DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation "the container" in the second and first limitations, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, inherit the same deficiency, and are rejected on the same basis.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-10 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A monitoring support system, comprising: a registration terminal that accepts specification of a product by a customer's operation and registers the specified product as a transaction product; a camera that images an inside of the container that houses the product that is registered by the registration terminal; a management terminal that displays the image taken by the camera; and a processor configured to determine whether or not the specified product accepted by the registration terminal is a predetermined product that needs to be checked; acquire, where the specified product is the predetermined product that needs to be checked, the image taken by the camera at predetermined timing relative to timing at which the product that needs to be checked was registered as the transaction product by the registration terminal, and display the acquired image on the management terminal.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to determine a product that needs to be checked (Specification ¶0023). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a registration terminal, a camera, a management terminal, and a processor.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-9 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Dependent claims 5-7 recite the additional element for a touch panel. Similarly, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that it amounts to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware and does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, claims 3-4, and 8-9 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 3-4 and 9-9 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claim 10 is parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-9, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kundu et al., US PG Pub 2012/0188377 A1 (hereafter “Kundu”).
Regarding claim 1, Kundu discloses a monitoring support system, comprising:
a registration terminal that accepts specification of a product by a customer's operation and registers the specified product as a transaction product (¶¶0041-0045, 0050, 0080, and 0122);
a camera that images an inside of the container that houses the product that is registered by the registration terminal (¶¶0041 and 0050-0051);
a management terminal that displays the image taken by the camera (¶¶0091-0093); and
a processor configured to determine whether or not the specified product accepted by the registration terminal is a predetermined product that needs to be checked (¶¶0043, 0074-0075, 0086, and 0122);
acquire, where the specified product is the predetermined product that needs to be checked, the image taken by the camera at predetermined timing relative to timing at which the product that needs to be checked was registered as the transaction product by the registration terminal (¶¶0049-0060 and 0079-0087), and
display the acquired image on the management terminal (¶¶0091-0093).
Regarding claim 2, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 1, wherein the management terminal includes a touch panel that displays an instant checking window, the instant checking window being a window for displaying the acquired image and a character string for specifying whether or not the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container, and the processor is further configured to receive, from the management terminal, a result of specification of whether or not the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container (¶¶Figures 2-4, 0019-0023, 0053-0057, and 0091).
Regarding claim 3, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to detect addition of a product to the container (¶¶0081-0087).
Regarding claim 4, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire an image taken by the camera at timing at which the addition of a product to the container was first detected after timing at which the product that needs to be checked was registered as the transaction product (¶¶0045-0064).
Regarding claim 5, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 1, wherein the registration terminal includes a touch panel that displays a rechecking window in accordance with an instruction from the processor, the rechecking window displaying a text message for informing a sales clerk of a store of checking of whether or not the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container and a button for specifying that the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container (Figures 2-4 and 7, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0057, and 0091).
Regarding claim 6, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 5, wherein the management terminal includes a touch panel that displays an instant checking window, the instant checking window being a window for displaying the acquired image and a character string for specifying whether or not the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container, and the processor is further configured to receive, from the management terminal, a result of specification of whether or not the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container, and display, where a result of specification that the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container is not received from the management terminal, the rechecking window on the registration terminal (Figures 2-4, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0067, and 0091).
Regarding claim 7, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 5, wherein the registration terminal includes a touch panel that displays a registration screen for registering the specified product as the transaction product, the registration screen displaying a button for specifying payment of the registered transaction product, and the processor is further configured to display, where the registration terminal accepts specification of payment of the transaction product, the rechecking window on the registration terminal (Figures 2-4 and 7, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0045-0057, 0079, and 0091).
Regarding claim 8, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to refrain from the payment until the registration terminal accepts specification that the product that needs to be checked is appropriately added to the container (¶¶0061-0074, claim 12).
Regarding claim 9, Kundu discloses the monitoring support system according to claim 7, wherein the touch panel of the registration terminal displays a checking informing window, the checking informing window being a window for informing a customer of that checking by a sales clerk is necessary, and the processor is further configured to display, where the registration terminal accepts specification of payment of the transaction product, the checking informing window on the registration terminal, and display the rechecking window on the registration terminal after displaying the checking informing window on the registration terminal (Figures 2-4, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0057, 0079, and 0091).
Regarding claim 10, all of the limitations in claim 10 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 1-9, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buehler et al., US PG Pub 2012/0206605 A1, teaches an intelligent camera selection and object tracking system.
Mirza et al., US PG Pub 2021/0125258 A1, teaches detecting and identifying misplaced items using a sensor array.
Non-patent literature Viswanadha, V., and Chiranjeevi Reddy teaches a smart shopping cart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688