Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on October 20, 2025.
Claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled.
Claim 6 has been added.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 095 and 03/19/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
CLAIM 1 ANALYSIS
Claim 1 — Reproduced and Parsed into Limitations
Preamble: “A merchandise sales data processing device comprising:”
Hardware Limitations:
(a) a code scanner;
(b) a display device;
(c ) a cash processing device having a cash inlet port and a cash outlet port;
(d) a card reader;
(e) a receipt printer; and
(f) a processor configured to:
Processor Functional Limitations:
(f.1) acquire identification information on merchandise from the code scanner in accordance with a customer operation of the code scanner;
(f.2) register information related to a purchase amount of the merchandise corresponding to the identification information;
(f.3) calculate a total amount of the merchandise based on the information registered;
(f.4) upon the total amount exceeds a predetermined upper limit amount:
(f.4.i) cause a display device to display an operation screen having an operator capable of calling a clerk and execute processing of calling a clerk in accordance with an operation of the operator on the operation screen,
(f.4.ii) merchandise turn into a locked state during which merchandise registration with the code scanner and settlement processing with at least one of the cash processing device or the card reader are disabled, and
(f.4.iii) exit out of the locked state to enable the merchandise registration and the settlement processing, in response to a predetermined operation to cancel the locked state; and
(f.5) execute the settlement processing through payment of an amount based on the calculated total amount with at least one of the cash processing device or the card reader and printing of a receipt with the receipt printer.
The claims are directed to a "merchandise sales data processing device" (e.g., a self-checkout POS terminal) that performs operations such as acquiring merchandise identification, registering sales data, calculating totals, restricting operation if a threshold is exceeded, and invoking clerk intervention.
The claims recite specific hardware elements (scanner, display, cash processing device, card reader, receipt printer, processor) and steps for processing sales transactions.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI): A point-of-sale terminal device that acquires merchandise codes, registers purchase amounts, calculates totals, restricts operations when a threshold is exceeded, displays notifications, locks/unlocks based on clerk authorization, and processes settlement via cash or card payment with receipt printing.
Claim 1 is drafted in the form of a “machine” or “apparatus” under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The preamble explicitly recites “A merchandise sales data processing device comprising:” followed by enumerated hardware components (scanner, display, cash processor, card reader, printer) and a processor.
The claim recites a tangible article of manufacture with specific physical components. The claim falls squarely within the statutory category of a “machine” or “manufacture” under § 101.
Step 1: Is the claim "directed to" a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea)?
The claim as a whole is directed to organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic practices such as sales transaction processing, fraud prevention, and authorization).
The method of restricting checkout when a transaction exceeds a threshold and requiring clerk intervention is a longstanding business practice, even if implemented on a computer.
Representative Claim (Claim 1):
Recites steps of:
- Acquiring merchandise information from a code scanner
- Registering purchase amount
- Calculating total
- Comparing to upper limit
- Displaying a screen for clerk call if over limit
- Locking registration/settlement
- Unlocking by clerk code
- Completing settlement & printing receipt
Case Law Guidance:
- See, e.g., *Smart Systems Innovations v. Chicago Transit Authority*, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims for controlling access to transit based on payment information were abstract).
- See, e.g., *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International*, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (claims for intermediated settlement were abstract).
- See, e.g., *Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo*, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims for extracting and processing information from documents were abstract).
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices (sales transaction processing and authorization), i.e., organizing human activities.
Step 2: Do the claims recite "significantly more" than the abstract idea (i.e., an inventive concept)?
Additional Elements:
- The claims recite generic hardware:
- code scanner
- display device
- cash processing device
- card reader
- receipt printer
- processor
Do the additional elements amount to "significantly more"?
The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and is well-known in the art of POS systems (*see* prior art cited above).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the method of organizing a human activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination 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 element of using computers to perform the Acquiring merchandise information from a code scanner; Registering purchase amount; Calculating total; Comparing to upper limit; Displaying a screen for clerk call if over limit; Locking registration/settlement; Unlocking by clerk code; and Completing settlement & printing receipt steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There is no new technology involved or any technological improvements. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The calculations/restrictions are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Adding the word “apply it” with the judicial exception merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims are not patent eligible.
The functions performed by the hardware (scanning, displaying, calculating, restricting, unlocking, settling, printing) are routine and conventional for self-checkout terminals.
The combination of restricting registration/settlement based on a transaction threshold and requiring clerk intervention is a business rule implemented on generic hardware.
No improvement to the functioning of the computer or POS hardware itself is recited; rather, the computer is used as a tool to automate conventional business practice.
There is no technical solution to a technical problem (*see* *DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com*, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), nor is there any unconventional arrangement or use of technology.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application beyond the field of sales transaction processing.
The claim does not add any meaningful limitation beyond applying the abstract idea using generic computer components.
The claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claims are ineligible under §101 because they are directed to an abstract idea (sales transaction processing and authorization rules) implemented on generic POS hardware, without an inventive concept or technical improvement.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, and 6 these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components and the processing steps. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a2) as being anticipated by Shinya (JP 2015141682).
Regarding Claim 1: Shinya teaches a merchandise sales data processing device comprising:
a code scanner (¶¶ 21, 39, Fig. 3, 4: “stationary scanner 5”, “hand scanner 7”);
a display device (¶¶ 23, 24, 39, Fig. 3, 4: “display operation panel 6”);
a cash processing device having a cash inlet port and a cash outlet port (¶¶ 25, 39, Fig. 3, 4: “deposit/withdrawal unit 4”);
a card reader (¶¶ 24, 39, Fig. 3, 4: “card reader/writer 8”);
a receipt printer (¶¶ 26, 39, Fig. 3, 4: “receipt printer 9”); and
a processor configured to (¶¶ 38, 41, Fig. 4: “control unit 50”):
acquire identification information on merchandise from the code scanner in accordance with a customer operation of the code scanner (¶¶ 53, 54: “receives transaction data…product code”);
register information related to a purchase amount of the merchandise corresponding to the identification information (¶¶ 54, 50: “registers sales data…unit price”);
calculate a total amount of the merchandise based on the information registered (¶¶ 50, 54, 66: “calculates total price…purchased”);
upon the total amount exceeds a predetermined upper limit amount (¶¶ 56, 57, 55: “when…total amount exceeds…clerk required”), cause a display device to display an operation screen having an operator capable of calling a clerk (¶¶ 67, 69, Fig. 7, 8: “clerk call button”, “notification screen”) and execute processing of calling a clerk in accordance with an operation of the operator on the operation screen, merchandise turn into a locked state during which merchandise registration with the code scanner and settlement processing with at least one of the cash processing device or the card reader are disabled (¶¶ 56, 70, 71: “mode change…locked state”, “prohibits input”), and
exit out of the locked state to enable the merchandise registration and the settlement processing, in response to a predetermined operation to cancel the locked state (¶¶ 70, 71: “clerk identification code…mode change”); and
execute the settlement processing through payment of an amount based on the calculated total amount with at least one of the cash processing device or the card reader and printing of a receipt with the receipt printer (¶¶ 67, 83, 84, Fig. 7, 10: “cash button”, “credit button”, “printer”).
Regarding Claim 3: Shinya teaches the merchandise sales data processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor calculates the total amount each time the processor performs
registration or at timing when an operation to give an instruction to end the registration is
performed (¶¶ 50, 66, 67: “calculates total…after each item/at end”).
Regarding Claim 4: Shinya teaches the merchandise sales data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation includes an input of a cancellation code using the display device (¶¶ 70, 71: “clerk identification code…mode change”).
Regarding Claim 6: Shinya teaches the merchandise sales data processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification pole, wherein the processing of calling the clerk comprises controlling the notification pole to operate (¶¶ 29, 30: “display pole 22, light-emitting”).
Alternative Rejection
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya (JP 2015141682) in view of Noriyoshi (JP 2016115202).
Shinya teaches all core limitations of the claims, including self-checkout hardware, transaction registration, total calculation, upper limit lockout, clerk intervention, unlocking by clerk code, and notification pole. Shinya shows a notification screen and a call-clerk button when the total exceeds the upper limit.
Noriyoshi supplements by teaching alternative transaction restriction logic, operator notification, and visual signaling (notification pole/light) in a self-checkout context, and demonstrates that restriction and notification can be implemented in various user modes (e.g., child mode).
It would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the flexible registration restriction and notification logic of Noriyoshi with the explicit clerk call UI and lockout of Shinya in order to provide robust, user-appropriate restriction and notification in a self-service checkout, as both references address the same problem (fraud prevention, transaction control, and operator intervention in self-checkout). Also, for the advantage of enhancing security, managing budgets, and preventing fraud. Such as preventing overspending or misuse (e.g., stolen credit cards, hacked accounts).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide flexible transaction restriction, notification, and unlocking methods, as both references address similar problems in self-checkout environments.
Therefore, in view of the above evidence, the combination of Shinya in view of Noriyoshi still meet the scope of the limitations as currently claimed.
Regarding Claim 3: Shinya teaches the merchandise sales data processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor calculates the total amount each time the processor performs
registration or at timing when an operation to give an instruction to end the registration is
performed (Both references teaches this feature: Shinya ¶¶ 50, 66, 67: “calculates total…after each item/at end”; Noriyoshi ¶¶ 31 and 35).
Regarding Claim 4: Shinya teaches the merchandise sales data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation includes an input of a cancellation code using the display device (Shinya ¶¶ 70, 71: “clerk identification code…mode change”; Noriyoshi ¶¶ 31 and 51).
Regarding Claim 6: Shinya teaches the merchandise sales data processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification pole, wherein the processing of calling the clerk comprises controlling the notification pole to operate (Shinya ¶¶ 29, 30: “display pole 22, light-emitting”; Noriyoshi ¶¶ 17, 51 and 52).
Response To Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101: Applicant contends that:
- The claims recite a “particular machine” (merchandise sales data processing device) rather than a generic computer.
- The claimed features are “uniquely tied” to the device and restrict user settlement in a specific way.
- The claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, satisfying Alice/Mayo Step 2A.
- The claims do not merely “apply” the abstract idea or link it to a technological environment as a post-solution activity.
Examiner Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims remain directed to a fundamental business practice—controlling sales transaction flow based on transaction value and requiring operator intervention—which is an abstract idea under established law (*Alice*, *Smart Systems*, *Content Extraction*) (Step 2A Prong 1).
Applicant asserts that the claims recite a “particular machine” and are not generic. However, the recited hardware (scanner, display, cash processing device, card reader, receipt printer, processor) are all conventional, well-understood, and routine components of point-of-sale systems (see MPEP 2106.05(b); *In re TLI Communications*, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The functions performed—scanning items, calculating totals, restricting registration/settlement, unlocking by clerk code, and printing receipts are routine and conventional operations for self-checkout terminals, as shown in the prior art (see Shinya, Noriyoshi).
The “locked state” and “exiting locked state” are business rules implemented using generic hardware, not a technical improvement. The claims do not improve the functioning of the device itself or solve a technical problem, but simply automate a business rule (Step 2A Prong 2).
The claims do not recite any meaningful limitations beyond using generic hardware to implement the abstract idea. The restriction and unlocking functions are performed by the processor as programmed business logic, not by any unconventional hardware arrangement or improvement to technology.
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer or POS device; they merely use the device to apply a longstanding business rule. See *Alice*, *Smart Systems*, *In re TLI Communications*, *Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.*, 10 F.4th 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The notification pole is a conventional visual indicator for operator assistance, as shown in Shinya (¶¶ 29 and 30) and Noriyoshi (¶¶ 17 and 51). Its inclusion does not amount to an inventive concept or technical improvement.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application beyond simply automating the business rule using generic POS hardware. The claims do not recite any unconventional step or hardware arrangement that provides “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not overcome the §101 rejection. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware and do not recite an inventive concept or technical improvement. The rejection under §101 is maintained.
Regarding 102 & 103: Applicant asserts that Shinya and Noriyoshi do not teach restriction or disablement of settlement processing, nor exiting the locked state as recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant also argues that Noriyoshi restricts only product registration in child mode, not settlement, and does not teach exiting the restricted state.
Examiner Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees,
Restriction/Disablement of Settlement Processing
Shinya (¶¶ 56, 70, and 71) teaches entering a locked state when the total exceeds an upper limit, during which both registration and settlement are disabled:
“¶ 56 …when the total amount calculation unit 12 calculates a total amount in accordance with the operation of the subtotal key and the total amount exceeds the upper limit amount, the operation restriction unit 15 restricts the operation of the settlement processing unit 16. This enables the operation restriction unit 15 to inhibit settlement processing from being performed with the total amount exceeding the upper limit amount.”
The locked state disables both registration and settlement, matching the claim language.
Exiting Locked State
Shinya (¶¶ 70 and 71) teaches unlocking via clerk code input:
“¶ 70 …when the code symbol printed with the clerk identification information is read…the checkout device cancels the checkout dedicated mode and changes to the normal POS mode…”
This corresponds to “exiting out of the locked state to enable registration and settlement processing, in response to a predetermined operation to cancel the locked state.”
Combination with Noriyoshi
Noriyoshi (¶¶ 31, 51, and 52) teaches restricting registration based on total amount and notification to operator, supporting the obviousness rationale for combining business rules for registration and settlement restriction.
Both references show visual notification (notification pole/light-emitting unit) for operator intervention (see claim 6).
Both Shinya and Noriyoshi teach notification poles as visual indicators for operator intervention. Claim 6 is obvious in light of these references.
Applicant’s arguments rely on a narrow interpretation of the references and the claim language. Namura, in particular, explicitly teaches restriction of both registration and settlement processing, as well as unlocking by clerk operation.
The prior art references, alone and in combination, teach or suggest all features of claim 1 (as amended), including locked state, restriction of registration and settlement, unlocking by clerk operation, and notification pole. The rejections under §§102 and 103 are maintained.
The §101 rejection is maintained because the claims are directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware, without an inventive concept or technical improvement.
The §§102 and 103 rejections are maintained because Shinya and Noriyoshi teach or suggest all claim limitations, including locked state, restriction and unlocking, and notification pole.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not overcome the cited rejections.
Conclusion
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 FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627