DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 9/22/2022.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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. Claims 11-18 are processes (methods), and claims 1-10 and 19-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 11 and 19) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A merchandise registration apparatus, comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive an input of a merchandise code (observation);
calculate a first-type value for a check digit of the merchandise code according to a first code system (evaluation);
compare the calculated first-type value to a value of the check digit of the merchandise code according to the first code system (judgment);
register an item of merchandise corresponding to the merchandise code according to the first code system when the first-type value matches the value of the check digit of the merchandise code according to the first code system (opinion);
calculate a second-type value for the check digit of the merchandise code according to a second code system if the first-type value does not match the check digit of the merchandise code(evaluation);
compare the calculated second-type value to the value of the check digit for the merchandise code according to the second code system (judgment); and
register an item of merchandise corresponding to the merchandise code according to the second code system when the second-type value matches the check digit in the merchandise code (opinion).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 11 and 19) is directed to a series of steps for performing actions in an inventory management control process, which is a commercial/legal interaction (inventory) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). 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 processor, merchandise registration apparatus and non-transitory, computer-readable medium 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. 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 processor, merchandise registration apparatus and non-transitory, computer-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8-10 and 18 include the additional elements of product scanner and input device; however, these additional elements are performing the function they were designed for and are acting as generic computer components. Alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor significantly more because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2013186598-A to Toshiaki (“Toshiaki ”).
9. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claims 11 and 19), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
a processor configured (See pg. 2 discussing CPU.) to:
receive an input of a merchandise code (See pg. 2 discussing the bar-code reader grasping the barcode.);
calculate a first-type value for a check digit of the merchandise code according to a first code system (See pg. 3 discussing using a table to calculate the self-checking digit.);
compare the calculated first-type value to a value of the check digit of the merchandise code according to the first code system (See pg. 3 discussing deciding if the self-checking digit is correct.);
register an item of merchandise corresponding to the merchandise code according to the first code system when the first-type value matches the value of the check digit of the merchandise code according to the first code system(See pgs. 3-4 discussing outputting the cord/code to the POS terminal when the code is correct.);
calculate a second-type value for the check digit of the merchandise code according to a second code system if the first-type value does not match the check digit of the merchandise code (See pg. 3 discussing conforming the rule to the other standard when the result is not correct.);
compare the calculated second-type value to the value of the check digit for the merchandise code according to the second code system (See pg. 3 discussing the 2nd decision.); and
register an item of merchandise corresponding to the merchandise code according to the second code system when the second-type value matches the check digit in the merchandise code (See pgs. 3-4 discussing outputting the cord/code to the POS terminal when the code is correct.).
10. With regards to claim 2 (similarly claims 12 and 20), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
wherein merchandise codes according to the first code system and the second code system both have the same number of digits (See pg. 3 discussing the use and structure of UPC E and JAN. Examiner notes Spec. [0006] admitting JAN and UPC-E have the same number of digits.).
11. With regards to claim 3 (similarly claim 4 and 14), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
wherein calculation of the first-type value requires a calculation method different from calculation of the second-type value (See pg. 3 discussing conforming the rule to the other standard when the result is not correct and the center bar condition of JAN and UPC-E.).
12. With regards to claim 5 (similarly claim 15), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the processor is configured to calculate the second-type check digit only if the first-type value does not match the check digit of the merchandise code and the merchandise code satisfies an additional condition (See pg. 3 discussing conforming the rule to the other standard when the result is not correct and the center bar condition of JAN and UPC-E.).
13. With regards to claim 6 (similarly claim 16), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the additional condition is that the number of digits in the merchandise code is equal to a predetermined number and a particular digit in the merchandise code has a predetermined value (See pg. 3 discussing the use and structure of UPC E and JAN.).
14. With regards to claim 7 (similarly claim 17), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the additional condition is the digits in the merchandise code after the first digit form a code value that is within a predetermined range condition (See pg. 3 discussing conforming the rule to the other standard when the result is not correct and the center bar condition of JAN and UPC-E.).
15. With regards to claim 8 , Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
a product scanner for reading the merchandise code and providing the input of the merchandise code (See at least pg. 4 discussing the bar-code read station.).
16. With regards to claim 9 (similarly claim 18), Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
an input device for a manual input of the merchandise code (See pg. 2 discussing the function part accepting input by keys when barcode fails.).
17. With regards to claim 10, Toshiaki disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the processor is configured to calculate the second-type check digit only if the first-type value does not match the check digit of the merchandise code and the merchandise code was manually input via the input device (See pg. 3 discussing the 2nd decision and pg. 2 discussing the function part accepting input by keys when barcode fails and indicatory department indicating the item name and price and other error messages of the commodity which is registered vis-a-vis the salesman of the operator.)
Conclusion
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 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov