DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are cancelled while claims 1 and 10 are amended and claims 19-28 are newly added. Claims 1, 10, and 19-28 filed January 21, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 10, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1 and 19-28 are directed to a system, and claim 10 is directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
7. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea of business support regarding tasks.
The independent claims 1 and 10 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… configured to display code information;
…
accept task information including content of a plurality of tasks and an identifier… the plurality of tasks to be performed by a plurality of…;
accept input regarding the content of the plurality of tasks and an order in which the plurality of tasks it to be performed;
and transmit the task information…;
and transmit process information to… the process information including content of a task of a plurality of tasks, the identifier of the… and operator information for identifying an operator who carries…;
wherein…. configured to:
receive the task information;
control, based on the task information… to display the content of the task to be performed by…;
and output a task signal to display the code information on… the task signal including the identifier of the… and the operator information;
to perform the task, the… is configured to:
obtain the process information transmitted from…;
read the task signal output by… configured to read the code information displayed…;
execute a process included in the process information when content of a task identified by the task signal matches content of a task identified by the obtained process information and when the operator information included in the task signal matches the operator information included in the obtained process information;
and transmit results of execution of the process to…
8. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, a business support system regarding tasks falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
9. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites automatically tracking and managing inventory of surgical tools with generally recited computer elements such as a circuitry, operator terminal, display, server, code reader, and money processing machine, which 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, and are merely invoked as tools for business support regarding tasks. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
10. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of circuitry, operator terminal, display, server, code reader, and money processing machine 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
11. Regarding dependent claims 19 and 25, although these claims recite a generally recited server and money processing machine, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claim 20, although this claim recites a generally recited electromagnetic locking mechanism, door, and money processing machine, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claim 21, although this claim recites a generally recited storage cassette, cassette mounting unit, and money processing machine, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claims 22, 24, and 26, although these claims recite a generally recited operator terminal and money processing machine, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claim 23, although this claim recites a generally recited money processing machine, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Regarding dependent claim 27, although this claim recites a generally recited operator terminal, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Regarding dependent claim 28, although this claim recites a generally recited banknote handling assembly, coin handling assembly, and money processing machine, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
22. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
23. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al (US 2018/0044112) in view of Shimizu et al (US 2018/0286163).
24. Re Claims 1, 10: Fujiwara discloses comprising:
an operator terminal including a display configured to display code information (see [0007], Fig. 2 task aid terminal, [0044] graphic or character array including identification information for each shelf displayed);
and a server including circuitry configured to (see [0008], Fig. 3 server):
accept task information including content of a plurality of tasks and an identifier of the operator terminal, the plurality of tasks to be performed by a plurality of money processing machines (see [0036] generates task instruction information to be shared with task aid terminals and [0069-0070] worker ID servers as terminal ID as each record includes a worker ID 1443);
accept input regarding the content of the plurality of tasks and an order in which the plurality of tasks is to be performed (see [0076] order of tasks and sequence number may indicate order at which each task to be executed);
and transmit the task information to the operator terminal (see [0076] transmits to task aid terminal);
transmit process information to a money processing machine of the plurality of money processing machines, the process information including content of a task of the plurality of tasks, the identifier of the operator terminal, and operator information for identifying an operator who carries the operator terminal (see [0077] transmits information to task aid terminal);
wherein the operator terminal comprises circuitry configured to receive the task information (see [0036] enabling information to be shared with task aid terminals through network);
and control, based on the task information, the display to display the content of the task to be performed by the money processing machine (see [0046] task information output unit 114 has function of outputting task information to worker);
output a task signal to display the code information on the display, the task signal including the identifier of the operator terminal and the operator information (see [0051] transmit signals, [0110] unique signal);
and to perform the task, the money processing machine is configured to:
obtain the process information transmitted from the server (see [0041] reception processing unit);
read the output task signal output by the circuitry of the operator terminal using a code reader configured to read the code information displayed on the display (see [0160] reading the signal);
and execute a process included in the process information when content of a task identified by the task signal matches content of a task identified by the obtained process information and when the operator information includes in the task signal matches the operator information included in the obtained process information (see [0051] task aid terminal transmit signals to each other);
and transmit results of execution of the process to the server (see [0084] transmits information to task information management server).
However, Fujimara fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Shimizu teaches:
a money processing machine (see [0022], Fig. 2 money depositing/dispensing machine).
From the teaching of Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujiwara’s task aid system with Shimizu’s teaching of a money processing machine in order for “… a money handling method… (see Shimizu [0002]).”
25. Re Claim 19: Fujiwara discloses wherein the money processing machine is configured to transmit a notification to the server when a remaining amount of money in the money processing machine becomes equal or less than a specific threshold (see [0090] equal or less threshold for distance, analogous to money).
26. Re Claim 20: However, Fujiwara fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Shimizu teaches wherein the process executed by the money processing machine includes unlocking an electromagnetic locking mechanism provided on a door of the money processing machine (see [0051] lock). From the teaching of Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujiwara’s task aid system with Shimizu’s teaching of a lock in order for “… a money handling method… (see Shimizu [0002]).”
27. Re Claim 21: However, Fujiwara fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Shimizu teaches wherein the task information includes an instruction to mount a storage cassette on a cassette mounting unit of the money processing machine (see [0029, 0031] storage cassette). From the teaching of Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujiwara’s task aid system with Shimizu’s teaching of a storage cassette in order for “… a money handling method… (see Shimizu [0002]).”
28. Re Claim 22: Fujiwara discloses wherein the operator terminal is configured to display a guide route from a current location of the operator terminal to an installation location of the money processing machine (see [0079] current location and next sorting location).
29. Re Claim 23: Fujiwara discloses wherein the money processing machine is configured to limit execution of the process to a single time for a single instance of the task signal (see [0110] unique signal).
30. Re Claim 24: Fujiwara discloses wherein the operator terminal is configured to display, as the code information, a single code corresponding to a plurality of tasks to be performed on the money processing machine (see [0037] code).
31. Re Claim 25: Fujiwara discloses wherein the money processing machine stores authentication information in advance and is configured to executed the process when the task signal includes a matching collection code, even if the money processing machine is offline relative to the server (see [0084] comparison results match).
32. Re Claim 26: Fujiwara discloses wherein the money processing machine is configured to display a completion code upon finishing the process, and the operator terminal is configured to read the completion code to verify task completion (see [0087] confirms whether all tasks completed).
33. Re Claim 27: Fujiwara discloses wherein the operator terminal includes a global positioning system (GPS) function to acquire location information of the operator terminal (see [0143] GPS).
34. Re Claim 28: However, Fujiwara fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Shimizu teaches wherein the money processing machine comprises a banknote handling assembly configured to handle banknotes and a coin handling assembly configured to handle coins (see [0029] banknote handling device and coin handling device). From the teaching of Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujiwara’s task aid system with Shimizu’s teaching of a banknote/coin handling device in order for “… a money handling method… (see Shimizu [0002]).”
Examiner Notes
35. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 19-28 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests clarifying what content of a task is (what a task is), and what task information is. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
36. The applicant’s arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered and are not found to be persuasive. However, the applicant’s claim amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection are rendered moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds of rejection.
a) Argument #1: Applicant argues that claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One
37. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of business support regarding tasks, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Business support regarding tasks would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that this is an improvement in technology
38. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of circuitry, operator terminal, display, server, code reader, and money processing machine and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for business support regarding tasks. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of business support regarding tasks (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
39. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
40. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., the additional elements of circuitry, operator terminal, display, server, code reader, and money processing machine that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to business support regarding tasks. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., business support regarding tasks, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
41. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of business support regarding tasks. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
c) Argument #3: Significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
42. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
43. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
44. Here the only additional elements recited in claims 1 and 10 beyond the abstract idea are: the additional elements of circuitry, operator terminal, display, server, code reader, and money processing machine, i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
45. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
46. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Valenzuela et al (Reusable hardware and software model for remote supervision of Industrial Automation Systems using Web technologies, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
47. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
48. 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.
49. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
50. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627