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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the streamlined analysis should be applied to the claims. The Examiner disagrees that the claims would be eligible for the streamlined analysis and any full analysis would yield the same result as a streamlined analysis. Applicant argues on pages 14-17 that the claims describe a technical problem with a technical solution. The Examiner points out that the business problem of requiring confirmations for certain items is not a technical problem (ie current technology is unable to withstand or handle confirmations). The Examiner does find the current technology to be an apply it situation where the abstract idea is merely being implemented on the computer similar to TLI that invoked the use of computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, the existing process in the current case of checking identification for age restricted items. Applicant presents arguments regarding Content Extraction, which was only cited for the purposes of the dependent claim and that computer assisted methods are not made patent eligible under 101 simply because they speed up human activity, see Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Applicant argues the two distinct devices integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but the Examiner disagrees as previously stated that generically recited computers used as a tool to implement the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Applicant argues the claimed technical solution without requiring the store clerk to physically be present at each checkout device, but the claims do require the store clerk to confirm age confirmation and a removal confirmation representing that the store clerk has collected the at least one product which does require the store clerk to be present at the checkout process. Applicant argues the Examiner should suggest any eligible subject matter as suggested as a best practice by the MPEP, not an Examination requirement. No eligible subject matter was readily apparent to the Examiner upon a review of the specification.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claim amendments are not disclose by Saitoh. The Examiner has address the claim amendments below with the cited reference of Saitoh at [0408] “The self-checkout machine 40 does not accept an operation relating to checkout by the customer while the checkout screen on which the held product list area AR31 is formed is displayed because a held product is included in the registration result. For example, in the area above the registered product list area AR3 on the checkout screen, a message is displayed to notify the customer that the employee who was called will come to the self-checkout machine 40.”
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 1-5, 8-11, 14-16,18-24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “information processing system”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “performing transaction settlement based on rules” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (monitoring a transaction for fraud or missing information is similar to mitigating risk) and commercial interactions (sales activities or behaviors and business relations include completing a transaction settlement, additionally, checking the age for an age restricted product is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites determine both whether registration of the products as registered products to be purchased by the customer is completed and that a settlement for the registered products has not yet been performed; in response to determining that the registration is completed and the settlement has not yet been performed notify the attendant terminal device that a confirmation, to be at least partly performed by the store clerk, is needed after the registration is completed and before the settlement for the registered products; display information indicating that the system is waiting for the confirmation by the store clerk; disable customer input operations and wait for an input corresponding to the confirmation from the attendant before performing the settlement for the registered products, receive an input corresponding to the confirmation; and perform the settlement for the registered products after the input corresponding to the confirmation is received . Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as an information processing device, an attendant terminal device, at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of performing transaction settlement based on rules.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of performing transaction settlement based on rules using computer technology (e.g. an information processing device). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 14-16, 18-19, 23-24, and 27-28 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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) 1-11, 13-19, 21-24 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saitoh US 2023/0043615.
As per claim 1: Saitoh discloses an information processing system comprising: an information processing device installed in a store and configured to be operated by a customer to check out products to be purchased by the customer (Fig 1 ‘40’& ‘60’); and
an attendant terminal device in the store and configured to be operated by a store clerk (Fig 1 ‘50’ monitoring device, [0339]-[0340], Fig 24B ‘417’), wherein the information processing device includes:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Fig 4B, ¶¶ [0093]-[0095]):
determine, by receiving a settlement instruction from the customer via the
information processing device, both whether registration of the products as registered products to be purchased by the customer is completed and that a settlement for the registered products has not yet been performed (¶¶ [0399]-[0408]);
in response to determining that the registration is completed and the settlement has not yet been performed, notify, by an operation of the customer via the information processing device, the attendant terminal device that a confirmation, to be at least partly performed by the store clerk, is needed after the registration is completed and before the settlement for the registered products, the confirmation being at least one of an age confirmation, representing that at least one product of the registered products requires the store clerk to confirm an age of the customer (Fig 28 ‘BT31’ ¶¶ [0417], [0413]), and a removal confirmation representing that the store clerk has collected the at least one product and that, through an operation of the customer via the information processing device, the at least one product has been removed, as a registered product, from the registered products (¶¶ [0166] “A “canceled product” is, for example, collected by the employee from the customer during checkout.”, [0597] “A held product classified as classification number “4” is a canceled product (that is, a product that will not be purchased), and needs to be confirmed or the like by an employee during checkout since the product will not be taken out of the shop.”, ¶¶ [0277], [0291], [0453] & [0407]);
display, on a first display device of the information processing device,
information indicating that the system is waiting for the confirmation by the store clerk (Fig 27 ‘an employee will be with you soon. Please wait’, ¶¶ [0391], [0530]);
disable customer input operations on the information processing device and wait
for an input corresponding to the confirmation from the attendant terminal device before
performing the settlement for the registered products (¶[0408] ““The self-checkout machine 40 does not accept an operation relating to checkout by the customer while the checkout screen on which the held product list area AR31 is formed is displayed because a held product is included in the registration result. For example, in the area above the registered product list area AR3 on the checkout screen, a message is displayed to notify the customer that the employee who was called will come to the self-checkout machine 40.”)
receive, through an operation of the store clerk on the attendant terminal
device, an input corresponding to the confirmation (¶¶ [0408]-[0412]); and
perform the settlement for the registered products after the input
corresponding to the confirmation is received from the attendant terminal device (¶¶ [0205]-[0206], [0519], see also [0409] “employee side” Fig 24B).
As per claim 2: Saitoh further discloses The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to require that the confirmation be completed before performing the settlement (Figs 9 & 29, ¶ [0195], Fig 12, 14, 15; [0271]-[0277]).
As per claim 3:
Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation includes a plurality of different confirmations (Figs 9 & 29, ¶ [0195], Fig 12, 14, 15; [0271]-[0277]).
As per claim 4: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive respective inputs corresponding to the plurality of different confirmations (Figs 9 & 29, ¶ [0195], Fig 12, 14, 15; [0271]-[0277], fig 32 ¶¶ [0503]-[0519]); and
perform the settlement for the registered products after all of the respective inputs corresponding to the plurality of confirmations are received (Fig 32, ‘S912-S913’, ¶¶ [0503]-[0519]).
As per claim 5: Saitoh further disclose the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of confirmations include a customer confirmation, to be performed by the customer, and a store clerk confirmation to be performed by a store clerk (¶ [0195], [0163]-[0166]; Fig 32 ¶¶ [0503]-[0519], abstract, Fig 12), and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive the store clerk confirmation (Fig 32, [0503]-[0519], [0162, [0166);
receive the customer confirmation after an input corresponding to the store clerk
confirmation is received (Fig 32, [0503]-[0519], [0162, [0166); and
perform the settlement for the registered products after an input corresponding to
the customer confirmation is received (¶¶ [0205]-[0206], also [0408]).
As per claim 8: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation is partly performed by the customer (Fig 11A, ¶ [0195]).
As per claim 9:
Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein a part of the confirmation, partly performed by the customer, represents whether the registered products are to be eaten or drunk in the store (Fig 11A, ¶ [0195]).
As per claim 10: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 9,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
specify, among the registered products, a candidate product that is allowed to be
eaten or drunk in the store (Fig 11A, ¶ [0194]-[0195]); and,
receive an input corresponding to the part of the confirmation, partly performed
by the customer, representing whether the registered products are to be eaten or drunk in the store (Fig 11A, ¶ [0195]).
As per claim 11: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein a part of the confirmation, partly performed by the customer, is a confirmation as represents whether to use a bag that needs to be paid for (¶ [0086] Fig 2).
As per claim 14: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation comprises the removal confirmation (¶¶ [0166] “A “canceled product” is, for example, collected by the employee from the customer during checkout.”, [0597] “A held product classified as classification number “4” is a canceled product (that is, a product that will not be purchased), and needs to be confirmed or the like by an employee during checkout since the product will not be taken out of the shop.”, [0277], [0291], [0453] & [0407]).
As per claim 15: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify the store clerk, via the attendant terminal device (Fig 1 ‘50’ monitoring device, [0339]-[0340]), to collect the at least one product as part of the removal confirmation, after the registration of information is completed and before the settlement for the registered products (¶¶ [0166] “A “canceled product” is, for example, collected by the employee from the customer during checkout.”, [0597] “A held product classified as classification number “4” is a canceled product (that is, a product that will not be purchased), and needs to be confirmed or the like by an employee during checkout since the product will not be taken out of the shop.”, [0277], [0291], [0453] & [0407]).
As per claim 16: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify the attendant terminal device that there is the at least one product which, through the operation of the customer via the information processing device, has been removed, as the registered product, from the registered products (¶¶ [0166] “A “canceled product” is, for example, collected by the employee from the customer during checkout.”, [0597] “A held product classified as classification number “4” is a canceled product (that is, a product that will not be purchased), and needs to be confirmed or the like by an employee during checkout since the product will not be taken out of the shop.”, [0277], [0291], [0453] & [0407]).
As per claim 18: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation includes the age confirmation (¶¶ [0277], [0512]-[0513]; [0163]) and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify the attendant terminal device that the at least one of the product requiring the store clerk to confirm the age of the customer, has been registered as one of the
registered products (¶¶ [0277], [0512]-[0513]; [0163]).
As per claim 19: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: when the product requiring an age confirmation has been registered, notify the store clerk, via the attendant terminal device, to perform the age confirmation after the registration is completed and before the settlement for the products (¶¶ [0270]-[0277], [0340]).
As per Claims 21 and 22: Claims 21 and 22 are disclosed under the rationale of claim 1.
As per claim 23:
Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the attendant terminal device comprises a second display device (Fig 24B ‘417’), and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
control, in response to the attendant terminal device being notified that the
confirmation is needed, (¶ [0366], [0368]) the second display device to:
display at least one of a name and a quantity of each of the registered
products that requires the age confirmation (Fig 28); and
display a message prompting the store clerk to input information
corresponding to the age confirmation (Fig 28).
As per claim 24:
Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of features a, features b, and features c, wherein features a comprise displaying, on the first display device of the information processing device, the information indicating that the system is waiting for the confirmation by the store clerk comprises displaying text that an age confirmation product is included with the registered products and that the store clerk is coming (Fig 27 ‘an employee will be with you soon. Please wait’, [0391], [0530]).
wherein features b comprise notifying, by the operation of the customer via the
information processing device, the attendant terminal device that the confirmation is needed after the registration is completed and before the settlement for the registered products includes the confirmation comprising at least the age confirmation, and identifying to the attendant terminal device an identification of the information processing device and an identification of the at least one product of the registered products requires the store clerk to confirm an age of the customer (¶¶ [0407]-[0413], see also Figs 27&28), and
features c comprise notifying, by the operation of the customer via the information processing device. the attendant terminal device that the confirmation is needed after the registration is completed and before the settlement for the registered products includes at least one of turning on a lamp and sounding a buzzer (¶¶ [0092], [0266], [0407]).As per claim 27: Saitoh further discloses he information processing system according to claim 1, wherein disabling the customer input operations comprises preventing the settlement for the registered products from proceeding while the information indicating that the system is waiting for the confirmation by the store clerk is displayed on the first display device, until the input corresponding to the confirmation is received from the attendant terminal device (¶[0408] ““The self-checkout machine does not accept an operation relating to checkout by the customer while the checkout screen on which the held product list area is formed is displayed because a held product is included in the registration result. For example, in the area above the registered product list area on the checkout screen, a message is displayed to notify the customer that the employee who was called will come to the self-checkout machine”).
As per claim 28: Saitoh further discloses the information processing system according to claim 27, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: prevent the customer from performing the input operations on the information processing device while the information indicating that the system is waiting for the confirmation by the store clerk is displayed, until the input corresponding to the confirmation is received through the operation of the store clerk on the attendant terminal device (¶[0408] ““The self-checkout machine does not accept an operation relating to checkout by the customer while the checkout screen on which the held product list area is formed is displayed because a held product is included in the registration result. For example, in the area above the registered product list area on the checkout screen, a message is displayed to notify the customer that the employee who was called will come to the self-checkout machine”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haibara US 2011/0210168 discloses a self-checkout device as well as disabling the display while age verification is occurring in [0051]-[0053].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights