DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to claims on 03/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. The effective filing date is 01/20/2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2023 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1-Claims 1-7 are directed to a processing device, which is a statutory category. Claims 8-13 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category. Claims 14-20 are directed to a sales terminal, which is an apparatus, which is a statutory category. Therefore, claims 1-20 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 14, recite:
A memory that stores a program (additional element to be analyzed under Step 2A, prong 2); and
A processor that executes the program stored in the memory (additional element to be analyzed under Step 2A, prong 2) to:
receive processing requests of data collected in a store from a plurality of request sources (receiving data is collecting information, which can be a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
execute a predetermined process based on the data of the processing requests received by the receiving component (processing information is analyzing information, which can be a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
record, in association with an identifier for identifying each of the plurality of request sources, a processing date and time when a processing request received from a request source corresponding to the identifier was last processed (recording and processing information is to collect and analyze information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); based on receipt of processing requests from the plurality of request sources, control the predetermined process to preferentially process the processing requests of the plurality of request sources from a processing request of a request source that has an early processing date and time based on the processing date and time recorded in association with the identifier of each of the plurality of request sources (the management of processing and receiving of information is the management of information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
cause, on a display device based on the identifier, an output of an associated result of the predetermined process performed for each of the plurality of request sources (displaying the results of the information being analyzed remains a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2A, Prong 2- The additional elements of independent claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 14, include a memory, a processor, a program, a display device, register and point of sales terminal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements are presented as the tools to perform the abstract idea. Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) adding a general purpose computer to an abstract idea, such as a receiving component to receive information, or a point of sales terminal with processors to process information, will fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B-The independent claim 1, and similarly claim 8 and 14, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the components are described in general terms, and do not show any particularity that would showcase the claim is directed to more than the abstract idea, since the ideas are being applied to the additional elements.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-7, 8-13, and 15-20 add additional receiving and processing steps that remain abstract idea of sending and analyzing information under a mental process, and do not add additional elements that would showcase integration into a practical application, or more than the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 –
(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 1-6, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0201321 A1 Studnitzer et al. (hereinafter Studnitzer).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14 Studnitzer teaches an information processing device, comprising:
A memory that stores a program (Studnitzer [0125] computer system including a memory); and
A processor that executes the program stored in the memory (Studnitzer [0124] a computer system includes a processor) to:
receive processing requests of data collected in a store from a plurality of request sources (Studnitzer [0055] receiving order information);
execute a predetermined process based on the data of the processing requests received by the receiving component (Studnitzer [0052] transaction processing system for received requests);
record, in association with an identifier for identifying each of the plurality of request sources, a processing date and time when a processing request received from a request source corresponding to the identifier was last processed (Studnitzer [0051] the information is recorded based on the received and processed information, time and date of the information is recorded); and
based on receipt processing requests from the plurality of request sources, control the predetermined process to preferentially process the processing requests of the plurality of request sources from a processing request of a request source that has an early processing date and time based on the processing date and time recorded in association with the identifier of each of the plurality of request sources (Studnitzer [0032] the order of processing uses a first in first out method, that utilized the time stamp of the request to determine the order of processing; [0052] data transaction procession has a central processor that controls); and
cause, on a display device based on the identifier, an output of an associated result of the predetermined process performed for each of the plurality of request sources (Studnitzer [0126] the computer system also includes a display unit, that can act as an interface between the processor, memory and user).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15 Studnitzer teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein when processing requests are received from the plurality of request sources, the processor executes the program to: set one of the processing requests of the plurality of request sources that has an early processing date and time as an execution target, and process the processing request (Studnitzer [0032] the order of processing uses a first in first out method, that utilized the time stamp of the request to determine the order of processing; [0052] data transaction procession has a central processor that controls).
Regarding claims 3, 19, and 16 Studnitzer teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the program to:
store, in a storage component, a processing request that is not processed among the processing requests received, wherein when a plurality of processing requests are stored in the storage component, the processor executes the program to determine that processing requests are received from the plurality of request sources (Studnitzer [0032] the order of processing uses a first in first out method, that utilized the time stamp of the request to determine the order of processing; [0052] data transaction procession has a central processor that controls all operations).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17 Studnitzer teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the program to: output a processing result of a processing request to a request source of the processing request (Studnitzer [0126] the display device is output the determined information, and act as an interface to relay information to the user).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18 Studnitzer teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the program to receive the processing requests from terminal devices serving as request sources of the processing requests or processes operating on the terminal devices (Studnitzer [0024] transaction request from participants).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19 Studnitzer teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the program to receive processing requests of data collected in the store from a plurality of image sources (Studnitzer [0060] the transaction identifier may be codes or images, and this is what is received).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studnitzer in view of US 2022/0366414 A1 Kakino et al. (hereinafter Kakino).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Studnitzer teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Studnitzer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the data collected in the store includes a commodity code. Kakino is in the field of POS processing devices (Kakino Abstract, processing and settlement) and teaches wherein the data collected in the store includes a commodity code (Kakino [0030] the identification of an image can be a commodity code). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image identification of Studnitzer with the commodity code identification of Kakino. The motivation for doing so would be to provide information about the identified object, and this can be the common use of commodity codes to identify information about the specific item (Kakino [0033-0034] obtaining information about the products using commodity codes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The component elements have been removed, and therefore the 112(f) interpretation were removed.
Subject Mater Rejection
The independent claims have been amended to include an output of the results of an analysis for display on a display device, and Applicant recites that this cannot be performed in the human mind. However, Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) where the mental process can include “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,", especially when recited at a high level of generality. In the instant claims, the output is claimed in being displayed on a display device, which could be writing results calculated in the human mind. The additional element of the display device is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2, where under MPEP 2106.05(f) the display device is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea of displaying results of a calculation, being formed on a display device, and hat display device being recited in general terms as a tool to perform the displaying action, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, either alone or in combination, the additional elements do not provide more than the abstract idea. The use of a processor, memory and display device are recited as tools to perform the abstract idea of processing request and making business decisions.
Novelty Rejection
Applicant specifically points to the claim limitation of recording a processing date and time when he processing request is received, and that the request includes a corresponding identifier. Examiner takes note that under this claim limitation, there needs only be a recording of the time of the request and the identifier associated with it. When Studnitzer teaches a first in-first out mentality, it therefore needs to know the time in, to order the requests in a first in and first out manner. Additionally, in [0051] of Studnitzer, there is also noted that there is a user database, wherein the account numbers and identifiers are stores, to be linked t the requests. Therefore, Studnitzer art of first in and first out reads on the recording of the time of request associated with a specific user. The claims remain rejected under 102.
Obviousness Rejection
The dependent claims do not depend from allowable claims, and therefore remain rejected under 103.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0185987 A1 Ueta et al. teaches product identification (Abstract).
US 9,665,855 B2 Brooks et al. teaches inventory tracking (Abstract).
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 JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM 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 OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights