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 .
For the purpose of prior art consideration, the effective filing date of the instant application is based on the application filed in Japan on February 21st, 2023.
Claim Interpretation
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: “sound output unit” in claim 13.
Claim 13 – “[a] sound output unit configured to output a sound reporting that the registration of the commodity has been completed” 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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. There is no particular type of sound output device described in the specification or drawings of the instant application that is capable of outputting a sound as claimed. It is unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art how to replicate a sound output without knowing what type of device outputs said sound or how said sound is otherwise generated. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “output a sound” of claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no particular structure or device in the entire written disclosure (specification of claims) of the instant application that describes in a manner that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how the claimed sound output unit is configured to output a sound. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-8 recite an apparatus/machine; claims 9-11 recite an apparatus/machine and claims 12-20 recite a system/machine that are performing a series of functions. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention of a machine. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step2A – Prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include an enumerated “abstract idea”:
A point-of-sale apparatus, comprising:
a connection interface connectable to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal; and
a control unit connectable to an imaging unit and configured to:
acquire a captured image of a commodity from the imaging unit;
in parallel, attempt to identify the commodity in the image using a code symbol attached to the commodity and attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data of the commodity in in the captured image; and
output commodity identification information for the commodity to the POS terminal according to either the code symbol or the external feature data.
[Emphasis added to show the abstract idea being executed by additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea]
This apparatus claim is grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve a series of steps for sales activities for outputting commodity identification information for the commodity to the POS terminal by analyzing image data of a sales registration process of capturing images at a point-of-sale apparatus, which is a process that is encompassed by the abstract idea of commercial and/ or legal interactions. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and Subject Matter Eligibility Example 36. Accordingly, claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 12) are found to recite abstract idea(s).
Step2A – Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such as point-of-sale apparatus, connection interface, POS terminal, control unit and imaging unit merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the point-of-sale apparatus, connection interface, POS terminal, control unit and imaging unit performs the steps or functions of sales activities for outputting commodity identification information. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer (or technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as point-of-sale apparatus, connection interface, POS terminal, control unit and imaging unit) performing functions of acquiring, identifying and outputting that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of point-of-sale apparatus, connection interface, POS terminal, control unit and imaging unit being used to perform the steps of acquiring, identifying and outputting amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of sales activities for outputting commodity identification information. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, digital sign performs the steps or functions of commercial and/ or legal interactions of sales activities for outputting commodity identification information. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of commercial and/ or legal interactions of sales activities for outputting commodity identification information because said combination of elements remains disclosed at a high level of generality. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(l)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 describes an apparatus to perform functions of receiving, identifying, decoding, recognizing and outputting relating to sales activities for outputting commodity identification information without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a point-of-sale apparatus, camera and processor that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of commercial and/ or legal interactions of sales activities for outputting commodity identification information as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 describes a system to perform functions of identifying, registering acquiring and outputting relating to sales activities for outputting commodity identification information without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a point-of-sale apparatus, point-of-sale terminal, connection interface, control unit and imaging unit that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of commercial and/ or legal interactions of sales activities for outputting commodity identification information as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 11 and 13-20 further describes the abstract idea of commercial and/ or legal interactions. Dependent claims 2-6, 11 and 13-20 add outputting, identifying, completing, not completing, decoding, recognizing, reporting and registering steps that are executed by a point-of-sale apparatus, control unit, connection interface, processor, POS terminal and a sound output unit and as disclosed in independent claims 1, 9 and 12, however these additional steps remain disclosed at a high level of generality and do not amount to more than mere computer implementation of the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 11 and 13-20 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of these claims on ineligible independent claims 1, 9 and 12 also renders dependent claims 2-6, 11 and 13-20 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7-8, 10 and 19 further describes the abstract idea of commercial and/ or legal interactions. Dependent claims 7-8, 10 and 19 add technical elements of a bus connecting the control unit and imaging unit, the POS terminal is connected to the connection interface, a bus connected to a camera interface and processor, a camera connected to a camera interface and a bus connecting a control unit and an imaging unit, respectively. However, these additional technical elements do not relieve the fact that the functions performed by the respective independent base claims 1, 9 or 12 of these dependent claims remain disclosed at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 7-8, 10 and 19 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of these claims on ineligible independent claim 1, 9 or 12 also renders dependent claims 7-8, 10 and 19 as not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeno (US 2014/0140574 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takeno teaches:
A point-of-sale apparatus (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – POS terminal), comprising:
a connection interface connectable to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – The commodity recognition apparatus is electrically connected with the POS terminal through a communication cable); and
a control unit connectable to an imaging unit and configured to (See Takeno ¶ [0030] – CPU as the main control section and is connected to an image interface through ROM/ RAM through a bus line):
acquire a captured image of a commodity from the imaging unit (See Takeno ¶ [0032] – The image captured by the camera is acquired by the commodity recognition apparatus through the image interface, and is stored in the RAM);
in parallel, attempt to identify the commodity in the image using a code symbol attached to the commodity (See Takeno ¶ [0044] – outputting a commodity ID obtained by analyzing a barcode in a case where the barcode is read by the reading function to the POS terminal as a commodity ID of the commodity captured by the camera and [0062] – the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image) and attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data of the commodity in in the captured image (See Takeno ¶ [0039] – extracting appearance feature amount serving as surface information (an appearance shape, a hue, a pattern, a concave-convex state and the like) of the commodity from reference images and [0062] – the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image); and
output commodity identification information for the commodity to the POS terminal according to either the code symbol or the external feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0062] – That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image. Afterwards, when the barcode is read through the barcode reading processing, the CPU outputs the commodity ID decoded from the barcode to the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 2 and 14, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus/ commodity information registration system according to claim 1 and 12, wherein the control unit is configured to output commodity identification information according to the code symbol if the attempt to identify the commodity using the code symbol is successfully completed before the successful completion of the attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0053-0055] – a commodity barcode is read for commodity identification before commodity image feature analysis is performed to identify said commodity).
Regarding Claim 3 and 15, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus/ commodity information registration system according to claim according to claim 2 and 14, wherein the control unit is configured to output commodity identification information according to the code symbol if the attempt to identify the commodity using the code symbol is successfully completed within a predetermined time after the successful completion of the attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0098] – During the period from the moment the commodity is put in front of the reading window to the moment the commodity is moved out from the image capturing area of the camera, the commodity image is continuously detected from the frame image. Therefore, during the period, the CPU repeatedly executes the processing following ACT ST8. That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing using the commodity image detected from the frame image. Afterwards, when the barcode is read, the CPU outputs the commodity ID decoded from the barcode to the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 4 and 16, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus/ commodity information registration system according to claim according to claim 3 and 15, wherein the control unit is configured to output commodity identification information according to the external appearance feature data if the attempt to identify the commodity using the code symbol is not successfully completed before the predetermined time elapses after the successful completion of the attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0054-0055] – If the barcode is not read from the commodity image, or if the barcode cannot be decoded, the CPU executes commodity recognition processing… the commodity recognition processing… extracts appearance feature amount of the commodity from the commodity image detected in the processing).
Regarding Claim 5 and 17, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus/ commodity information registration system according to claim according to claim 1 and 12, wherein the control unit is configured to output commodity identification information according to the code symbol if the attempt to identify the commodity using the code symbol is successfully completed within a predetermined time after the successful completion of the attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0098] – During the period from the moment the commodity is put in front of the reading window to the moment the commodity is moved out from the image capturing area of the camera, the commodity image is continuously detected from the frame image. Therefore, during the period, the CPU repeatedly executes the processing following ACT ST8. That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing using the commodity image detected from the frame image. Afterwards, when the barcode is read, the CPU outputs the commodity ID decoded from the barcode to the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 6 and 18, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus/ commodity information registration system according to claim according to claim 5 and 17, wherein the control unit is configured to output commodity identification information according to the external appearance feature data if the attempt to identify the commodity using the code symbol is not successfully completed before the predetermined time elapses after the successful completion of the attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0054-0055] – If the barcode is not read from the commodity image, or if the barcode cannot be decoded, the CPU executes commodity recognition processing… the commodity recognition processing… extracts appearance feature amount of the commodity from the commodity image detected in the processing).
Regarding Claim 7 and 19, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus/ commodity information registration system according to claim according to claim 1 and 12, wherein the control unit is connected to the imaging unit by a bus (See Takeno ¶ [0030] – CPU as the main control section and is connected to an image interface through ROM/ RAM through a bus line).
Regarding Claim 8, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the connection interface is connected to the POS terminal (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – The commodity recognition apparatus is electrically connected with the POS terminal through a communication cable).
Regarding Claim 9, Takeno teaches:
A point-of-sale apparatus (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – POS terminal), comprising:
a camera configured to capture an image of a commodity held in front of the camera (See Takeno ¶ [0027-0028] – a camera for capturing images of commodities); and
a processor configured to (See Takeno ¶ [0030] – CPU as the main control section):
receive the captured image of the commodity from the camera (See Takeno ¶ [0032] – The image captured by the camera is acquired by the commodity recognition apparatus through the image interface, and is stored in the RAM);
in parallel, attempt to identify a barcode in the captured image and decode the barcode to identify the commodity (See Takeno ¶ [0044] – outputting a commodity ID obtained by analyzing a barcode in a case where the barcode is read by the reading function to the POS terminal as a commodity ID of the commodity captured by the camera and [0062] – the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image) and attempt to perform object recognition using the captured image to identify the commodity (See Takeno ¶ [0039] – extracting appearance feature amount serving as surface information (an appearance shape, a hue, a pattern, a concave-convex state and the like) of the commodity from reference images and [0062] – the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image);
output an identification of the commodity based on the decoding of the barcode if obtained either before completion of the object recognition or within a preset limit of time after completion of the objection recognition, and output an identification of the commodity based on completion of the object recognition otherwise (See Takeno ¶ [0053-0055] – a commodity barcode is read for commodity identification before commodity image feature analysis is performed to identify said commodity and [0098] – During the period from the moment the commodity is put in front of the reading window to the moment the commodity is moved out from the image capturing area of the camera, the commodity image is continuously detected from the frame image. Therefore, during the period, the CPU repeatedly executes the processing following ACT ST8. That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing using the commodity image detected from the frame image. Afterwards, when the barcode is read, the CPU outputs the commodity ID decoded from the barcode to the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 10, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising:
a bus (See Takeno ¶ [0030] – bus line 117); and
a camera interface connected to the bus, wherein the camera is connected to camera interface, and the processor is connected to the bus (See Takeno Fig. 2 – camera (14) connected to image interface (114) that is connected to the bus line (117), wherein said bus line (117) is also connected to the CPU (111)).
Regarding Claim 11, Takeno teaches:
The point-of-sale apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising:
a connection interface connectable to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – The commodity recognition apparatus is electrically connected with the POS terminal through a communication cable), wherein
the processor is configured to output the identification of the commodity based on the decoding of the barcode and the identification of the commodity based on the object recognition to POS terminal via the connection interface (See Takeno ¶ [0062] – That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image. Afterwards, when the barcode is read through the barcode reading processing, the CPU outputs the commodity ID decoded from the barcode to the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 12, Takeno teaches:
A commodity information registration system (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – The commodity recognition apparatus is electrically connected with the POS terminal through a communication cable for registering sales data of commodities purchased by a customer), comprising:
a point-of-sale apparatus configured to identify a commodity in a captured image of the commodity (See Takeno ¶ [0039] – captured images of commodities used to identify said commodities); and
a point-of-sale terminal configured to register information of the commodity identified by the point-of-sale apparatus (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – The commodity recognition apparatus is electrically connected with the POS terminal through a communication cable for registering sales data of commodities purchased by a customer), wherein the point-of-sale apparatus includes:
a connection interface connected to the point-of-sale terminal (See Takeno ¶ [0024] – The commodity recognition apparatus is electrically connected with the POS terminal through a communication cable); and
a control unit connectable to an imaging unit and configured to (See Takeno ¶ [0030] – CPU as the main control section and is connected to an image interface through ROM/ RAM through a bus line):
acquire a captured image of a commodity from the imaging unit (See Takeno ¶ [0032] – The image captured by the camera is acquired by the commodity recognition apparatus through the image interface, and is stored in the RAM);
in parallel, attempt to identify the commodity in the image using a code symbol attached to the commodity (See Takeno ¶ [0044] – outputting a commodity ID obtained by analyzing a barcode in a case where the barcode is read by the reading function to the POS terminal as a commodity ID of the commodity captured by the camera and [0062] – the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image) and attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data of the commodity in in the captured image (See Takeno ¶ [0039] – extracting appearance feature amount serving as surface information (an appearance shape, a hue, a pattern, a concave-convex state and the like) of the commodity from reference images and [0062] – the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image); and
output commodity identification information for the commodity to the point-of-sale terminal according to either the code symbol or the external feature data (See Takeno ¶ [0062] – That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel using the commodity image detected from the frame image. Afterwards, when the barcode is read through the barcode reading processing, the CPU outputs the commodity ID decoded from the barcode to the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 13, Takeno teaches:
The commodity information registration system according to claim 12, further comprising:
a sound output unit configured to output a sound reporting that the registration of the commodity has been completed. (See Takeno ¶ [0053] – the CPU outputs a signal to drive the buzzer to sound to notify that the reading is successful);
Regarding Claim 20, Takeno teaches:
The commodity information registration system according to claim 12, wherein the attempt to identify the commodity in the image using a code symbol attached to the commodity and the attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data of the commodity in the captured image occur simultaneously (See Takeno ¶ [0062] – That is, the CPU executes the barcode reading processing and the commodity recognition processing in parallel [simultaneous by example] using the commodity image detected from the frame image).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Claim 13 has not been amended and has not resolved the previous issue of invoking 112 (f) and the resulting rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) are maintained. The record has been corrected above regarding the statement of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to more clearly demonstrate the current issues of the instant application regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112. The statute and the main thrust of the rejection are the same.
While the specification and drawings of the instant application do in fact show a sound output unit outputting a sound as shown in claim 13, there is no particular structure, material or acts disclosed that are performing the function of outputting a sound. The applicant highlights Fig. 2 (element 120), Fig. 8 (ACT5) and Fig. 9 (ACT16) and claim 13 itself of the instant application to show satisfaction of the requirements for 112(f). Although Figs. 8 and 9 show sound output labeled as an act, these sections of the written description of the instant application, as well as anywhere else in the written description, do not disclose particular structure, material or acts that perform the function of outputting a sound and 112(f) remains invoked.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The amendments to independent claims 1, 9 and 12 do not improve patent eligibility of the claimed invention of the instant application and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that amended independent claims 1, 9 and 12 reflect various improvements to functionality, user convenience and operability of a device akin to a standard cash register, said amendments leave the methods of said claims as executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such that said methods are not more than merely applying a computer to perform the functions required by said methods, which does not show integration into a practical application nor does it show significantly more than the abstract ideas discussed above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, due to this high level of generality, said claims do not reflect a technological improvement to a technical problem, but rather only reflect improvement of the abstract idea. The amended claims as they are currently limited, as a whole, merely show the intended use of a camera connected to a point-of-sale terminal capturing image data without any additional action beyond a processor [computer] processing said image data, wherein said additional action is required to show integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Any improvement of a claimed invention must be clearly reflected by said claims.
Unlike the technical improvements found in Desjardins, the independent claims of the instant application remain as executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such that any improvement shown is to the abstract idea itself, not the underlying technology. Any improvement must be clearly reflected in the claims.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-20 also remain rejected as described above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The specification of an instant application is not read into the claims during examination.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
The amendments to independent claims 1, 9 and 12 as they are currently limited do not overcome the prior art references of record and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that Takeno does not teach the amended claim limitations of independent claims requiring: “a control unit ... configured to ... in parallel, attempt to identify the commodity in the image using a code symbol attached to the commodity and attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data of the commodity in the captured image”, of claim 1; “a processor configured to ... in parallel, attempt to identify a barcode in the captured image and decode the barcode to identify the commodity and attempt to perform object recognition using the captured image to identify the commodity”, of claim 9; and “a control unit ... configured to ... in parallel, attempt to identify the commodity in the image using a code symbol attached to the commodity and attempt to identify the commodity based on external appearance feature data of the commodity in the captured image”, of claim 12, this parallel processing of code symbols and commodity feature data remains to be taught by Takeno as detailed above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is noted that the applicant’s arguments rely on sections of Takeno that were not cited in the previous Office Action. The applicant is generally reminded that prior art must be considered in its entirety (MPEP 2141.02 (VI)).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-20 also remain rejected as described above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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 A. Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627