DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 10/27/2025. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 14-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 4-6, 9-11 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The apparatus of claim 1, method of claim 6 and system of claim 11 are within the statutory categories of invention. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity of the commercial or legal interaction of an agreement in the form of contracts of permitting the user to register a commodity designated in a sales transaction only if the check-in request was received in the service operating hours period for the store. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
1. A transaction processing apparatus, comprising:
a communication interface configured to connect to a communication network;
a storage unit for storing a store database with setting information indicating a service operating hours period for a store; and
a processor configured to:
receive a check-in request via the communication interface from a terminal apparatus operated by a user in the store, the check-in request being generated via a shopping application executing on the terminal apparatus;
determine whether the check-in request has been received in the service operating hours period for the store by reference to the stored setting information for the store;
cause the terminal apparatus to display a service unavailable screen when the check-in request is received outside the service operating hours period by sending a service unavailable instruction to the shopping application executing on the terminal apparatus; and
permit the user of the terminal apparatus to register a commodity designated using the shopping application executing on the terminal apparatus in a sales transaction only if the check-in request was received in the service operating hours period for the store.
As noted above, the claims have been placed under the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). However, it is respectfully further noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), notes the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, includes following rules or instructions. Briefly, permitting the user to register a commodity designated in a sales transaction only if the check-in request was received in the service operating hours period for the store or limiting service to a time period when a service provider is offering the service is the abstract idea of following the rules of a service provider.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are considered as follows:
The “communication interface”, “communication network”, “storage unit”, “database”, “terminal apparatus”, “shopping application”, and “screen”. Referring to MPEP 2106.05(f), the preceding recited additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the 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. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, [0059].
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1, 6 and 11 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14-26 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14-26 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including the smartphone (claims 4, 9, 14), cart terminal (claims 5, 10, 15), scanning of a store check-in code (claims 19, 23, 25), pop-up screen, check-in code scanning screen (claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 26), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, 15, 19, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 2021/0248585) in view of Ueno (US 2022/0027968).
Claim 1 recites:
A transaction processing apparatus, comprising: (Kohno, Fig. 2, [0057], store server 1)
a communication interface configured to connect to a communication network; (Kohno, Fig. 2, [0061], communication interface 14, communication network 7)
a storage unit for storing a store database with setting information indicating a service operating hours period for a store; and (Kohno, Fig. 2, [0059], main memory 12; [0065], database; [0070], settings for information processing. Kohno does not specifically disclose service operating hours period for a store. Ueno, [0080], discloses acquiring information of business hours of a store from a store server including open times and closed times. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the settings of Kohno to include business hours as discussed in Ueno to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Kohno, [0070], and Ueno, [0086].)
a processor configured to: (Kohno, Fig. 2, [0058], processor 11)
receive a check-in request via the communication interface from a terminal apparatus operated by a user in the store, the check-in request being generated via a shopping application executing on the terminal apparatus; (Kohno, Fig. 9, [0097], [0098], check-in, application AP301)
determine whether the check-in request has been received in the service operating hours period for the store by reference to the stored setting information for the store; (Kohno, [0110], processor determines whether or not starting the transaction process is allowable. As noted above, Kohno does not specifically disclose service operating hours period for the store by reference to the stored setting information for the store. Ueno, [0080], discloses acquiring information of business hours of a store from a store server including open times and closed times. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the starting of a transaction process of Kohno to include business hours as discussed in Ueno to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Kohno, [0070], and Ueno, [0086].)
cause the terminal apparatus to display a service unavailable screen when the check-in request is received outside the service operating hours period by sending a service unavailable instruction to the shopping application executing on the terminal apparatus; and (Kohno, [0114], notify terminal that the check-in is not permitted. As noted above, Kohno does not specifically disclose service operating hours period. Ueno, [0080], discloses acquiring information of business hours of a store from a store server including open times and closed times. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the not-permitted notification of Kohno to include as a reason a store is closed as discussed in Ueno to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Kohno, [0070], and Ueno, [0086].)
permit the user of the terminal apparatus to register a commodity designated using the shopping application executing on the terminal apparatus in a sales transaction only if check-in request was received in the service operating hours period for the store. (Kohno, [0116], if YES in ACT185, start the new transaction process; [0134], register commodity. As noted above, Kohno does not specifically disclose service operating hours. Ueno, [0080], discloses acquiring information of business hours of a store from a store server including open times and closed times. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the starting of transaction processing of Kohno to include a store is open as discussed in Ueno to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Kohno, [0070], and Ueno, [0086].)
Claims 6 and 11 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds. Regarding method claim 6, Kohno, [0037], process. Further regarding claim 6, under the standard of broadest reasonable interpretation the conditional limitation “if” in the last clause of method claim 6 provides two methods depending on whether the prerequisite condition is met. Please see Please see MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2016). Regarding system claim 11, Kohno, [0027], system.
Claim 4 recites:
The transaction processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminal apparatus is a smartphone. (Kohno, [0030], user terminal 300 may be smartphone)
Claims 9 and 14 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 5 recites:
The transaction processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminal apparatus is a cart terminal. (Kohno, [0031], cart terminal 400)
Claims 10 and 15 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 19 recites:
The commodity sales system according to claim 11, wherein the shopping application is configured to generate the check-in request in response to a scanning of a store check-in code displayed in the store using the terminal apparatus. (Kohno, [0095], [0096], scan code posted near entrance of store)
Claim 25 corresponds to claim 19 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 23 recites:
The transaction processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the check-in request includes a store check-in code uniquely identifying the store. (Kohno, [0041], codes are distinguished from store to store)
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 2021/0248585) in view of Ueno (US 2022/0027968) and further in view of Kobylevsky (US 2002/0052762).
Claim 16 recites:
The commodity sales system according to claim 11, wherein the service operating hours period ends before the regular business hours of the store. (As noted above, Kohno does not specifically disclose service operating hours period and Ueno, [0080], was relied on to disclose acquiring information of business hours of a store from a store server including open times and closed times. Kohno and Ueno do not specifically disclose the service operating hours period ends before the regular business hours of the store. Kobylevsky, [0088], discusses offering an option until half an hour before closing and Kobylevsky, Fig. 6, [0147], also shows and discusses when the store is open. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the settings of Kohno to be modified with the hours of Ueno and further only offering an option until a point before closing as in Kobylevsky in order to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Ueno, [0086], Kohno, [0070], and Kobylevsky, [0045], [0088].)
Claims 17 and 18 correspond to claim 16 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 20-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 2021/0248585) in view of Ueno (US 2022/0027968) and further in view of Kawamoto (US 2021/0174417).
Claim 20 recites:
The commodity sales system according to claim 19, wherein the service unavailable screen is displayed as a pop-up screen over a check-in code scanning screen on the terminal apparatus. (Kohno, [0114], [0115], notify terminal that the check-in is not permitted. Kohno and Ueno do not specifically disclose a pop-up screen. Kawamoto, [0147], discloses a popup image of a message prohibiting registration superimposed on registration screen. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the notification of Kohno as modified by Ueno to be modified with the popup of Kawamoto in order to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Ueno, [0086], Kohno, [0070], and Kawamoto, [0060].)
Claims 21, 22, 24 and 26 correspond to claim 20 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments concerning Step 2A, prong one, the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas includes commercial interactions. As recited in the claims, the invention is directed to permitting the user to register a commodity designated in a sales transaction only if the check-in request was received in the service operating hours period for the store, which is clearly within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP 2106. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites at least tangible components "a communication interface,""a storage unit" and "a processor." These components permit an interaction with a tangible "terminal apparatus operated by a user." The "communication interface" permits the "processor" to receive signals ("a check-in request") from the tangible "terminal apparatus." The "processor" then interacts with the "terminal apparatus" in a particular manner to "cause the terminal apparatus to display a service unavailable screen when the check-in request is received." The "processor" is configured in such a manner to "permit the [tangible] user of the [tangible] terminal apparatus to register a commodity designated using the shopping application executing on the [tangible] terminal apparatus" in particular recited circumstances.” In response, it is respectfully noted that implementing the abstract idea using generic component components does not preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Applicant further argues “The rejection asserts that such aspects are "commercial or legal interaction of an agreement in the form of contracts of permitting the user to register a commodity designated in a sales transaction only if the check-in request was received in the service operating period for the store." This is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the claims which embody none of the elements of a legal/commercial contract (offer, acceptance, awareness, consideration, etc.). It is also a clearly erroneous application of examiner guidance in this area, which is concerned not with some tangential involvement with commercial/legal interactions (i.e., a cash register is not ineligible subject matter simply because it is used in conjunction with selling goods) but rather with the patenting/monopolization of the abstract idea of a commercial interaction or contract itself.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) does not require offer, acceptance, awareness, consideration. A cash register is not recited. The Examiner respectfully maintains the opinion only being able to buy something from a store when a store is open, or “register a commodity designated in a sales transaction only if the check-in request was received in the service operating period for the store” using the claim language, is an agreement between a customer and service provider according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The Applicant further argues “The rejection secondarily argues the abstract idea of the claims is "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." Office Action, pt. 7, pp. 3-4 (emphasis added). However, claims do not concern interactions "between people" but rather interactions of a user and a computer-based system.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite managing interactions between a user and a service provider, specifically limiting when a user can make a sales transaction to a store’s operating hours. Regarding the comment or argument that “As explained in the Background section (paragraph [0004]), "it is desired for use [of existing systems] within a certain time period to be restricted even when that time period is within normal business hours of the store." The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the setting of business hours of a store represents a technical problem. Only being able to purchase an item from a store during business hours is a rule.
Regarding Step 2A, prong two, and Step 2B, no arguments were presented regarding Step 2A, prong two, and Step 2B.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and the amended and new claims are addressed in detail above. Applicant argues “But Ueno does not "include business hours ... to provide a service to a user." There is no check-in process in Ueno. The store clerk may use the restocking PDA "service" at any time in Ueno without concern with store hours. The business hours are referenced in Ueno only to identify which products may be placed on the store shelves at the current use time. No login or service is restricted in Ueno in view of the store hours. Thus, the supposed reasoning for the modification of Kohno is inapt and clearly erroneous as Ueno does not use "business hours" as a setting for providing a service it merely uses business hours for identifying a restocking parameter.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ueno was only relied to show the extremely well known feature of business hours. As admitted by the Applicant, Ueno does use business hours as a parameter. As Ueno, [0080], discloses acquiring information of business hours of a store from a store server including open times and closed times, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the starting of a transaction process of Kohno to include a parameter such as business hours as discussed in Ueno to provide a service to a user according to the settings of the provider as discussed in Kohno, [0070], and Ueno, [0086]. Please also see MPEP 2144.04 discussing the obviousness of automating a manual activity. Only being able to buy items from a store or “register a commodity” when the store is open is known. Please see McNiff (US 1,423,485) cited on the PTO-892 attached to the OA dated 7/31/2025 which shows the posting of business hours in Fig. 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: EP 3876175; US 20210089107; EP 3796276; US 20190087810; and US 10152703.
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 Gregory Harper whose telephone number is (571)272-5481. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on (571) 270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY HARPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692