPC on
the item (71) which is, in theory, related to the label. When the UPC is
scanned, the identification is compared (72) with the identification which
was previously scanned from the shelf label. If the comparison is passed
(i.e. the ID's match) the CPU generates some appropriate message (74) such
as "Item OK", possibly with an associated audio tone, and the routine
proceeds to check the "done" switch (52).
If, as is shown for the milk (28) in the example of FIG. 1, the shelf label
identification does not match the actual product UPC, then the CPU
displays an appropriate error message (73) ("Item Mismatch"), with an
optional audio alarm. The employee is thus prompted to check the relative
placement of the product and/or label and move one or the other so that
they correspond. The routine then proceeds to check the "done" switch
(52).
If the "done" indication (52) is true (i.e. the "done" button was pushed)
the routine can simply end, return to the "start" condition ("READY FOR
DOWNLOAD"), or print a summary listing of scans and errors (70), or some
combination of these.
As discussed above, several print modes could be programmed into the
verification unit within the teachings of the invention. The modifications
to the flowchart of FIG. 4 for the various modes discussed are simple. The
basic flowchart of FIG. 4 shows the "Print on Price Error" mode of
operation. To implement the "Print Always" mode, check after the "Price
OK" display (49) for the "Print Always" indicator. If true, go to block
(51) (Print new label). To implement a "No Print" mode, check for a "no
print" indication. If true, then block (51) is bypassed.
If the system designer desires, the order of the individual steps in the
method could be varied within the teachings of the inventio | | |
