DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. This communication is in response to the “Amendment and Request for Reconsideration” filed on 10.30.2025. Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 19, 20 have been amended, and claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for further examination, as set forth below.
3. Applicant' s response by virtue of amendment to claims 1-20 did not overcome the Examiner's rejection under 35 USC §101. The amended claims are still directed to an abstract idea, and thus, are still be subject to 35 USC §101 rejection. The 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 is therefore sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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, 3, 6, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 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), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: claims 1, 3, 6, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 are directed to an item registration apparatus for registering an item for purchase in a store. The apparatus comprises a camara, display, lamp, and processor. As such, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one the statutory categories of invention (35 USC § 101).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of an item registration apparatus for registering an item for purchase in a store. The claim falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts.
Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the following limitations:
capture a first image using first settings;
perform an object recognition process on the first image;
determine whether a package of an item is in the first image;
register the item for purchase;
control the lamp to turn on and control the camera to capture a second image using second settings;
perform a code recognition process on the second image, and determine whether a code of an item is in the second image;
register the item for purchase using the code, and control the display to display an error message.
The core of the claim is directed to an abstract idea, namely registering an item for purchase. The steps capturing images, performing object recognition, and registering the item are all functional steps that can be performed mentally or with pencil and paper, which falls under the category of abstract ideas:
Certain methods or organizing human activity (commercial integration such as, registering an item for purchase)
Mental processes (determine whether a package or a code is in an image)
Mathematical concepts (inherent in performing object and code recognition)
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and including an item registration apparatus for registering an item for purchase in a store fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or legal interactions, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical relationships/formula, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The use of a camara, display, and lamp are merely incidental to the abstract idea and do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes the concept of an item registration apparatus for registering an item for purchase in a store using generally recited computer elements such as a camera, a display, a lamp, and a processor. These additional elements of a camera, a display, a lamp, and a processor, in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for an item registration apparatus. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Business Practices or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. The processor and memory are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g., data collection, analysis, display, data gathering, data processing, data recognition and classification, capturing images, adjusting imaging parameters, performing recognition algorithms, and outputting results).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of an item registration apparatus, which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., item registration apparatus for registering an item for purchase in a store) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 3, 6, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 define the same abstract idea noted above for independent claim 1, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 3, 6, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Therefore, the limitations of the inventions, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 10.30.2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a) Applicant argues that “the claimed subject matter as amended is not directed to a judicial exception. Even if it were, the claims integrate any purported exception into a specific, practical application that provides a tangible technological improvement, rendering the claims eligible under the Alice framework and the USPTO's own guidance, including the "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" memorandum dated August 4, 2025 (hereafter "the Memo").” claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment adds some specific limitation to the claims, such as a display, which is tangible component. However, the claims still recite a series of steps that are directed to an abstract idea, namely, registering an item for purchase. The steps of capturing images, performing object recognition, and registering the item are all functional steps that can be performed mentally or with pencil and paper.
b) Applicant also argues that “the claims are directed to the practical application of these processes within a specific hardware architecture to achieve a technical goal, not the underlying mathematical algorithms themselves.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely registering an item for purchase, which is a fundamental business practice. While the claims recite a specific hardware architecture, including a camera, display, lamp, and processor, these elements are merely incidental to the abstract idea and do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The claims do not recite any specific improvements to the technical field of item registration, but rather use generic computer components to automate a business process.
c) Additionally, Applicant argues that “the Examiner's rejection fails to appreciate the specific technological improvement the claimed subject matter provides. The Specification identifies a technical problem with existing cart POS systems. These systems, which use two different, separate data- capture technologies (an object recognition camera and a separate barcode scanner), suffer from a technical deficiency. This bifurcated system architecture inherently fails to provide a unified data-capture interface, resulting in an inability to provide clear, necessary information, such as the precise active scanning area for the second data- capture device (the barcode scanner), which operates independently from the first (the camera). The Specification notes this technical failure, stating "it is difficult ... to know a reading position at which the barcode of an item can be read."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification identifies a technical problem with existing cart POS systems, the claims do not recite specific technical features that solve this problem. The claims recite a camera, display, lamp, and processor, but do not specify how these elements work together to provide a unified data0-capture interface or address the technical deficiency identified in the specification. The claims, further recite adjusting exposure time, adjusting focal length, and turning on a light are routine, well-understood camera operations and do not amount to a technological improvement under Alice, Electric Power, or Content Extraction.
d) Furthermore: for the reasons set forth above:
the alleged technological improvements not reflected in the claims,
the claims recite only generic hardware performing routine functions,
the steps constitute abstract data recognition and commercial activity,
no improvement to the functioning of a computer or camera is demonstrated, and
nothing in the claims constitutes “significantly more” under Alice step 2.
Accordingly, applicants’ arguments are not persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is properly maintained.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• US 2016/0086148, Katsumura: discloses a merchandise item registration apparatus includes: a left photoelectric sensor that senses an object in a first area located on one side of a recognition area for merchandise items in a merchandise item identification device; a right photoelectric sensor that senses the object in a second area located on the other side of the recognition area; and a camera that captures an image of the recognition area. A merchandise item is identified by sensing the object from the image of the recognition area captured by the camera, and a POS terminal is made to perform a merchandise item registration process or a provisional registration cancellation process in accordance with the temporal sequence of results of the sensing performed by the camera in the respective areas.
• US 2022/0261877, NAITO et al.: discloses a merchandise registration device includes a lamp, a reading device reading a symbol on an item and providing identification information for the item, a weight sensor in a table on which a scanned item can be placed, and a processor. The processor performing a registration operation including acquiring identification information for the item and comparing an expected weight of the item to a measured weight from the weight sensor. The processor controlling the lamp to indicate progress states in the registration operation and whether the reading device is ready for reading a symbol for a next item in a sales transaction.
• US 2015/0193759, Fukuda: discloses an object recognition device includes an operation unit configured to receive a user input about an item, a storage unit that stores image data of the item, an imaging unit configured to acquire an image of the item and generate image data therefrom, and a control unit configured to compare the generated image data with the stored image data, and cause information about updating the stored image data to be presented to a user, based on a comparison result.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
9. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights