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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicants reply dated 9/18/2025, claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections have been considered and have been found to be persuasive, therefore the previous 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea, provide for a practical application of the identified abstract idea and because it’s a close call and the Examiner should not make the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees. In regards to the claims not being directed towards an abstract idea please see the below 101 rejection for the Examiner’s findings on the amended claims in regards to what is considered to be the abstract idea. Further, with regard to the practical application of the identified abstract idea the Examiner asserts that the claim only recites 4 additional elements – memory, processor, customer device, store device. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements as described do not provide for an improvement to the functioning of the computer/technology itself, the additional elements of memory, processor, customer device, store device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. With regard to the instant claims being a close call, the Examiner disagrees and asserts that the claims are directed to the identified abstract idea.
Therefore the 101 rejection is maintained and is final.
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, 5-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11 are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A store mobile terminal device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, based on an input of a customer identification information about a customer, a customer mode,
receive, based on an input of a store clerk identification information about a store clerk, a store clerk mode;
display, based on receiving the store clerk mode, a screen configured to receive any of a pre-handling mode and an emergency mode
receive, based on a selection that is through the screen and is of one of the pre- handling mode and the emergency mode, the one of the pre-handling mode and the emergency mode;
acquire, by an operation by the customer and based on the customer mode being received, product information about a product to be purchased by the customer;
acquire, based on the store clerk mode being receiving, the product information by an operation by the store clerk; and
output payment information based on the product information and, based on the pre-handling mode being received, as of a settlement by a store payment device and, based on the emergency mode being received, as of a settlement by a terminal device.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory, processor, customer device, store device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “memory, processor, customer device, store device” “receive a mode; acquire, by an operation by a customer, product information about a product to be purchased by the customer when the received mode is a customer mode, and acquire the product information by an operation by a store clerk when the received mode is a store clerk mode; and output payment information according to the mode based on the product information.” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – memory, processor, customer device, store device. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory, processor, customer device, store device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the memory, processor, customer device, store device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627