DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 7/25/2025. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 12/28/2020.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are
Claim 1 (Similarly claim 11) – “[A] command processing unit capable of executing a drawer open command process.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0035].
Claim 1 (Similarly claim 11) – “[A]n open trigger discriminating unit discriminating the drawer open state is triggered.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0035].
Claim 2 – “[A] flag clearing unit capable of clearing the process execution flag.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0037].
Claim 7 (Similarly claim 8) – “[A] drawer state storing unit capable of storing drawer connection information.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0035].
Claim 7 (Similarly claim 8) – “[A] state monitoring unit capable of monitoring a change in the drawer connection information.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0037].
Claim 11 – “[A] discriminating unit capable of discriminating whether the drawer open state is triggered.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is not invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-8 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 10 is processes (methods), and claims 1-8 and 11 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 11) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
a command receiving unit capable of receiving a command from a host terminal;
a drawer connection detecting unit capable of detecting presence or absence of connection of a drawer, wherein the drawer includes an open/closed detection switch transmitting a drawer open/closed signal to represent a drawer open state or a drawer closed state of the drawer;
a command processing unit capable of executing a drawer open command process when the command receiving unit receives a drawer open command, the drawer open command process comprising sending a drawer open signal and setting a process execution flag when the drawer connection detecting unit detects the presence of connection of the drawer, and the drawer open command process further comprising terminating the drawer open command process when the drawer connection detecting unit detects the absence of connection of the drawer;
a drawer open/closed signal receiving unit electrically connected with the open/closed detection switch of the drawer and capable of receiving a drawer open/closed signal from the open/closed detection switch of the drawer; and
an open trigger discriminating unit discriminating the drawer open state is triggered by the drawer open command process or otherwise according to a set state of the process execution flag when the drawer open/closed signal receiving unit received the drawer open/closed signal representing the drawer open state and discriminating the drawer open state is triggered by means other than the drawer open command process if the process execution flag is not set when the drawer open/closed signal receiving unit received the drawer open/closed signal representing the drawer open state.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 11) is directed to a series of steps for performing flagging of a cash drawer opening and closing, which is a sales activity covered under commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the command receiving unit, host terminal, drawer connection detecting unit, command processing unit, drawer open/closed signal receiving unit, open trigger discriminating unit capable, state information transmitting unit, discriminating unit and drawer control apparatus are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Further, the additional element of open/closed detection switch is using a switch for its ordinary purpose. MPEP §2106.05(f) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the command receiving unit, host terminal, drawer connection detecting unit, command processing unit, drawer open/closed signal receiving unit, open trigger discriminating unit capable, state information transmitting unit, discriminating unit and drawer control apparatus amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 112(f) interpretations. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element of open/closed detection switch is using a switch for its ordinary purpose. In combination, the switch acting as a sensor for the computer is working as a tool in its ordinary capacity. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The generic units discussed in the dependent claims are under a 112f interpretation and are considered generic control units/processors. Therefore, claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-8 and 10-11 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. In Remarks (7/17/2025), Applicant argues that the nearest art, Jungclaus 2014/0379501, does not teach the amended limitations, the examiner agrees. Jungclaus does not teach a command processing unit capable of executing a drawer open command process when the command receiving unit receives a drawer open command, the drawer open command process comprising sending a drawer open signal and setting a process execution flag when the drawer connection detecting unit detects the presence of connection of the drawer, and the drawer open command process further comprising terminating the drawer open command process when the drawer connection detecting unit detects the absence of connection of the drawer. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2025 and 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite a mental process. Examiner agrees, but points out the rejection is based on organizing human activity, which Applicant does not argue.
Applicant argues that the additional elements provide advanced detection technology. Examiner disagrees. The computing elements are recited at a high level of generality and the switch is preforming its routine function; thus, not a technical improvement. The claims nor the disclosure set forth an improvement to additional elements individual or in combination. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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 on (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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov