DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 12/8/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 9 and amendments to claims 1-4 and 10 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
Claim amendments overcome the claim objections.
They also overcome the eligibility rejections for claims 1-8. Claim 10 is distinct in that it does not recite a shopping cart, then neither the improvements to the shopping carts in claims 1-8.
Additional art is cited to teach the added concepts of determining a customer’s intent of purchase deferral based on read times of items.
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.
Claim 10 is 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: when a customer wants to purchase a commodity, reading a code and notifying the customer of completion, and as the code is framed out from a reading area within a period, displaying the commodity on a list as a purchase determined commodity; and when the customer wants to defer purchase of a commodity, reading a code and notifying the customer of completion, and determining a user’s intention based on duration of the reading to interpret a short reading time as a purchase determination and a long time as a purchase deferral, without requiring any input operation additionally from the customer, and in response to the deferral, outputting a notification different from that of the purchase determination, and displaying a deferred commodity distinguishable from the purchase determined commodity. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic behavior, including purchase decisions, as well as managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions. Further, the limitations cover mental processes, including observation and judgment. Deciding whether to purchase or not purchase an item by timing how long an item is held in a particular area can be done by the human mind.
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 reader unit, a commodity registration machine, and a display unit, 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 broadly recited, and generally claimed, 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 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.
Claim 1, 3-4 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumikatsu (JP 2020177313) in view of Callaerts (US 2021/0192592).
Claims 1 and 10. Fumikatsu teaches a commodity purchasing system comprising a commodity registration machine mounted on a shopping cart, the commodity registration machine comprising a reader unit and a display unit, (Figure 11 showing mobile terminal on cart with item reader and display) wherein the commodity registration machine is configured to:
when a customer wants to purchase a commodity, read, by the reader unit, a commodity code of the commodity, (Fumikatsu paragraph 127 showing scanning of item on terminal on mobile terminal) and notify the customer of completion of the reading, and then, as (para. 147 showing displaying of registered products with status)
the commodity code is framed out by the customer from a reading area of the reader unit within a predetermined period, display, by the display unit, the commodity on a list as a purchase determined commodity; and (para. 147 showing registration status of items, including as registered)
when the customer wants to defer purchase of a commodity, read, by the reader unit, a commodity code of the commodity, and notify the customer of completion of the reading, and (para. 133 showing reserving a product for later, as well as system notifying customer of such)
determine a user’s intention based on a duration of the reading to interpret a short reading time as a purchase determination without requiring any additional input operation from the customer; (para. 129 showing item registration based on scan time)
and in response to the purchase deferral determination, output a notification different from that of the purchase determination, and display by the display unit the commodity as a purchase deferred commodity distinguishable from the purchase determined commodity.
(para. 130 showing time out of reading state) (para. 133 showing reserving a product for later, as well as system notifying customer of such) (paragraphs 196 and 197 showing lists of registered and reserved products)
Fumikatsu disclose shorter and longer scan periods and treating a shorter read time as an item registration and a longer read time as a pending item type in paragraphs 129, 130, 133, 196 and 197. It does not teach determine a user’s intention based on a duration of reading to interpret a longer reading time as a purchase deferral determination. However, Callaerts teaches a longer time as a purchase deferral determination, in paragraph 30, which teaches using a prolonged amount of time an item is being read to determine a customer’s intent of possibly purchasing an item by considering the item for purchase. This reads on interpreting a longer reading time to determine a user’s intent of deferring a purchase for a particular item.
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 purchase registration deferral in Fumikatsu, with the known technique of time-based determination in Callaerts, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for subsequent opportunities for item purchasing. (See Callaerts para. 30 for a follow consideration of purchase determination.)
Claim 3. Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 1, wherein the purchase deferred commodity is listed on the list displayed on a screen of the display unit in such a manner that the purchase deferred commodity is able to be distinguished from the purchase determined commodity. (Fumikatsu paragraphs. 199 and 202 showing differentiation between cancelled, reserved and registered products in display.)
Claim 4. Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to, according to an operation by the customer on the commodity registration machine, change, before checking out a commodity, a status of the commodity to any of the purchase determined commodity, the purchase deferred commodity, and a purchase cancelled commodity from one to another. (Fumikatsu para. 208 showing member/customer having an edit screen to change reserved and cancelled products’ status; para. 213 showing cancel key for products.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumikatsu in view of Callaerts, and in further view of Gifford (US 2016/0300093).
Claim 2. Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 1, wherein the commodity registration machine is configured to:
when the customer wants to defer purchase of a commodity, read, by the reader unit, a commodity code of the commodity, and notify the customer, and as the customer keeps the commodity in a commodity code reading state in the reading area of the reader unit for a predetermined period, notify the customer. (para. 133 showing reserving a product for later, as well as system notifying customer of such) (para. 130 showing time out of reading state) (para. 133 showing reserving a product for later, as well as system notifying customer of such) (paragraphs 196 and 197 showing lists of registered and reserved products)
Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts does not teach audible alerts. Gifford does teach notifying the customer by sounds for different actions (Gifford paragraph 135 showing sounds for user feedback on different types of data input).
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 purchase registration deferral in Fumikatsu, with the known technique of audible feedback in Gifford, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for redundant feedback options for more accessibility (See Gifford para. 135 for sound, vibration, color, movement-based feedback methods.)
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumikatsu in view of Callaerts, and in further view of Oishi (US 2010/0223147).,
Claim 5. Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 4, wherein a store includes a shopping area (para. 157 showing store with shelf area) and a check-out process (para. 232 showing settlement)
Said modified Fumikatsu does not teach the following, but Oishi does: a check-out area, and the commodity purchasing system is further configured to, when the customer carries the purchase deferred commodity in the check-out area, output a first warning message in order to urge the customer to change the status of the commodity to a purchase determined commodity or not to leave the store with the commodity that is not purchased. (Oishi paragraphs 48-50 showing alarm sound if any temporarily settled or unsettled products are passed through a checkout area of a store.)
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 purchase registration deferral in said modified Fumikatsu, with the known technique of audible feedback in Oishi, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for warning of any unpaid-for products (Oishi para. 49 showing alarm of any unsettled merchandise.)
Claim 6. Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 4, wherein a store includes a shopping area (para. 157 showing store with shelf area), a check-out process (para. 232 showing settlement), and output a second warning message in order to urge the customer to return the purchase cancelled commodity. (para. 202 showing notifying customer of any reserved or cancelled products accordingly.)
Said modified Fumikatsu does not teach the following, but Oishi teaches a check-out area, and the commodity purchasing system is further configured to, when the customer carries the purchase cancelled commodity in the check-out area, output a warning message in order to urge the customer to return the purchase cancelled commodity. (Oishi paragraphs 48-50 showing alarm sound if any temporarily settled or unsettled products are passed through a checkout area of a store.)
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 purchase registration deferral in said modified Fumikatsu, with the known technique of audible feedback in Oishi, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for warning of any unpaid-for products (Oishi para. 49 showing alarm of any unsettled merchandise.)
Claim 7. Fukimatsu as modified by Callaerts and Oishi teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 5. Fukimatsu teaches wherein when the customer carries the purchase deferred commodity and the purchase cancelled commodity in the check-out process, the commodity registration machine or a payment machine outputs a first warning message in order to urge the customer to change a status of the commodity to a purchase determined commodity or not to leave the store with the commodity that is not purchased and also outputs a second warning message different from the first warning message in order to urge the customer to return the purchase cancelled commodity. (Fukimatsu para. 202 showing notifying customer of any reserved or cancelled products accordingly. Examiner interprets the warning messages for reserved and cancelled products as including displaying of the reserved and cancelled products. Paragraphs 188 and 189 also shows messages for reserved and cancelled products.)
Said modified Fukimatsu does not teach the following, but Oishi does: wherein when the customer carries the purchase deferred commodity and the purchase cancelled commodity in the check-out area, the commodity registration machine or a payment machine outputs a warning message in order to urge the customer to change a status of the commodity to a purchase determined commodity or not to leave the store with the commodity that is not purchased or to urge the customer to return the purchase cancelled commodity. (Oishi paragraphs 48-50 showing alarm sound if any temporarily settled or unsettled products are passed through a checkout area of a store.)
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 purchase registration deferral in said modified Fumikatsu, with the known technique of audible feedback in Oishi, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for warning of any unpaid-for products (Oishi para. 49 showing alarm of any unsettled merchandise.)
Claim 8. Fumikatsu as modified by Callaerts and Oishi teaches the commodity purchasing system according to claim 7. Fumikatsu teaches wherein the first and second warning messages make it possible to output commodity registration data of the commodity registration machine at a timing that is coordinated with the payment machine. (Fumikatsu teaches in para. 206 using the messages to allow for clearing of reserved or cancelled exceptions to allow for processing of settlement. Para. 180 showing coordinated transmission of data output from registration terminal to POS.)
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 extension fee 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 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