DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. No claim amendments were filed.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
The embodiments of a server configured to process data, and a point of sale configured to process data for the purposes of handing off a transaction in progress from one terminal to another is seen as broadly claiming computing technology in its ordinary capacity to perform transaction transfers. The claim embodiments are distinct from an example embodiment better encompassing the inventive concept, such as a server, more than one point of sale, and peripherals including the functions of transferring transaction data and peripheral control.
Additional prior art is cited to teach the limitations regarding information of transfer candidates, and selection of a candidate from said data. Primary art Inagawa teaches transferring a transaction from one terminal to another, from a plurality of terminals. Necessarily, a decision is made as to the terminal the transaction is transferred to. However, the reference does not teach the concept of selecting a candidate from a list, or displaying said list for selection on the first terminal. Additional art is therefore relied upon, in addition to the previous arts of record, to offer an obviousness type rejection based on prior art. Then, as no claim amendments were filed, this action is non-final as new grounds are presented.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: a storage unit configured to store transaction information of the plurality of sales terminals; acquire a designation of a second terminal and output transaction information of the second terminal from the storage unit to permit the transaction to continue, as well as: receive information regarding candidate terminals for a takeover operation, display information, receive a selection of a terminal, acquire transaction information, and perform transaction processing for completing transaction. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions, including sales activities.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a server connectable to a plurality of point of sale terminals, a processor configured to receive and send information to and from terminals, a communication interface connectable to a server, a display screen, a first terminal, a second terminal, and displaying information, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, 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, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites output peripheral connection settings for the second terminal to the first terminal to permit the first terminal to use a peripheral connected to second terminal, using a processor. Using a processor to output data is seen as using a computer in its ordinary capacity. The purpose, or intended use, of said output is not being positively claimed.
Claims 3 and 15 recite a first terminal, a display control unit configured to cause a display unit to display information from the server. A display unit is not positively recited, as well as the information’s intended use. Claims 3 and 15 further recite an output unit configured to output designation of the second terminal from the displayed candidates. Outputting information by a terminal unit is seen as using a computer in its ordinary capacity.
Claims 4 and 16 recite details of displayed information. Claims 5 and 17 recite outputting information by a processor.
Claims 6 and 18 recite the first terminal having an acquisition unit to receive device setting information from server and setting unit to connect terminal to peripheral based on received device setting. Sending and receiving data is seen as using a computer as a tool to perform said abstract idea, and connecting devices as claimed is seen as sending an receiving data.
Claims 7 and 19, as well as claims 12 and 13, recite pausing a resuming a transaction while another transaction is completed, using a processing executing a process. Claims 8 and 20 recite output device information to the second terminal using a processor. These limitations are seen as using a computer as a tool to perform said abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites peripheral connection interface of a terminal connectable to a peripheral, and receive connection settings from server, and use settings to connect to a peripheral via the interface without resetting the device. Claim 11 recites said device is a printer. Communicating between an interface of a terminal and a device is seen as using a computer in its ordinary capacity.
For these reasons the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa (US 2015/0025985) in view of Breen (US 2016/0225071), and in further view of Edwards (US 2012/0158529).
Claims 1 and 14. Inagawa teaches a point-of-sale system, comprising:
a server connectable to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals, the server including: (para. 23 of Inagawa showing server and POS connected)
a processor configured to:
acquire a designation of a second terminal in the plurality of point-of-sale terminals, and (Figure 7 showing takeover from certain terminal)
output transaction information of the second terminal from the storage unit to the first terminal to permit the first terminal to continue a transaction started by the second terminal. (paragraphs 89 and 90 showing terminal taking over transaction process and continuing transaction from other terminal after designation.)
Inagawa teaches processing an ongoing transaction from another terminal of choice. It does not, but Breen teaches: acquire, from a first terminal in the plurality of point-of-sale terminals, a designation of a second terminal in the plurality of point-of-sale terminals. (paragraphs 17 and 18 showing selection of second terminal from first terminal for handing off transaction that was started on first terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of data processing transference in Breen, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for delegation of a session to a selected employee. See para. 18 of Breen.
Inagawa teaches data reception between terminal and server in paragraph 27. It does not teach a server with a storage unit configured to store transaction information of the plurality of point-of-sale terminals, but Edwards does at paragraph 32 (showing databases of purchasable items in server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of server data storage in Edwards because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for offsite data storage. (Edwards paragraph 27 and 32 showing offsite storage from POS)
Claims 3 and 15. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 1. Inagawa teaches further comprising:
the first terminal, wherein the first terminal includes:
a display control unit configured to cause a display unit to display transaction information from the server for takeover candidates from the plurality of point-of-sale terminals, and (Figure 7 showing UI for takeover candidate selection)
an output unit configured to output the designation of the second terminal from among the displayed takeover candidates. (paragraphs 30-32 showing data output of terminal designations for takeover operations of the POS systems)
Claims 4 and 16. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 3. Inagawa teaches wherein displayed transaction information for the takeover candidates includes current status information. (para. 56 showing work history as part of takeover information)
Claims 7 and 19. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 1. Inagawa teaches designating a second terminal and completing a transaction started on the second terminal (see claim 1 mapping), as well as pausing a transaction and then starting it again on another terminal.
It does not detail pausing a transaction, finishing a second transaction, then resuming a transaction. Edwards teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
execute a holding process for pausing a first transaction at the first terminal (Edwards para. 37 showing pausing a transaction on a terminal to complete secondary operations)
cause the first terminal to resume the first transaction. (Edwards para. 37 showing resuming said transaction on said terminal after secondary operations are completed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of transaction pausing in Edwards because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing (Edwards para. 37 showing resuming of first transaction after secondary operations are completed.)
Claim 12. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale terminal according to claim 10. Inagawa teaches designating a second terminal and completing a transaction started on the second terminal (see claim 1 mapping), as well as pausing a transaction and then starting it again on another terminal.
Inagawa does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to pause an on-going transaction at the point-of-sale terminal of claim 9, but Edwards does: (Edwards para. 37 showing pausing a transaction on a terminal to complete secondary operations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of transaction pausing in Edwards because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing (Edwards para. 37 showing resuming of first transaction after secondary operations are completed.)
Claim 13. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale terminal according to claim 12. Inagawa teaches designating a second terminal and completing a transaction started on the second terminal (see claim 1 mapping), as well as pausing a transaction and then starting it again on another terminal.
Inagawa does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to resume the on-going transaction after performing the transaction processing for completing the transaction of the selected candidate terminal. (Edwards para. 37 showing resuming said transaction on said terminal after secondary operations are completed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of transaction pausing in Edwards because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing (Edwards para. 37 showing resuming of first transaction after secondary operations are completed.)
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa in view of Breen, and in further view of Edwards and Huang (US 2016/0005018).
Claim 2. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 1. Inagawa teaches takeover including printer functionality at paragraphs 65 and 66. It does not, but Huang teaches wherein the processor is further configured to output peripheral connection settings for the second terminal to the first terminal to permit the first terminal to use at least one peripheral device connected to the second terminal. (para. 17 of Huang showing peripheral settings from server to POS, para. 28 showing backup terminal using settings from original terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of peripheral settings transfer in Huang because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing. (Huang para. 17 showing remote configuration of terminal)
Claims 5 and 17. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 1. Said modified Inagawa does not, but Huang teaches wherein the processor of the server is further configured to output peripheral device setting information based on the designation of the second terminal. (para. 17 of Huang showing peripheral settings from server to POS; para. 28 showing designation of new terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of peripheral settings transfer in Huang because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing. (Huang para. 17 showing remote configuration of terminal)
Claims 6 and 18. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 5, further comprising: the first terminal. Inagawa teaches peripheral connection to different terminals in paragraphs 21, 23, 26 and 27. Said modified Inagawa does not, but Huang teaches wherein the first terminal includes:
an acquisition unit configured to receive the peripheral device setting information from the server, and (para. 17 of Huang showing peripheral settings from server to POS)
a setting unit configured to connect the first terminal to a peripheral device based on the received peripheral device setting information. (Huang para. 28 showing connection of peripheral to other terminal.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of peripheral settings transfer in Huang because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing. (Huang para. 17 showing remote configuration of terminal)
Claims 8 and 20. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Edwards teaches the point-of-sale system according to claim 1. Said modified Inagawa does not, but Huang teaches wherein the processor is further configured to output, to the second terminal, peripheral device information associated with the second terminal stored in the storage unit. (para. 17 of Huang showing peripheral settings from server to POS; para. 28 showing server side push of settings to terminals for configuring peripherals)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of peripheral settings transfer in Huang because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing. (Huang para. 17 showing remote configuration of terminal)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa in view of Breen.
Claim 9. Inagawa teaches a point-of-sale terminal for a point-of-sale system, the terminal comprising:
a communication interface connectable to a server; (Paragraphs 23 and 27 showing communications interface connected to server and network)
a display screen for display information to an operator; and a processor configured to: (para. 21 showing terminal including display and being a tablet, which includes a processor)
receive information regarding candidate terminals for a takeover operation from the server; (Figure 7 showing takeover candidate information on display; para. 32 showing terminal codes for optional takeover terminals)
display information regarding the candidate terminals on the display screen; (See Figure 7)
acquire transaction information regarding a transaction at the selected candidate terminal; and (…including transaction information.)
perform transaction processing for completing the transaction. (para. 57 showing transaction processing)
Inagawa does not, but Breen teaches: receive a selection of a candidate terminal from the candidate terminals for the takeover operation. (paragraphs 17 and 18 showing selection of second terminal from first terminal for handing off transaction that was started on first terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of data processing transference in Breen, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for delegation of a session to a selected employee. See para. 18 of Breen.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa in view Breen, and in further view of Huang.
Claim 10. Inagawa as modified by Breen teaches the point-of-sale terminal according to claim 9, further comprising:
a peripheral connection interface connectable to at least one peripheral device, wherein (para. 26 showing docking station including communication interface and peripherals configured to connect takeover terminal to previous terminal’s peripherals)
the processor is further configured to connect to a peripheral device via the peripheral connection interface without resetting the peripheral device. (para. 26 showing docking station including communication interface and peripherals configured to connect takeover terminal to previous terminal’s peripherals)
Inagawa teaches connecting a terminal to a previous terminal’s peripherals. It does not, but Huang teaches: receive peripheral connection settings for the selected candidate terminal from the server and use the peripheral connection settings. (para. 17 of Huang showing peripheral settings from server to POS)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction takeover in Inagawa, with the known technique of peripheral settings transfer in Huang because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for continuity of transaction processing. (Huang para. 17 showing remote configuration of terminal)
Claim 11. Inagawa as modified by Breen and Huang teaches the point-of-sale terminal according to claim 10. Inagawa teaches wherein the peripheral device is a printer. (Inagawa para. 26 showing printer as peripheral)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627