DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to claims filed 03/09/2026. Claims 1-13, and 15 are pending. The effective filling date is 04/13/2021.
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 10/13/2023 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 1-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 1-13 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category. Claim 15 is a system, which is a statutory category. Claims 1-13, and 15 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The claim independent claim 1, and similarly claim 15, recites:
a method of performing payment using a user terminal by a payment system (performing payments is a fundamental economic principle under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) v. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), the method comprising:
recognizing, by the user terminal, a product to be purchased (recognizing a product can be performed in the human mind, when a person recognized products on shelves is collecting information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) 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));
recognizing, by a seller terminal, biometric information of a user (recognizing a user can be performed in the human mind, when a person recognized products on shelves is collecting information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) 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, by the seller terminal, a terminal to which the biometric information is to be transmitted as the user terminal using the biometric information among a plurality of terminals (making a decision about the specific terminal to transmit information to can be considered a certain method of organizing human activity, as it is a method of making decision about where information about a business transaction will be sent, and is deemed a commercial interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B));
transmitting, by a seller terminal, the biometric information to the user terminal (transmitting information is a way to collect information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) 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));
transmitting, by a seller terminal that recognizes biometric information about a user, the biometric information about the user to the user terminal (transmitting information is a way to collect information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) 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));
performing, by the user terminal, identity authentication, based on whether the biometric information about the user received from the seller terminal matches biometric information pre- stored in the user terminal (authentication of a user may be accomplished by comparing the face of someone to an ID card, which can be performed in the human mind, and is also an action performed within a business to complete the checkout process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and (III)); and
in a case where identity authentication is successfully performed on the user terminal, performing, by the user terminal, payment on a product recognized through the user terminal (performing a payment for checkout is a fundamental economic principle, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) 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 the biometric information pre-stored in the user terminal is derived from the user terminal and is not transmitted to the seller terminal (description of the information being transmitted does not provide more than the action of transmitting information, and therefore remains the mental process of transmitting information under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2- The additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claim 15, include a user terminal, seller terminal, and payment system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) the additional elements being used as tools to perform the abstract idea do not provide integration into a practical application. The user terminal and seller terminal are generally described, and there is no physical attributes associated with the terminals, therefore, the naming of the terminals are used as tools to perform the abstract methods of recognition and payment for goods. The biometric information is being described as the information used to identify a user, and therefore, is a description of what is being sent, without any technical details on how the biometric information is retrieved. Without technical details the biometric information fails to show any improvements in the technology under MPEP 2106.05(a) and that the selection of particular data types is insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B-The independent claim 1, and similarly claim 15, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited broadly, and do not provide physical elements that are substantially more than the abstract idea. Under MPEP 2106.05(f), when used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, it is not significantly more. Additionally, see the arguments under Step 2A, prong 2 about the reason limiting the information being sent as biometric does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2-adds information about the biometric identification, adding additional details of what is being identified is still the abstract idea of recognizing a person, and the details are not technical, and simply provide tools to perform the abstract idea and under MPEP 2106.05(f) fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide significantly more.
Claim 3- add details to what is being performed on the seller terminal. This does not add technical details to the seller terminal, but continues to describe the abstract ideas being performed by the tool. Under MPEP 2106.05(f) fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide significantly more.
Claims 4-5 add an artificial intelligence engine, this is an additional element, but continues to be used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and under MPEP 2106.05(f) fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide significantly more.
Claim 6, 9, and 12- adds details to the recognition, and does not provide additional elements. See the independent claim analysis above.
Claims 7-8, add the additional element of a cart, basket or bag, as a product storage medium. The are being a specific item does not showcase how the method of recognizing an object would be different in cart or basket, because the claim limitation is merely describing the atmosphere the abstract identification is occurring, and therefore do not provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 10, 11 and 13- add the QR code and barcode recognition, using an image capturing unit, this is also something a that is performed to purchase products, and can be performed in the human mind, as if the scanner does not work, people regularly type in barcode numbers to complete transactions. The image capturing unit is being described in general terms, and therefore does not show its use beyond a tool to perform the abstract idea, and fails to provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0232796 A1 Glaser et al. (hereinafter Glaser).
Regarding claim 1, Glaser teaches a method of performing payment using a user terminal by a payment system (Glaser Abstract, customer checkout experience), the method comprising:
recognizing, by the user terminal, a product to be purchased (Glaser [0076] identification of products using video and images; [0079] the cameras used to obtain images can be in the store, or a personal device);
recognizing, by a seller terminal, biometric information of a user (Glaser [0160] biometric information used to identify the user, this includes personal biometric information as well as clothing, gait or other properties of the customer; [0057] the biometric detection can be at the CV system or through a personal user device);
specifying, by the seller terminal, a terminal to which the biometric information is to be transmitted as the user terminal using the biometric information among a plurality of terminals (Glaser [0058] information can be pushed through the CV system to the application and vice versa, making the terminal that identifies biometric information being transmitted to a user terminal);
transmitting, by a seller terminal, the biometric information to the user terminal (Glaser [0181] automatic checkout region may cause payment when the customer uses an account with credit card and identification of user is confirmed);
transmitting, by a seller terminal that recognizes biometric information about a user, the biometric information about the user to the user terminal (Glaser [0160] biometric information used to identify the user, this includes personal biometric information as well as clothing, gait or other properties of the customer);
performing, by the user terminal, identity authentication, based on whether the biometric information about the user received from the seller terminal matches biometric information pre- stored in the user terminal (Glaser [0159-0160] matching the supplied image, that associated with the user account, which needs to be pre-stored, to compare to the biometric information obtained in the store); and
in a case where identity authentication is successfully performed on the user terminal, performing, by the user terminal, payment on a product recognized through the user terminal (Glaser [0181] automatic checkout region may cause payment when the customer uses an account with credit card and identification of user is confirmed), wherein the biometric information pre-stored in the user terminal is derived from the user terminal and is not transmitted to the seller terminal (Glaser [0057] the biometric detection can be at the CV system or through a personal user device).
Regarding claim 2, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biometric information includes one or more of fingerprint information, iris information, facial image information (Glaser [0160] facial recognition of a customer using account photo comparing to on store photo), vein information, electrocardiogram information, or voice information.
Regarding claim 3, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the seller terminal is configured to recognize the user terminal passing through a gate connected to the seller terminal and to transmit a payment request signal to the user terminal, and the user terminal is configured to perform payment for a product based on the payment request signal received from the seller terminal (Glaser [0062] the checkout region located at the exits to initiate automatic checkout; [0063] linking items to the account to checkout; [0067] as the user enters the checkout region, checkout mode begins; [0132] the customer application can include push notification for checkout).
Regarding claim 4, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the recognizing of the product to be purchased by the user terminal, in a case where an external image of the product is collected by an image capturing unit mounted on the user terminal, the user terminal analyzes the collected external image of the product to specify a type and quantity of the product (Glaser [0136] a user application using augmented reality may identify objects in a cart using images).
Regarding claim 6, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the recognizing of the product to be purchased by the user terminal, information about the product is obtained through an electronic tag included in the product (Glaser [0084] the checkout system may also use a wireless tagging system, which includes RFID, or NFC tagging of products for identification).
Regarding claim 7, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the recognizing of the product to be purchased, only a product located within a predefined product storage member is recognized (Glaser [0076] identification of a product may happen in a cart or bag).
Regarding claim 8, Glaser teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the product storage member includes a cart, a basket, or a bag (Glaser [0076] identification of a product may happen in a cart or bag).
Regarding claim 9, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user terminal provides information on a total price of one or more products recognized as products to be purchased through a display device or a sound generating device (Glaser [0097] the virtual cart includes costs of an item, and total cost of items).
Regarding claim 10, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the recognizing of the product to be purchased by the user terminal, in a case where a barcode or QR code is recognized by an image capturing unit mounted on the user terminal, the user terminal specifies a type of product corresponding to a collected barcode or QR code (Glaser [0138] barcode scanner to identify products).
Regarding claim 11, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the recognizing of the product to be purchased by the user terminal, a type of product whose barcode or QR code is recognized by the image capturing unit mounted on the user terminal, is specified through the barcode or QR code (Glaser [0138] barcode scanner to identify products), and a type of product whose barcode or QR code is not recognized on a collected image, is specified through analysis of an external image of the product (Glaser [0140] there can be multiple ways to identify objects, this can include using images to identify products, and when the confidence score is too low, using a secondary means for identification).
Regarding claim 12, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the recognizing of the product to be purchased by the user terminal, product recognition information is received from a product recognition device connected to the seller terminal (Glaser [0136] a user application using augmented reality may identify objects in a cart using images).
Regarding claim 13, Glaser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing of payment on the product recognized through the user terminal by the user terminal further includes: generating, by the user terminal, a QR code or barcode including information on at least one product recognized as a product to be purchased and payment method information (Glaser [0089] shopping carts and user accounts may be coordinated, and the user may perform a checkout by scanning a QR code at the facility exit to end the process, and perform payment); and performing payment, by the seller terminal recognizing the QR code or barcode, based on the product information and payment method information included in the QR code or barcode (Glaser [0089] shopping carts and user accounts may be coordinated, and the user may perform a checkout by scanning a QR code at the facility exit to end the process, and perform payment).
Regarding claim 15, Glaser teaches a payment system using a user terminal, the payment system (Glaser Abstract, customer checkout experience) comprising: a seller terminal recognizing the biometric information about a user, specifying a terminal to which the biometric information is to be transmitted as the user terminal using the biometric information among a plurality of terminals (Glaser [0058] information can be pushed through the CV system to the application and vice versa, making the terminal that identifies biometric information being transmitted to a user terminal),
and transmitting the biometric information about the user to the user terminal (Glaser [0076] identification of products using video and images; [0079] the cameras used to obtain images can be in the store, or a personal device); and a purchaser terminal recognizing a product to be purchased (Glaser [0160] biometric information used to identify the user, this includes personal biometric information as well as clothing, gait or other properties of the customer), performing identity authentication by determining whether the biometric information about the user received from the seller terminal matches biometric information pre-stored in an inside thereof (Glaser [0159-0160] matching the supplied image, that associated with the user account, which needs to be pre-stored, to compare to the biometric information obtained in the store), and performing payment on the recognized product in a case where identity authentication is successfully performed (Glaser [0181] automatic checkout region may cause payment when the customer uses an account with credit card and identification of user is confirmed), wherein the biometric information pre-stored in the user terminal is derived from the user terminal and is not transmitted to the seller terminal (Glaser [0057] the biometric detection can be at the CV system or through a personal user device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser in view of US 2020/0118400 A1 Zalewski et al. (hereinafter Zalewski).
Regarding claim 5, Glaser teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the analyzing of the collected external image of the product to specify the type and quantity of the product is performed by an artificial intelligence engine mounted on the user terminal (Glaser [0136] a user application using augmented reality may identify objects in a cart using images). Glaser fails to explicitly disclose the artificial intelligence engine performs learning through the external image of the product.
Zalewski is in the field of tracking shoppers (Zalewski Abstract, cashier less checkout to track users) and teaches the artificial intelligence engine performs learning through the external image of the product (Zalewski [0064] the machine learning model can be updated based on learned action, continuous teaching of the model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial intelligence system of Glaser with the updated learning teaching of Zalewski. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the identification of items by learning behaviors of shoppers (Zalewski [0012] artificial intelligence is continuing to learn, and improve).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, Step 2A, Prong 1, lacks arguments as to why the claims could not be practically performed in the mind, or include the management of personal behaviors, in that the claim amendments include identification of a person, using the tool of biometric identification, with no technical details, and the identification of the people are used to perform sales activities, which is a commercial interaction.
Regarding 101, Step 2A, Prong 2, as noted in the arguments under 101, the biometric information is recited by name, and placing the identification of a person in the technological field of user authentication does not integrate the identification into a practical application. Under MPEP 2106.05(h) when the limitation merely indicate a field of use, such as the field of user authentication, it simply recites a link between identification and a specific technological environment.
Regarding 101, Step 2B, under MPEP 2106.05 once a judicial exception is identified, then the combination of elements are to be analyzed is the additional elements go beyond the judicial exception. Applicant recites that the way in which the biometric information is exchanged improves the security of biometric information during the user authentication process. Under MPEP 2106.05(a), there are details about how additional elements should be considered whether they improve the functioning of the computer itself. In the instant application, Examiner notes that the exchanging of information, even private information such as biometric information, is the abstract idea of a mental process of exchanging information, and can also be considered a commercial interaction, as the exchange is for the purchase of products. The claims fail to specifically point out how the exchange of information is tied to technology, as the claims recite recognizing and transmitting information, without providing technical details. Therefore, the additional elements being analyzed are the terminals, and the transmitting of information is being done by the terminals, which showcases the additional elements as being used as tools to perform the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, stating in remarks that there is a technical improvement, without support in the specification, does not meet the burden of showcasing significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding 102, Applicant specifically points to the seller terminal senses biometric information, and sending to a specific terminal. However, Glaser does teach that both a user and store terminal may identify the user in [0057] and that they are in constant communication to send and receive the information in [0058]. Additionally, applicant points to a dualized authentication process, in which a store may sense biometric information, send to a user device, and that user device may authenticate. In comparison, Examiner see Glaser, when the store CV monitoring system identifies a person, it then compares to biometric information in an account associated with the user, the user must input this information into their personal account, and this is done via their personal device, making the user input the information to compare the CV information to, and authenticating the identification. Therefore, the independent clams remain rejected under 102.
Regarding 103, the claims do not depend on an allowable claim, and therefore remain rejected.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,210,657 B2 Joseph et al. teaches a mobile wallet for payment (Abstract); US 2008/0067242 A1 Bonalle et al. teaches biometric security (Absract).
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
Prosecution Insights