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 initially filed application dated 6/09/2023, claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this response.
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 11-20 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 11-20 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 11-20 are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative claim 11 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method carried out by a checkout device including a change machine into which coins can be inserted and from which coins can be dispensed, the method comprising: storing a first number indicating a total number of coins that can be accepted in a single transaction for each denomination; counting a number of coins inserted in a transaction for each denomination; determining whether the number of the inserted coins exceeds the first number for each denomination; and upon determining that the number of the inserted coins exceeds the first number for a denomination, controlling the change machine to dispense a second number of coins of the denomination exceeding the first number.
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 “change machine” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “change machine” the above italicized limitations in the context of these claims 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 1 additional elements – change machine. 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 a change machine 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 change machine is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070996 A1 to Takemura (“Takemura”)
In regards to claim 1, Takemura discloses the following limitations:
A checkout device comprising: a change machine into which coins can be inserted and from which coins can be dispensed, (Takemura discloses a change machine included in a point of sale capable of receiving and dispensing coins/bills. See at least ¶¶ 0012 and 0023)
the change machine being configured to count a number of inserted coins for each denomination; (see at least Takemura ¶ 0021-0022)
a memory that stores a first number indicating a total number of coins that can be accepted in a single transaction for each denomination; and (Takemura discloses allowing limits to be set on a per denomination basis for accepting currency. See at least ¶¶ 0055-0057)
a processor configured to: acquire, from the change machine, a number of coins inserted in a transaction for each denomination, determine whether the number of the inserted coins exceeds the first number for each denomination, and upon determining that the number of the inserted coins exceeds the first number for a denomination, and control the change machine to dispense a second number of coins of the denomination exceeding the first number. (Takemura discloses counting the total amount of coins/cash inserted for a transaction, if the amount of a specified denomination reaches a limit the cash/coin is then dispensed back to the user for that specific denomination. See at least ¶¶ 0055-0057)
In regards to claim 2, Takemura discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a display device , wherein the processor is configured to, upon determining that the number of the inserted coins exceeds the first number for a denomination, control the display device to display a message indicating that the number of the inserted coins of the denomination exceeds the first number. (see at least Takemura ¶¶ 0021, 0054, and 0058)
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.
Claims 3-4, 7, 13-14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070996 A1 to Takemura (“Takemura”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0026970 A1 to DOI (“DOI”).
In regards to claim 3, Takemura discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor is configured to: process the transaction and calculate change, and (see at least Takemura ¶¶ 0023)
Takemura discloses dispensing change and a second number of coins exceeding the first number (see above citations) however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
control the change machine to dispense the change before dispensing the second number of coins exceeding the first number.
The Examiner provides DOI to teach the following limitations:
control the change machine to dispense the change before dispensing the second number of coins exceeding the first number. (DOI teaches processing all or part of the deposited money during/after the transaction process. See at least DOI ¶¶ 0119 “At the time of performing the money change process, instead of processing all the money via the money change process, the money management apparatus 40 can process a part of the money deposited for the money change process via the money depositing process performed for depositing into the money management apparatus 40 as the money collected from the checkout counter. The money management apparatus 40 can dispense a part of the money deposited for the money change process.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of DOI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 4, Takemura discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a display device, wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to display an amount of the change and the second number, separately. (Takemura discloses displaying information relating to the coin handling inventory and the limit per denomination. See at least ¶¶ 0021 and 0054)
The Examiner notes, displaying the information separately does not modify the operation of Takemura’s invention. To have modified Takemura to have included displaying the information separately would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method already disclosed by Takemura. Such modification would not have otherwise affected Takemura and would have merely represented one of numerous steps that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Takemura. Additionally, applicant has not persuasively demonstrated the criticality of providing this arrangement versus the arrangement disclosed in Takemura. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
In regards to claim 7, Takemura discloses displaying for the user the first number (restraint limit) on a display and the number of inserted coins (see above citations), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: a display device, wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to display a screen showing the number of the inserted coins and a difference between the number of the inserted coins and the first number for each denomination.
The Examiner provides DOI to teach the following limitations:
further comprising: a display device, wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to display a screen showing the number of the inserted coins and a difference between the number of the inserted coins and the first number for each denomination. (see at least DOI Figures 8 and 10)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of DOI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 8-9, 15, and 18-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070996 A1 to Takemura (“Takemura”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 5, Takemura does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: an input device through which an instruction to cancel the transaction can be input, wherein the processor is configured to, in response to the instruction to cancel the transaction, control the change machine to dispense the inserted coins.
However the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide a cancel transaction option either via a UI or a button or the like and to return inserted cash/coins etc.at a POS or a vending machine or Kiosk. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 8, Takemura discloses the following limitations:
wherein the screen shows the number of the inserted coins and the difference by a graphical indicator. (Takemura discloses displaying relevant information on the display to the user about denomination and limits. See at least ¶¶ 0021, 0054, 0058), Further the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to display information in the form of graphical indicators for identifying information at a glance, Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 9, Takemura does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the memory stores a third number less than the first number for each denomination, and the processor is configured to: determine whether the number of the inserted coins exceeds the third number for each denomination, and upon determining that the number of the inserted coins exceeds the third number for a denomination, control the display device to display a warning sign indicating that the number of the inserted coins of the denomination is reaching the corresponding first number.
However the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide warning indications to an operator/clerk/user when a limit is about to be reached so appropriate action can be taken. See at least US 2018/0253710 A1 ¶¶ 0051 for displaying warning indicators based on denomination limits for currency on change machines included in a POS.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070996 A1 to Takemura (“Takemura”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0026970 A1 to DOI (“DOI”), in view of JP 2021061049 A to Nishio (“Nishio”).
In regards to claim 6, Takemura does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: mode switch for switching transaction modes including a first mode in which a transaction is processed for a customer and a second mode in which coins are replenished by a store clerk,
wherein the memory stores the first number for each of the transaction modes, and the first number for the first mode is less than the first number for the second mode.
The Examiner provides Nishio to teach the following limitations:
further comprising: mode switch for switching transaction modes including a first mode in which a transaction is processed for a customer and a second mode in which coins are replenished by a store clerk, (Nishio teaches a checkout and change machine that includes a mode switch to switch between a customer transaction mode and a clerk replenishment mode of operation. See at least
PNG
media_image1.png
120
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of Nishio since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides DOI to teach the following limitations:
wherein the memory stores the first number for each of the transaction modes, and the first number for the first mode is less than the first number for the second mode. (see at least DOI Figure 10 and ¶¶ 0081 and 0096)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of DOI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070996 A1 to Takemura (“Takemura”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171801 A1 to Ryo (“Ryo”)
In regards to claim 10, Takemura discloses displaying information about the transaction and limits etc to the user (see above citations) however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: a display device, wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to display both a total amount of the inserted coins and a total amount of coins that can be used in the transaction.
The Examiner provides Ryo to teach the following limitations:
further comprising: a display device, wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to display both a total amount of the inserted coins and a total amount of coins that can be used in the transaction (Ryo teaches a self checkout method in which the user inserts cash/coin and the total amount used for the transaction and total amount inserted is displayed/updated. See at least ¶ 0113)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Takemura the teachings of Ryo since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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