DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Claims on 08/11/2025. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-21 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/27/2021.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 and 04/03/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement 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, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is a manufacture that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 7, 9, 11, 12, and 21 are directed to an action determination method, which is a process that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 12, 15, and 17-19 are directed to an action determination device, which is a machine that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Step 2A, Prong 1 -The independent claims 1, and similarly claims 7 and 13 recite:
acquiring history information of a user operation on a checkout machine to which a product to be purchased is registered and that performs checkout processing of the registered product (acquiring, . . . , historical information of a user operation” falls under a mental processes, as we acquire information with our minds. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: 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).);
specifying, based on information about an interaction between the user and an object wherein the information is output from a machine learning model that receives an image obtained by capturing the user in front of the checkout machine, an action in which the user has the checkout machine read a code of an object while grasping the object (specifying…an action that a user is operating a checkout machine while grasping an objects falls under a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically a commercial interaction in that is a way in which a user interacts with a machine. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) “activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping”); and
determining, based on the acquired history information, that the object in the specified action is a personal item and not a product to be purchased when detecting the specified action within a period during which a second mode is performed (making a determination falls under a mental processes, as we regularly make determinations with our minds. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: 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).);
wherein an action of a user operation on the checkout machine includes a first mode in which the user has the checkout machine read a code of a product to be purchased is read and the product is registered to the checkout machine and a second mode that is performed after the first mode is finished and in which the product registered to the checkout machine is checked out (actions that a user takes while operating a checkout machine in different modes falls under a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically a commercial interaction in that is a way in which a user interacts with a machine. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) “The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108”), when a user checks out at a self-checkout terminal, there is no meaningful distinction from other checkout processes),
and the period during which the second mode is performed is determined to be based on the history information, a particular duration before a time point at which a payment operation is performed on the checkout machine (a determination made to operate a checkout machine in different points in time is a certain method of organizing human activity under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B))
counting a number of times of a product registration operation on the checkout machine, and among the number of times of the product registration operation, counting a number of times of the product registration operation performed in the second mode as a number of times of personal item approach representing the number of times the personal item has approached the checkout machine (counting products falls under a mental processes, as we regularly count in our minds. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: 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).);
acquiring a number of registered products representing a number of the products registered to the checkout machine (acquiring information, is also collecting information, which can be performed in our minds. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: 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).); and
when the number of registered products acquired from the checkout machine is different from a value obtained by subtracting the number of times of personal item approach from the number of times of the product registration operation, outputting an alert to detect a fraud by the user (subtracting information, is also analyzing information, which can be performed in our minds. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: 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).).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these abstract idea limitations recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - The additional elements found in independent claim 1, and similarly claims 7 and 13 include a computer, processor, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, history information, machine learning model and a checkout machine.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of a computer, or more than mere application on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.” Where the additional elements must do more than be linked to the abstract ideas recited in Prong 1.
The computer, processor and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium are elements presented as a means to implement the abstract idea. In order for the claims to integrate the abstract idea, those specific limitations would need to improve the functionality of a computer, or improve the technical field. MPEP 2106.05(a) “a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” which describes that technical details are needed to showcase how decision making would be an improvement to the functioning of a computer. However, the three elements are claimed in name only and are linked by “configuring” to perform the abstract steps.
The history information is additional information that is being used to input into an algorithm to create an output with relations to a checkout machine. However, this information is being recited as the information needed for a solution, but it does not recite details of how the solution would be accomplished with this information. Therefore, having the information to input, and the having something happen to create an output is not technical details. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The machine learning model is recited in name only, and therefore is being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) where when a computer element is used to implement the abstract idea, with no details it is merely a tool.
The checkout machine is used to obtain the information, and is equivalent to using the language “computer”, in that it is placed in the claim as a technical element to be used as a tool. The checkout terminal is not changed nor does it function differently based on the acquirement of information. Therefore under MPEP 2106.05(a) the abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to the abstract idea, which does not improve the functioning of a computer element.
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B - The independent claims 1, and similarly claims 7 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements combined would not be more than application on computer.
The additional elements of a computer, processor, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and checkout terminal, are used as a different tools to apply the abstract idea. The elements are not integrated with processor instructions beyond the application of the instructions on these four elements. The claims additionally recite how the computer can make “determining”, “specifying” and “acquiring” steps, and the limitations claim the solution, which is to determine, but fail to recite details on how this is accomplished. The limitation make a determination based on acquired information, and that acquired information is also not claimed with details on how, but rather describe the idea of a solution based on the desired outcome. Therefore, the claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing more than mere application on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The improvement to a functioning of a computer MPEP 2106.05(a) brings to the forefront when a process is accomplished on a computing device, and uses computers to make “determining”, “specifying” and “acquiring” steps. In order for the steps to be integrated, the steps must showcase how it would address computer functionality. The problem being addressed in the claim, as viewed by Examiner, is the prevention of fraud at self-checkout terminals. The solution to the problem is comparing the list of scanned products and imaged products to see if there is a difference. The comparison is claimed as determining a match, but simply stating the computer performing a determination, without how the determination is accomplished, fails to provide any technical means to improve the functions of a computer to make that determination.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 5, 11, and 17 further discuss the determining. The additional limitations further describe the solution to a problem as “determine”, but fails to recite language that would recite details on how to solve the problem beyond application on a computer. Therefore, the claims fail to integrate or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 9, and 15 additionally discuss a first, second and third counting, as well as outputting an alert. The counting steps are an abstract idea because they fall under a mental processes, as we acquire information with our minds. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The claims do not add additional technical elements, and therefore this mental process is being applied to the processor, the processor used as a tool in the same way that the prior abstract steps were applied. The additional of three more abstract steps, does not make the combination change the functionality of a computer that would qualify under Step 2, Prong 2A, and the combination is not so unique that would be any more than was already discussed under Step 2, Prong 2B.
Outputting an alert is an abstract idea because they fall under a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically, business relations, as it is customary in a retail environment to alert employees of any problems at a checkout terminal. The abstract step is described in solution language, specifically the process outputs an alert, but does not include additional elements that would require any connection to a practical application. The alert an abstract concept, since there are not details about the alert itself (ie audible or visual), the checkout machine and its computer parts are not linked to the output in any meaningful way beyond being used as a tool under MPEP 2105.05(f).
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 further discusses a payment operation, the limitation provides a means to pay for the checkout terminal, but also describes the payment method as selection of a payment method. The act of performing payment is categorized as a certain method of organizing human activity, since it is a commercial interaction. The payment operation is being performed on the processor, and the additional element continues to be used a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the limitation is described with outcome based language, and therefore selecting a payment method is not a recitation of a solution beyond stating the desired outcome. Therefore, the claims fail to integrate or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 19-21 further discuss the information being stored for the history, which is just part of the abstract idea. The type and details of the information being used to analyze the business does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, since the type of information does not change functionality.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 7 and 13:
US 2021/0280027 A1 Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen) teaches a checkout machine that performs checkout processing (Wen [0072] [0103] the user operates the checkout machine and begins to acquire information about the registered products).
US 2013/0238471 A1 Maraz et al. (hereinafter Maraz) teaches saving a history of purchased products (Maraz [0011] product identification information saved within a database).
US 2019/0236362 A1 Srivastava et al. (hereinafter Srivastava) teaches a machine learning model to identify object (Srivastava [0027] machine learning algorithm to identify objects).
The claim elements not found in the prior art includes:
counting a number of times of a product registration operation on the checkout machine, and among the number of times of the product registration operation, counting a number of times of the product registration operation performed in the second mode as a number of times of personal item approach representing the number of times the personal item has approached the checkout machine;
acquiring a number of registered products representing a number of the products registered to the checkout machine; and
when the number of registered products acquired from the checkout machine is different from a value obtained by subtracting the number of times of personal item approach from the number of times of the product registration operation, outputting an alert to detect a fraud by the user.
The elements specifically are able to make a determination between purchased products and personal items, specifically using a counting value and subtracting personal items from total product count.
Dependent claims 3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-21 now depend from claims that indicate allowable subject matter.
Overall, prior art is not found to teach the claimed invention, however the claims remain rejected under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, the amended claim language recite a method to identifying a user presenting a personal item, and those steps within the method includes making a determinations using images and historical data. The determination step is described in the abstract, functional based language, that does not provide a technical solution. The steps being performed on a computer does not show that the claims go beyond the application of an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim remains rejected under 101.
Regarding the 103 rejection, the claim has been amended and the prior 103 rejection has been removed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0216785 A1 Debucean et al. teaches scanning items at checkout (Abstract); US11482082B2; US20090096607A1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627