DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 09/10/2025.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits that the amended claim is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers commercial interactions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submit that the claim is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part, to a method and a point of sales system and server. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-2, 4-7 and 15-16, 18-20 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 8-9, 11-14 are directed to a store server, which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interactions.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to managing a status of payment processing for items purchased at a store, comprising: a plurality of mobile POS terminals each configured to register an item for purchase at the store and communicate with a payment management server to perform payment processing for the registered item, a store clerk terminal configured to generate a screen showing a list of states for the mobile POS terminals, the states indicating whether the corresponding POS terminals are executing payment processing; and a store server including: a communication interface configured to communicate with the POS terminal, the payment management server, and the store clerk terminal, and a processor configured to: acquire a payment start request sent from one of the POS terminals to the payment management server, control the communication interface to transmit, to the payment management server, a query regarding a status of payment processing corresponding to the payment start request, determine whether the status of the payment processing is complete, and upon determining that the status of the payment processing is not complete, generate information including a code that identifies the payment processing and control the communication interface to transmit the information to both said one of the POS terminals and the store clerk terminal, wherein upon receipt of the information, said one of the POS terminals displays the information, and upon receipt of the information, the store clerk terminal updates the list on the screen to show that said one of the POS terminals is performing the payment processing and is in an error state. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial interactions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements: point-of-sale (POS) system, a POS terminal, payment management server, store server, communication interface, processor. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0030-0034] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “A configuration example of the store server 1 will be described. FIG. 2 is a hardware block diagram of the store server 1 according to an embodiment. The store server 1 is an electronic device including a processor 11, a main memory 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, and a communication interface (I/F) 14. Those components constituting the store server 1 are connected to each other so as to be able to input and output signals. The processor 11 is a core component of the store server 1. The processor 11 is an element constituting a controller of the store server 1. For example, the processor 11 is a central processing unit (CPU), but is not limited thereto. The processor 11 may be configured by various circuits. The processor 11 loads a program stored in advance in the auxiliary storage device 13 into the main memory 12. The program is executed by the processor 11 of the store server 1 to perform the functions described later. The processor 11 executes various operations by executing programs loaded into the main memory 12. The main memory 12 is an element constituting the controller of the store server 1. The main memory 12 includes a non-volatile memory area and a volatile memory area. The non-volatile memory area of the main memory 12 stores an operating system and/or programs. The volatile memory area of the main memory 12 is used as a work area in which data is rewritten by the processor 11. For example, the non-volatile memory area of the main memory 12 includes a read only memory (ROM). For example, the volatile memory area of the main memory 12 includes a random access memory (RAM). The auxiliary storage device 13 is an element constituting the controller of the store server 1. The auxiliary storage device 13 is an electric erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a hard disc drive (HDD), or a solid state drive (SSD). The auxiliary storage device 13 stores the above-described programs, data used by the processor 11 in performing various types of processing, and data generated by processing by the processor 11.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2013/0275247 (hereinafter; Rama).
Regarding claims 1/8/15, Rama discloses:
A point-of-sale (POS) system; A store server; A point of sales system for managing a status of payment processing for items purchased at a store, comprising: a plurality of mobile POS terminals each configured to register an item for purchase at the store and communicate with a payment management server to perform payment processing for the registered item, (Rama [0034-0035] disclose POS located in a store and POS online.)
a store clerk terminal configured to generate a screen showing a list of states for the mobile POS terminals, the states indicating whether the corresponding POS terminals are executing payment processing; (Rama [0120-0122] disclose displaying status of payment in the POS.)
and a store server including: a communication interface configured to communicate with the POS terminal, the payment management server, and the store clerk terminal, and a processor configured to: acquire a payment start request sent from one of the POS terminals to the payment management server, (Rama [0058] discloses a server implemented by a single server or shared between multiple servers; See also [0103]; Fig. 10, merchant server; in some methods an order identifier may be used by the POS to request order information from a merchant server 202a-202b.)
control the communication interface to transmit, to the payment management server, a query regarding a status of payment processing corresponding to the payment start request, determine whether the status of the payment processing is complete, and upon determining that the status of the payment processing is not complete, generate information including a code that identifies the payment processing and control the communication interface to transmit the information to both said one of the POS terminals and the store clerk terminal, (Rama [0117-0118] discloses The POS then requests order information 1304 for the order identifier, such as one or more of a purchase price, order status, item identifier, or other information. The merchant system 202a-202b receives 1306 the request and evaluates 1308 the status of the order associated with the order identifier. If the status is found 1308 to indicate the order is "awaiting payment," then the requested order information may be transmitted 1310 to the POS and the status for the order may be changed 1312 to indicate "payment pending." An identifier of the POS that submitted the request, or "cart ID" may also be associated with the order. Upon receiving 1314 the order information, the POS may receive payment. If payment is found 1316 to have been received prior to closing of the POS transaction, then the merchant system 202a-202b may be notified and the status of the order is changed 1318 to indicate that payment has been made.)
wherein upon receipt of the information, said one of the POS terminals displays the information, and upon receipt of the information, the store clerk terminal updates the list on the screen to show that said one of the POS terminals is performing the payment processing and is in an error state. (See Rama [0117-0120]; [0120] discloses In case the status is not found 1322 to indicate payment pending or the "cart ID" for order is not found 1324 to match the "cart ID" for the current request being processed in the current iteration of the method 1300, an error message may be returned 1330 to the POS and the POS may then cancel the request for order information and may not proceed with receiving payment for the online order.)
Regarding claims 2/9, Rama discloses:
The POS system according to claim 1; the store server according to claim 8, wherein said one of the POS terminal displays the code with a message indicating that the payment processing is incomplete. (Rama [0122] discloses Alternatively, the order may remain in this state until a customer service representative or other employee reviews the transaction history and reverts the status to awaiting payment or paid, based on the present circumstances.)
Regarding claims 4/11/18, Rama discloses:
The POS system according to claim 1; the store server according to claim 8; The POS system according to claim 15, wherein the store clerk terminal is configured to, upon receipt of the information from the store server, display text indicating that said one of the POS terminals is performing the payment processing and a mark indicating the error state adjacent to the text. (Rama discloses the use of terminals in at least [0049]; [0053].)
Regarding claims 5/12/19, Rama discloses:
The POS system according to claim 1; the store server according to claim 8; the POS system according to claim 15, wherein the store clerk terminal is configured to display, in response to an input operation, information of the item registered by said one of the POS terminals together with the information regarding the payment processing. (See at least Rama [0120-0125].)
Regarding claim 6, Rama discloses:
The POS system according to claim 1, wherein each of the POS terminals is configured to: display a screen through which either online payment or checkout machine payment can be selected, and upon selection of the online payment through the screen, issue a payment start request to the payment management server. (Rama [0034] discloses managing online transactions wherein an option is provided to pay for a transaction at a POS located in a store.)
Regarding claim 13, Rama discloses:
The store server according to claim 8, wherein the processor acquires the payment start request issued by said one of the POS terminals via the payment management server. (See Rama [0117-0122] disclose payment requests.)
Regarding claim 16, Rama discloses:
The POS system according to claim 15, wherein the store clerk terminal is configured to display the code with information of the item registered by one of the POS terminals. (Rama [0056] discloses A POS, according to any of the aforementioned implementations, may be operable to scan barcodes. For purposes of this disclosure, references to barcodes and the scanning of barcodes may refer to a barcode received by email, multimedia messaging service (MMS) message, or other means. The barcode will then be reproduced by a customer on a printed page or on the screen of a mobile phone, tablet computer, or any other electronic device.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
20. Claim(s) 7, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rama in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0025990 (hereinafter; Suzuki).
Regarding claims 7/14, Although Rama discloses a point-of-sale system, Rama does not specifically disclose a point-of-sale terminal attached to a shopping cart. However, Suzuki discloses the following limitations:
The POS system according to claim 1, wherein each of the POS terminals is attachable to a shopping cart. Suzuki [0003] discloses There is known a system in which a device for attaching an electronic tag to a commodity and reading the information of the electronic tag in a contactless manner is arranged on a commodity conveyance shopping cart, and the information read by the device is sent to, for example, a POS (Point Of Sales) terminal serving as a commodity sales data processing apparatus of a register counter to carryout settlement of the commodity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point-of-sale system of Rama with the commodity sales data processing system of Suzuki in order to calculate a checkout amount based on the registration content (Suzuki abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 20, Although Rama discloses a point-of-sale system, Rama does not specifically disclose a point-of-sale terminal attached to a shopping cart. However, Suzuki discloses the following limitations:
The POS system according to claim 15, wherein the POS terminal is attachable to the shopping cart and configured to: display a screen through which either online payment or checkout machine payment can be selected, and upon selection of the online payment through the screen, issue the payment start request to the payment management server. (Suzuki [0003] discloses There is known a system in which a device for attaching an electronic tag to a commodity and reading the information of the electronic tag in a contactless manner is arranged on a commodity conveyance shopping cart, and the information read by the device is sent to, for example, a POS (Point Of Sales) terminal serving as a commodity sales data processing apparatus of a register counter to carryout settlement of the commodity. [0084] discloses a checkout screen.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the point-of-sale system of Rama with the commodity sales data processing system of Suzuki in order to calculate a checkout amount based on the registration content (Suzuki abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625