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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 08/21/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,4-6,8-9,11-12, 14 and 15 have been amended by Applicant’s 08/21/2025 amendment.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 are canceled by Applicant’s 08/21/2025 amendment.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s 08/21/2025 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this action.
Objection to Title in the previous Act
Objection to the Title of the Application in previous Act is withdrawn in view of Applicant amending the Title in a manner similar as suggested by Non-Final Act 05/21/2025 at p.2 ¶6.
Objection to Claims 1,14,15 in the previous Act
Objection to Claims 1,14,15 in previous Act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
35 USC 112 rejections in the previous Act
112 rejections in the previous Act are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to 35 USC 101 arguments
Step 2A Prong two: Remarks 08/21/2025 p14, p15 ¶4, argues the amendment at independent Claim 1 and similarly the amendment at sister independent Claims 14,15 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner fully considered the argument but respectfully disagree finding it unpersuasive by pointing to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence which states that certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of … shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
It then follows that here, the analogous recitations “operating payment devices” and associated “a number of times of payment completion of each payment device in the store from a server of the store via a communication interface” as recited at each of independent Claims 1,14,15 could also be argued to fall within the abstract methods of organizing human activity.
Further, the determination or predicting of said “operating payment devices” as being optimized or “required” for “the number of waiting customers in the store data” as recited at independent Claims 1,14,15 could be argued to fall within the equally abstract computer aided mental processes of evaluation and judgement of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, while the “acquiring a sensor data from a human sensor or a camera installed at an entrance of the store via the communication interface” could be argued as the computer aided mental process of observation
as listed by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2. These findings and ensuing rationales are corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C stating at its points #2 and #3 that performing a mental process in a computer environment and using a computer as tool to perform a mental process still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception, despite the presence of the computer aid.
It then follows that here, recitations of “store data stored in the memory” “including a number of unpaid customers who are unpaid in a store, a number of operating payment devices, and a number of waiting customers waiting for payment at each of a plurality of time points” and recitations of “sensor data” acquire[d] “from a human sensor or a camera installed at an entrance of the store via the communication interface”; used to “calculate” “a number of currently unpaid customers” etc. represent tools or computer environments upon which the abstract “predicting a number of required operating payment devices” would not preclude the argued claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. Thus, the Step 2A prong 2 argument is unpersuasive.
Step 2B: Remarks 08/21/2025 p15 ¶3-¶4, argues the amendment in Claim 1 and similarly in sister Claims 14,15 is inventive, and not well-understood, routine or conventional activities.
Examiner first stresses on the difference between claimed components that are integral to the abstract ideas, and claimed, additional computer-based elements outside of the realm of the abstract idea. Here the amendment of Claims 1,14,15 as argued at Remarks 08/21/2025 p15 ¶3-¶4, appears to focus on the former rather than on the latter. Thus, the Examiner reincorporates all the findings and rationales at the prior argument above, where it was demonstrated that use of computer environments or tools claimed with the abstract idea and/or that use of computer environments or tools claimed to perform the abstract idea still recite, describe, or set forth the abstract idea. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A states that the term fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a fundamental economic practice) etc. It then follows that here, the analogous “predicting a number of required operating payment devices”, as summarized by preamble of independent Claims 1,14,15, and then detailed throughout the body of independent Claims 1,14,15 as argued above, would similarly fall within the fundamental economic practices or principles of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A. Thus, it appears, that the claimed amendment, argued at Remarks 08/21/2025, corresponds, for the most part, to features integral to the abstract idea right from the onset, not to additional, computer-based elements, regardless of their conventionality or unconventionality. This is also because MPEP 2106.05(a) is clear that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, which is consistent with MPEP 2106.04 I. citing Myriad, 569 US at 591,106 USPQ2d at 1979 to underline that even a groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry" as corroborated by “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic, LLC, No 2017-2081, 2018 BL 275354 (Fed. Cir.Aug.02, 2018)”: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter”. “An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. Simply put here, the “predicting a number of required operating payment devices”, is ineligible for at least the similar reasons of “SAP” supra; that is, “no matter how much of [such] an advance in the field” “the claims [would] recite the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. This legal finding is further corroborated by Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 again undelaying the difference between improvement to an entrepreneurial goal or objective versus improvement to actual technology.
Here, the amended details of “predicting a number of required operating payment devices” remain integral to the commercial interactions [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] and/or fundamental economic practices [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] of Certain methods of organizing human activities, with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3 having established use of physical aids such as computer as tools or environment for executing the abstract idea not precluding the claims from reciting, describing or setting fort the abstract exception. Thus, far from representing an inventive concept, the argued features are, for most part, integral to the abstract exception itself, thus failing to render the claims eligible, regardless of any question of their unconventionality, as raised by Remarks 08/21/2025 p15 ¶3-¶4, and certainly no more than an asserted entrepreneurial improvement, not a technological one. Such entrepreneurial improvement would at best correspond to an improvement in commercial interactions (i.e. sales activities) per MPEP 2106/04(a)(2) II B and/or fundamental economic practices or principles of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, which would render the claims patent ineligible right from the onset, before any inquiry at Step 2B of the analysis.
The Examiner also submits, in the arguendo, that even when the level of computerization or automation in the claims is tested at Step 2B of the analysis, it still does not suffice to render the claims eligible because such computerization represents application of a business method on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)] including: monitoring of audit [here “payment”] log data executed on a general-purpose computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii)] and requiring use of software to tailor [here “output”] information [here “indicating the number of required payment devices”] and provide it to the user on a generic computer [here “output device”]. None of these, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) provide significantly more because they present invocation or computer or machines to apply the abstract exception. Additionally, or alternatively when tested per MPEP 2106.05(h) iv,vi,viii,x such level of computerization or automation can be also argued as a technological environment upon which to perform the aforementioned abstract exception, which once again does not provide significantly more than what was already identified as being abstract.
In conclusion the Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence legal evidence to show that the level of computerization or automation in the claims amounts to no more than the use of computer aids, tools or environments to perform the abstract idea, with any consideration for additional computer-based elements at the subsequent steps 2A prong two and 2B, merely invoking the use of such computers or machinery to apply the aforementioned abstract exception and/or to narrow it to a field of use or technological environment, and thus failing to integrate said abstract exception into a practical appclaition (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, both arguments are found unpersuasive and thus the claims are ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to 35 USC 102 and 103 arguments
Remarks 08/21/2025 p.15 last two ¶ -p.17 ¶4 argues that independent Claim 1 and similarly independent Claims 14, 15 have been amended to overcome the prior art.
Examiner fully considered the Applicant’s argument which is found persuasive.
Examiner submits that neither the best prior art of Frey et al, US 5557513 A, nor any other prior art on record teaches alone or together with adequate rationales, the combination of features at independent Claims 1,14,15 listed by Remarks 08/21/2025 p.16 last ¶-p.17 ¶1. Claims 4-6, 8-13 overcome the prior art by dependency to parent independent Claim 1 overcoming the prior art.
To be clear, novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are all or nearly all abstract components of the abstract exception itself, and thus failing to render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). Simply said, the novelty and non-obviousness of such components in the amended independent Claims 1,14,15 do not necessarily render the claims eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1,14,15 are independent and have been amended to each recite, among others:
…storing store data including a number of unpaid customers who are unpaid in a store
specify, from the store data stored in the memory, past store data in which a number of unpaid customers… [bolded emphasis added]
Claims 1,14,15 are rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if:
- “a number of unpaid customers” as subsequently recited at “specify” limitation relates back to
- “a number of unpaid customers as antecedently recited as “storing” limitation.
Claims 1,14,15 are recommended to be further amended to each recite, among others:
…storing store data including a number of unpaid customers who are unpaid in a store
specify, from the store data stored in the memory, past store data in which [[a]] the number of unpaid customers…
Claims 4-6, 8-13 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1.
* Further *
Claim 15 is independent and has been amended to recite, among others:
- “determining the number of required payment devices based on the specified store data, by comparing an allowable range with the number of waiting customers in the store data after a predetermined time from the time point indicated by the specified store data, and in a case where the number of waiting customers in a store data after the predetermined time from the time point is within the allowable range, determining, as the number of required payment devices, the number of operating payment devices in the store data during a period from the time point to the predetermined time”;
Claim 15 is rendered vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the time point”, as repeatedly recited throughout independent Claim 15.
Claim 15 is recommended be amended in a manner similar to sister Claims 1,14 as follows
- “determining the number of required payment devices based on the specified store data, by comparing an allowable range with the number of waiting customers in the store data after a predetermined time from a time point indicated by the specified store data, and in a case where the number of waiting customers in a store data after the predetermined time from the time point is within the allowable range, determining, as the number of required payment devices, the number of operating payment devices in the store data during a period from the time point to the predetermined time”;
Claim 13 is dependent and recites among others: “output information indicating the number of required payment devices to an output device” [bolded emphasis added]
Claim 13 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “an output device” as subsequently recited in said claim, relates back to “an output device” as antecedently recited in now amended parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 13 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others and as example only: output information indicating the number of required payment devices to [[an]] the output device
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 4-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) set forth or describe certain methods of organizing human activities including: fundamental economical practices [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] and/or commercial interactions of sales activities and business relations [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] associated with “store data including a number of unpaid customers who are unpaid in a store, a number of operating payment devices, and a number of waiting customers waiting for payment in a payment devices, at each of a plurality of time points”; “a number of currently operating payment devices and a number of times of payment completion of each payment device in the store”; “a number of currently unpaid customers based on the number of times of payment completion”, “a number of customers entering the store from a time of opening”, “past store data in which a number of unpaid customers and a number of operating payment devices similar to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating payment devices are associated with each other”; “and” “the number of required payment devices based on the specified store data by comparing an allowable range with the number of waiting customers in the store data after a predetermined time from a time point indicated by the specified store data, and in a case where the number of waiting customers in the store data after the predetermined time from the time point is within the allowable range, determining, as the number of required payment devices, the number of operating payment devices in the store data during a period from the time point to the predetermined time”, and finally “information indicating the number of required payment devices” (independent Claims 1,14,15); “wherein the store data further includes at least one of a day of a week and presence or absence of an event at the time point”; “and” “acquire at least one of a current day of a week and presence or absence of a current event; and specify the past store data similar to at least one of the current day of the week and the presence or absence of the current event, in addition to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating devices” (dependent Claim 9); “specify a past store data belonging to a same time zone as a current time point among the store data including the number of unpaid customers and the number of operating payment devices similar to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating payment devices” (dependent Claim 10).
These are followed by fundamental economic principles of demand from “waiting customers” to the supply of “operating payment devices” to “determine” “operating payment devices” as fundamental, mitigative or best business practices set forth as: “determine, when the number of waiting customers after predetermined time from the time point is below the allowable range and the number of operating payment devices of at least one piece of store data included in the store data after the predetermined time from the time point is larger than the number of operating payment devices at the time point, the number of currently operating payment devices as the number of required payment devices” (dependent Claim 5); “determine, when the number of waiting customers after the predetermined time from the time point exceeds the allowable range and the number of operating payment devices of at least one piece of store data included in the store data after the predetermined time from the time point is smaller than the number of operating payment devices at the time point, the number of currently operating payment devices as the number of required payment devices” (dependent Claim 6); “determine, as the number of required payment devices, the number of required payment devices based on the number of operating payment devices and the number of waiting customers in the store data having a high matching rate with the current store data among the plurality of specified store data” (dependent Claim 11); “determine the plurality of the number of required payment devices based on the plurality of specified store data and the number of operating payment devices and the number of waiting customers included in each of the specified store data” (dependent Claim 12),“output information indicating the number of required payment devices”; “and further output at least one of a matching rate of the current store data of each of the specified store data and information indicating an item having a high matching rate” (dependent Claim 13). The aforementioned business relationships in the “the store data” are “further” narrowed to an equally abstract “at least one of a person in charge of operation of each of the payment devices at the time point and payment required time information indicating a payment required time that is a time taken for payment by the person in charge”, “and” “acquire at least one of a person in charge of each currently operating payment device and current payment required time information; and specify the past store data similar to the current payment required time information of the current person in charge of the currently operating payment device, in addition to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating devices” at dependent Claim 8;
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence to state that the above subgroupings of fundamental economical practices, commercial interactions of sales activities and business relations, that fall within the broad abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activities, cover activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It then follows that here, involving multiple “customers” “waiting” to pay, as an exemplary of a commercial interaction above, at “operating payment devices”, as an equivalent to “a computer”, would still fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The same argument could perhaps be made about the use of “human sensor or a camera installed at an entrance of the store via the communication interface” “based on which” “data” to “calculate a number of currently unpaid customers” at independent Claims 1,14,15.
Examiner further points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B. ii. which cites In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481,485,203 USPQ 812,816 CCPA 1979 to state that using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, is an example of commercial interaction of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. It then follows that here, an analogous “determining” or “calculating” the optimal number of “payment devices”, as abstract constituents of a business representation, to respective “waiting customers” as recited throughout Claims 1, 4-6,11,12,14,15 would also fall within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C citing BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons Inc., 899 F3d 1281,1286,127 USPQ2d 1688,1691 to state that considering historical usage information while inputting data is an example of managing relationships or interactions which also falls within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. It then follows that here, considering or “specifying past” [or historic] “store data in which a number of unpaid customers and a number of operating payment devices similar to the number of currently unpaid customers and a number of currently operating payment devices are associated with each other” for “determining the number of required payment devices based on the specified store data” at independent Claims 1,14,15, and specify[ing] “the past” [or historic] “store data similar to the current payment required time information of the current person in charge of each of the currently operating payment device, in addition to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating payment devices” at dependent Claim 8 as well as specify[ing] “the past” [or historic] “store data similar to at least one of the current day of the week and the presence or absence of the current event, in addition to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating payment devices” at dependent Claim 9, and specifying “a past” [or historic] “store data belonging to a same time zone as a current time point among the store data including the number of unpaid customers and the number of operating payment devices similar to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating payment devices” at dependent Claim 10, will similarly fall within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C citing Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which found acquiring content from an information source for a manager, followed by controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, fell within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. It then follows that here, the similar recitations that “acquire at least one of a person in charge of each of currently operating payment devices and current payment required time information; and specify the past store data similar to the current payment required time information of the current person in charge of each of the currently operating payment devices, in addition to the number of currently unpaid customers and the number of currently operating payment devices” (dependent Claim 8) and “output information indicating the number of required payment devices”; “and output at least one of a matching rate of the current store data of each of the specified store data and information indicating an item having a high matching rate” (dependent Claim 13) would also fall within the Certain methods of organizing human activities.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence which states that certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of … shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It then follows that here, the analogous recitations “operating payment devices” and associated “a number of times of payment completion of each payment device in the store from a server of the store via a communication interface” as recited at each of independent Claims 1,14,15 could also be argued to fall within the abstract methods of organizing human activity.
Further, the determination or predicting of said “operating payment devices” as being optimized or “required” for “the number of waiting customers in the store data” as recited at independent Claims 1,14,15 could be argued to fall within the equally abstract computer aided mental processes of evaluation and judgement of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, while the “acquiring a sensor data from a human sensor or a camera installed at an entrance of the store via the communication interface” could be argued as the computer aided mental process of observation
as listed by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2. These findings and ensuing rationales are corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C stating at its points #2 and #3 that performing a mental process in a computer environment and using a computer as tool to perform a mental process still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception, despite the presence of the computer aid.
It then follows that here, recitations of “store data stored in the memory” “including a number of unpaid customers who are unpaid in a store, a number of operating payment devices, and a number of waiting customers waiting for payment at each of a plurality of time points” and recitations of “sensor data” acquire[d] “from a human sensor or a camera installed at an entrance of the store via the communication interface”; used to “calculate” “a number of currently unpaid customers” etc. represent tools or computer environments upon which the abstract “predicting a number of required operating payment devices”, “calculating a number of customers entering the store from a time of opening from the sensor data, and subtracting the number of times of payment completion from the number of customers entering the store” at independent Claims 1,14,15, “calculate, when the number of waiting customers included in the store data after the predetermined time from the time point is outside the allowable range, the number of required payment devices based on the number of waiting customers included in the store data after the predetermined time from the time point” at dependent Claim 4, would not preclude the claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception.
Therefore here, there is a preponderance of legal evidence showing the character as a whole, of the claims is undeniably abstract, as tested at Step 2A prong one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, to merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow the abstract character of the claims to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Here, the additional elements are: the “memory” (Claim 1), “one or more processors” (Claims 1-13), and similarly the “computer” at the preamble of sister independent Claim 14, and possibly the “output device” (Claims 1,13,14,15) and “server of the store via a communication interface” (independent Claims 1,14,15), “human sensor or a camera” (independent Claims 1,14,15) were tested above as computer aids at the prior step. Examiner now submits that even if now more granularly tested as additional computer-based elements, at Step 2A prong two of the analysis, they would not integrate the aforementioned abstract exception into a practical application. For example, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) said “one or more processors” or “computer”, then the “server”, “human sensor or camera”, “interface” and “output device” would merely apply said abstract idea, such as merely applying business method, as identified above, and it underlining mathematical algorithm on a computer1. Also, the Examiner would submit, in the arguendo, that any alleged computer to monitor audit log data2 (here “human sensor or a camera” of “sensor data” of the “store” at independent Claims 1,14,15) and tailor information (here outputted at dependent Claim 13) to be provided to the user on an alleged generic computer3 (here “output device” at dependent Claims 1,13,14,15) would represent mere examples of applying the abstract idea, which, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i),(iii),(v), do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as tested. Similarly, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)(i), remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information4 represent mere instructions to apply an exception. It then follows that here, recitation of “a server of the store” from which to “acquire a number of currently operating payment devices and a number of times of payment completion of each payment device in the store” “via a communication interface” would represent, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)(i) an example of remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information, thus representing mere instructions to apply an exception which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Alternatively, such computerized functions could also be argued as examples of narrowing the abstract idea to a technological environment. For example MPEP 2106.05(h) x cites buySAFE Inc v Google, Inc 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to state that requiring a contractual relationship (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, is an example indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea. Here, similar to buySAFE supra, the Examiner finds that the “operating payment devices” would merely narrow the aforementioned commercial transactions, and thus, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(h), would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, MPEP 2106.05(h)5 states that narrowing the combination of collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus here, narrowing to an “output device” at dependent Claim 13, the collection and analysis or “matching rate of the current store data of each of the specified store data and information indicating an item having a high matching rate” would represent a similar attempt at narrowing the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In conclusion, Examiner provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing that even when considered as additional computer-based elements, the level of computerization or automation recited in the claims, does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and/or link it to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings of MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) above, to further submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more as sufficient legal evidence without relying on MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo, further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional elements, per MPEP 2106.05(d), Examiner would point as evidence to the high level of generality of the additional computer-based elements, as identified above and read in light of Original Disclosure, tested according to MPEP 2106.05(d).I.2: …”in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional”.
- Original Specification for example recites at p.23 lines 12-13, at a high level of generality: “Some or all of the components of each device or system are achieved by general- purpose or dedicated circuitry including a processor or the like, or a combination thereof”. In addition,
- Original Specification p.10 lines 1-2 recites at high level: “The output control unit 106 causes the output device to output the determined number of required devices. The output device may be, for example, a display device such as a display, a voice output device, or a terminal device”.
- Original Specification p.23 lines 14-25 recites at high level of generality: “The circuitry is, for example, a CPU, a graphics processing unit (GPU), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or a large scale integration (LSI). These may be configured by a single chip or may be configured by a plurality of chips connected via a bus. Some or all of the components of each device may be achieved by a combination of the above-described circuitry or the like and a program. In a case where some or all of components of each device or system are achieved by a plurality of information processing apparatuses, circuits, and the like, the plurality of information processing apparatuses, circuits, and the like may be arranged in a centralized manner or in a distributed manner. For example, the information processing apparatus, the circuit, and the like may be achieved as a form in which each is connected via a communication network, such as a client and server system or a cloud computing system”.
If still necessary, the Examiner would also point to MPEP 2106.05(d) II showing the conventionality of recording customer order6, electronic recordkeeping7 and storing and retrieving information in memory8. This is relevant to the “memory” (Claim 1) / “computer” (Claim 14) “storing store data including a number of unpaid customers who are unpaid in a store, the number of operating payment devices, and the number of waiting customers waiting for payment in a payment devices, at each of a plurality of time points” (Claims 1,14).
In conclusion, Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15 although directed to statutory categories (“apparatus” or machine at Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, “method” or process at Claim 14, and “non-transitory computer readable medium” or article of manufacture at Claim 15) still recite or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one), with any alleged additional, computer-based elements, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or providing significantly more than what has been already identified as the abstract exception itself (Step 2B).
Therefore, the Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15 are believed to still be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Peleshko et al, Design and implementation of visitors queue density analysis and registration method for retail video surveillance purposes,In 2016
WO 9535545 A1 teaching Computer Implemented Method For Forecasting Lane Traffic In Shopping Store Integrating Real-time Shopper Traffic Data With Computerised Statistical Analysis To Generate Short Term Forecasts Of Shopper Traffic At Checkout Lanes Of Store
US 5390107 A teaching Checkout Lane Alert System And Method with emphasis on Figs 2-9 and associated text
US 20210097461 A1 teaching Multiple point of sale (pos) overall wait time optimization
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
November 7th, 2025
1 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
2 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
3 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
4 Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
5 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
6 Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
7 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
8 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;