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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 01/18/2024.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
The IDS received on 01/19/2024, 01/07/2025, 05/01/2025 and 07/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-6 are directed to a method, system and computer which are statutory classes of invention.
Nevertheless, independent claim 1 is directed in part to an abstract idea. The claims are drawn to commercial or legal interactions (under certain methods of organizing human activity), or a sales data for identification information for identifying the product associate with the transaction specifying information are link together, in this case. The independent claims recite the steps which are done by using generic computing components. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “Commercial Legal Interactions” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describes the concept of a sales data for identification information for identifying the product associate with the transaction specifying information are link together using these additional elements: an apparatus device. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to 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 of an apparatus device to perform these steps 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “a computer readable storage medium” mentioned in the preamble. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to “a computer readable storage medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent, or open-ended. See MPEP 2111.01. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim is rejected as covering a signal per se, which is not directed towards statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" in the claim to recite a “non-transitory computer readable medium.” Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
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 (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 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 –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McGregor et al. “US 2018/0204260 A1” (McGregor).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-6: A sales data processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to:
acquire, from a product, product identification information for identifying the product (at least see McGregor Abstract; Fig. 1; [0058]);
when transaction specifying information for specifying a transaction is unissued, issue the transaction specifying information (at least see McGregor Abstract; Fig. 7B-7E; [0079);
when the transaction specifying information has been issued by an another device, acquire the transaction specifying information that has been issued by the another device (at least see McGregor Abstract; [0103);
acquire, from an external device, further product identification information that is stored in association with the transaction specifying information acquired by the processor (at least see McGregor Abstract; Fig. 1; [0090);
when accounting is instructed, execute an accounting process based on the product identification information acquired from the product and the further product identification information acquired from the external device (at least see McGregor [0093); and
when it is instructed to continue the transaction, store in the external device the product identification information acquired from the product and the transaction specifying information issued by the processor or the transaction specifying information acquired by the processor such that the product identification information and the transaction specifying information are associated with each other (at least see McGregor [0154]).
Regarding Claim 2: The sales data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when it instructed to continue the transaction, the processor is configured to issue a receipt indicating the transaction specifying information issued by the processor or the transaction specifying information acquired by the processor, and acquire the transaction specifying information indicated by the receipt (at least see McGregor [0142]).
Regarding Claim 3: The sales data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to issue a receipt representing a barcode indicating the transaction specifying information, and read the transaction specifying information from the barcode presented on the receipt (at least see McGregor [0253]).
Regarding Claim 4: The sales data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to issue a receipt indicating contents of the transaction when the accounting process is executed by the processor (at least see McGregor [0109]-[0110]).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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 Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627